"Under the Geneva Convention, for example, a POW is required only to provide name, rank, and serial number and cannot receive any benefits for cooperating"
About this Quote
Legalism becomes a moral solvent in John Yoo's line: by invoking the Geneva Convention's tidy triad of "name, rank, and serial number", he reduces captivity to a paperwork ritual and recasts human pain as a compliance problem. The sentence is engineered to sound neutral, even boring. That is the point. Bureaucratic precision can anesthetize the listener, making the ethical stakes feel like footnotes in an international treaty rather than decisions about coercion.
The specific intent is defensive and anticipatory. Yoo isn't just describing POW rules; he's building a frame in which any information beyond the minimum must be pried loose through leverage, because "cannot receive any benefits for cooperating" implies that incentives are off the table. If rewards are forbidden, the argument quietly nudges policymakers toward pressure. The subtext is a lawyerly shrug that doubles as a policy invitation: if the law limits carrots, then the only remaining tools are sticks, or at least "non-benefits" calibrated to feel like lawful deprivation.
Context matters because Yoo is inseparable from the post-9/11 legal architecture that sought to redefine who counted as protected under Geneva and what counted as impermissible treatment. Citing the Convention here performs credibility while sidestepping its animating purpose: to keep captors from turning detainees into instruments. The line works rhetorically by sounding like restraint while smuggling in a harsher logic - cooperation as something to be extracted, not earned - and by presenting a contested ethical choice as if it were simply the rulebook doing the talking.
The specific intent is defensive and anticipatory. Yoo isn't just describing POW rules; he's building a frame in which any information beyond the minimum must be pried loose through leverage, because "cannot receive any benefits for cooperating" implies that incentives are off the table. If rewards are forbidden, the argument quietly nudges policymakers toward pressure. The subtext is a lawyerly shrug that doubles as a policy invitation: if the law limits carrots, then the only remaining tools are sticks, or at least "non-benefits" calibrated to feel like lawful deprivation.
Context matters because Yoo is inseparable from the post-9/11 legal architecture that sought to redefine who counted as protected under Geneva and what counted as impermissible treatment. Citing the Convention here performs credibility while sidestepping its animating purpose: to keep captors from turning detainees into instruments. The line works rhetorically by sounding like restraint while smuggling in a harsher logic - cooperation as something to be extracted, not earned - and by presenting a contested ethical choice as if it were simply the rulebook doing the talking.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|
More Quotes by John
Add to List
