> I'm not sure that the quotes you've put here portray a bias one way or another so much as a legal opinion (erroneous or otherwise) John Yoo's legal opinions

> I'm not sure that the quotes you've put here portray a bias one way or another so much as a legal opinion (erroneous or otherwise) John Yoo's legal opinions were used by the Bush administration to justify a system of torture up to and including permanent injury, sexual assault, and death. If he had issued these opinions in a vacuum, I would agree with you. Instead, he sought opportunities to provide legal cover for systemic human rights abuses. The consequences of his actions seem predictable, and in my view that makes him partially morally responsible for them and it is fair to call him an advocate of them, in deed and word. You can read about it in the CIA torture report and the DOD torture report: https://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/sscistudy1.pdf https://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/sscistudy1.pdf http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Detainee-Report-Final_April-22-2009.pdf http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Detainee-... There are a multitude of US laws against torture, but Yoo and his intellectual cohort seem to think that the "Unitary Executive" is not bound by most laws, as long as that executive proclaims the actions are part of a war (which does not need to be declared by Congress, under Unitary Executive theory that rejects the War Powers Act). Finally, I posted this snippet to point out that John Yoo has a history of dismissing limits to executive power to an extreme degree. Even if his theories are viewed outside of the moral consequences of his actions, I think it's important to know that his view on surveillance goes WAY, WAY beyond just warrantlessly listening to the phone calls of innocent people, all the way to, according to him, crushing the testicles of innocent people. I think this helps frame the discussion of the history of the Bush administration's abuse of civil liberties, though you are welcome to disagree.