Let's refresh, shall we? The book on John Yoo: this is the man who thinks that the morality/immorality of torturing a man's child, in gruesome fashion, while the man watches, turns on why the President might want to do that -- not on any absolute moral principles:
I'll quote only a bit of John Yoo (Bush 43's former resident torture freak lawyer/enabler!), from this morning's Wall Street Journal opinion page, but it is truly putrid -- and immensely unaware -- of even Yoo's own prior pronouncements [he finds fault with Mr. Obama having cited Thomas Aquinas as an influence -- I kid you not!]:
. . . .Some information about these strikes comes from the disclosure of national secrets that appear designed to help the president's re-election. Recent leaks have blown the cover of the Pakistani doctor who sought to confirm bin Laden's presence in Abbottabad; revealed a British asset who penetrated al Qaeda and stopped another bombing of a U.S.-bound airliner; and assigned credit to the administration for the Stuxnet computer virus that damaged Iran's nuclear program (even identifying the government lab that designed it). [Ed. Note: Each of these statements is demonstrably false, by the way.]
. . . .American intelligence will have a steep hill to climb when it asks for the future cooperation of agent-assets and foreign governments. Notably silent are the Democrats and media figures who demanded the scalp of a Bush White House aide, Scooter Libby, for leaks by another government official of the cover of a CIA operative who had left the field years earlier. . . .
Really?! So Mr. Yoo feels it appropriate to out older CIA assets? Moreover, this off-hand nonsense (even if accepted as accurate -- which it is not) serves to undercut his thesis -- such as it is. If he is truly worried about protecting assets, does he not see drones as preferable to live bodies, on the ground, doing the killing? What is it he thinks those covert assets do, exactly? I mean afterall, Mr. Yoo -- you've told us repeatedly (2003 to 2008) that when we are at war with an unconventional enemy (one that doesn't fight under a flag, or a uniform -- and hides among civilians), we will lose many more good people (many of them assets!) than when we fight uniformed armies. Sheesh. It takes "a few broken eggs to make an omelet," remember that bit of high-handed sophistry, Mr. Yoo (you, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney all parrotted that line, repeatedly -- 2004 to 2007)?
On the other hand, I suppose I shouldn't care, as his views are generally considered irrelevant, except inside the unblinking, unthinking far right echo chambers of tanks like the Claremont Institute -- but it is entertaining, nonetheless. What a transparently partisan hack-job he is.