"Punishing abuse in Iraq should not return the U.S. to Sept. 10, 2001, in the way it fights al Qaeda, while Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants remain at large and continue to plan attacks"
About this Quote
A lawyerly sleight of hand is doing the heavy lifting here: accountability for “abuse in Iraq” is framed not as a moral imperative but as a strategic hazard, a rewind button that threatens to drag the U.S. back to the helpless innocence of “Sept. 10, 2001.” The date isn’t chosen for precision; it’s chosen for emotional leverage. It turns policy debate into a fear reflex: punish wrongdoing and you risk becoming pre-9/11 again, soft, procedural, unprepared.
John Yoo’s intent, in context, is defensive and prophylactic. Writing from the post-Abu Ghraib moment, with the “war on terror” legal architecture under scrutiny, he tries to keep the counterterrorism state insulated from legal backlash. The sentence performs a neat rhetorical merge: “abuse” is conceded but treated as an unfortunate sidebar, while the real story is the continuing threat (“bin Laden... remain at large”). That juxtaposition quietly instructs the reader on what deserves attention and what should be compartmentalized.
The subtext is a familiar Washington bargain: law is a luxury, security is the baseline, and there’s a presumed tradeoff between restraint and effectiveness. By implying that punishment will reshape “the way it fights,” Yoo nudges accountability into the realm of operational interference rather than justice. It’s not just an argument about tactics; it’s an argument about priorities, asking the public to tolerate institutional damage to preserve momentum in an unfinished war.
John Yoo’s intent, in context, is defensive and prophylactic. Writing from the post-Abu Ghraib moment, with the “war on terror” legal architecture under scrutiny, he tries to keep the counterterrorism state insulated from legal backlash. The sentence performs a neat rhetorical merge: “abuse” is conceded but treated as an unfortunate sidebar, while the real story is the continuing threat (“bin Laden... remain at large”). That juxtaposition quietly instructs the reader on what deserves attention and what should be compartmentalized.
The subtext is a familiar Washington bargain: law is a luxury, security is the baseline, and there’s a presumed tradeoff between restraint and effectiveness. By implying that punishment will reshape “the way it fights,” Yoo nudges accountability into the realm of operational interference rather than justice. It’s not just an argument about tactics; it’s an argument about priorities, asking the public to tolerate institutional damage to preserve momentum in an unfinished war.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|
More Quotes by John
Add to List
