How can such a seemingly nice guy be so unaffected by having been the legal enabler of what normal Americans would call torture?

He has no soul.

Typical lawyer abstraction crap. Never mind the fact that MOST of the people we've collared in Bush's GWOT are INNOCENT (e.g., our own post-hoc military estimates now are that ~90% of the people we rounded up and put in Abu Graibh were just hapless schmucks in the wrong places at the wrong times). It'd one thing to split moral hair niceties over the probity of torturing, for example, a high bin Laden or Zarkawi deputy to obtain life-saving information, but torturing/abusing/degrading "suspects" at will cannot but be hugely counterproductive, both near- and long-term.

Clean-finergnails Yoo wouldn't get through the night at Abu or Gitmo.

the man now has standing among the stepford zombies, he's finally gotten noticed, sure he had to sell his sould, but who wouldn't?

How come there are no student protests at so vile a person becoming a teacher at Berkeley?

The author askes,

That is the enigma of John Yoo: How can such a seemingly nice guy be so unaffected by having been the legal enabler of what normal Americans would call torture?

Historically, this is exactly the sort of person who can contemplate the unthinkable: He's no wild-eyed fanatic. He's just smug and arrogant and close-minded. Having decided his ultimate goal was good, he closed his eyes to anything that might detract from its holy goodness. It's precisely the same mental short-circuit that allows people calling themselves the vicars of the Prince of Peace to launch crusades and inquisitions.

Those of us in the reality-based community often don't realize this: These guys don't need evidence and they don't respect it when they have it. They already know all the answers; why bother checking the math? As a firend of mine once opined, "It's stupid to check your work. At best, you'll confirm your result, in which case it was redundant and you've wasted your time. And in the worst case, you'll discover a flaw and have think all over again, this time without a safety blanket." He was being facetious. These guys feel the same way, but they're serious.

God save the United States, 'cause Yoo and crew are doing all they can to destroy it.

The fixed little smile, the amused condescension, .... I've never seen a photo of Yoo that looks other than smug, priggish, and pompous, but a good photographer can alwys take an unflattering photo. However, I've also seen and heard him under a neutral video cam (News Hour with Jim Lehrer) and he still came across as someone who is nurtured by the hostility he provokes and whose inborn odiousness has been cultivated from childhood.

As of Feb 23, 2006 8:39 AM EST, It reads "2006 Oscars Coverage at Salon.com." Perhaps it would make sense to change that to something a bit more on topic?

It certainly would not be the first time in history that mild-manners concealed an evil, sadistic heart.

I've read that Josef Stalin's last Security/Gulag Chief (from 1938 to 1953), Lavrenti Beria, could be well-mannered when it served his purposes. And, he personally called-off a planned Jewish pogrom (the so-called "Doctor's Plot") just after Stalin's death - thereby saving lives. But, he is also known to have supervised the torture and murder of not only thousands, but MILLIONS of innocent people!

>> How come there are no student protests at so vile a person becoming a teacher at Berkeley?

Philip: In an institution the size of Berkeley, there are bound to be vile people of all political stripes (or lack thereof).

Two of my best professors at Berkeley were conservatives, and while I didn't agree with some of their positions I nevertheless found them to be first-rate, stimulating teachers. Of course, these two gentlemen had actual intellectual and moral underpinnings to their conservatism; this sort of rigor and honesty is thoroughly lacking among the Busheviks.

It will be interesting to see if Yoo's new job mellows him, or has the opposite effect, for as Kissinger once noted when comparing Harvard to Washington, "the reason academic politics are so nasty is because the stakes are so low".

But sometimes it takes a monster to kill a monster. Just ask Mothra. Conversely, you could read a very intersting book about dealing with the criminally insane, called Killing Pablo. Right now, our enemy is Pablo.

Poco

... to get the details on what Yoo's form of "non-torture" includes.

Yoo and his bosses have ignored all evidence, all facts, and all moral debate to pursue a position of violent bullying. Is it to satisfy some sick revenge fantasy? To waggle the Biggest Dick in the pissing contest? Or are they sadists who need to be interrogated by someone like Robert Goren so they can be locked up forever?

The scariest question is whether the majority of Americans would support this torture if they knew all its details.

The scariest answer is that this administration would continue to torture, no matter what anyone else, including the voters, says.

John Yoo represents the "banality of evil." He reminds me, on a lesser plane, of Eichman--an example of the beaurocrat totally disassociated with the results of his work. I realize people frown on the Nazi comparisons, but it begins with someone like Yoo who are simply doing their job, and taking no responsibility for the outcome.

By Yoo's definition of torture (no major organ failure, no death), having one's fingernails ripped out would not be considered torture.

I would like to see the results of a poll asking, "Would you consider having your fingernails ripped out during an interrogation to be torture?"

In March or April of last year I had the eerie experience of attending a lecture by John Yoo at my law school, and I got to see first hand how well Mr. Yoo masks his explosive defense of torture tactics. An elderly audience member -- not a part of the law school community -- posed a question to Mr. Yoo at the end of his remarks. His voice and hands trembling with deep outrage, the elderly gentleman asked Mr. Yoo if he, as a human being and not as a lawyer, could honestly say that he finds no problem with torture. The question came with such emotion and conviction as could only come with some sort of personal connection or experience. In the instant before Mr. Yoo answered, I have to admit that I even felt the slightest bit bad for him -- how can anyone respond to such wisdom of personal pain and experience? But Mr. Yoo didn't miss a beat. Smooth and unruffled, Mr. Yoo calmly assured the gentleman -- indeed, looking directly at him -- that this wasn't a question of "approving" torture, but merely a question of interpreting the law. It was simply amazing to watch how an individual can separate himself from his own humanity. I felt sick. As for the elderly questioner, I can only imagine how he felt after being summarily tossed aside. He made his way out of the auditorium with his head down as Mr. Yoo fielded the next question.