John Yoo Quotes

This war no longer has anything to do with knightly conduct or with the agreements of the Geneva Convention.

What is the Geneva Convention on wars! I have never read it.

That is because the conflict with al Qaeda is not governed by the Geneva Conventions, which applies only to international conflicts between states that have signed them.

President Bush and his commanders announced early in the conflict that the Conventions applied.

In time of war the laws are silent.

Russia has been entirely proportionate in its military response to Georgia's attack on Russian citizens and peacekeepers.

No matter how many people you kill, using a machine gun in battle is not a war crime because it does not cause unnecessary suffering; it simply performs its job horrifyingly well.

If we say the Geneva Convention is obsolete, then what do others who have our soldiers say?

It is also worth asking whether the strict limitations of Geneva make sense in a war against terrorists.

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.

While Taliban fighters had an initial claim to protection under the conventions, they lost POW status by failing to obey the standards of conduct for legal combatants: wearing uniforms, a responsible command structure, and obeying the laws of war.

A decision that the Geneva conventions do not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan in which our armed forces are engaged deprives our troops there of any claim to the protection of the conventions in the event they are captured

The Geneva Conventions cover everybody: military, civilian, everybody. We created this made-up category of unlawful enemy combatant in an effort to circumvent the conventions. But in fact, the other name for unlawful enemy combatant, in Geneva Convention terms, is either civilian or spy and saboteur. If they are civilians they can be prosecuted.... We should be prosecuting these people and we should be doing it in civilian courts. But to say we don't have to do any of these things because they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions is just a misapplication of the law.

Self defense is the most difficult element of International Law.

… it was not necessary to make any definition of "aggressor" or "self-defense." I do not think it can be done, anyway, accurately. They have been trying to do it in Europe for six or eight years, and they never have been able to accurately define " aggressor " or " self-defense.

Relying on the Iraqi Army to fight ISIS in Iraq is problematical, but there are no other options.

In my view, targeted lethal force is at its least controversial when it is on its strongest, most traditional legal foundation. The essential mission of the U.S. military is to capture or kill an enemy. Armies have been doing this for thousands of years. As part of a congressionally authorized armed conflict, the foundation is even stronger.

If you read any sort of, like, military general autobiographies or biographies, most of them never wanted to fight, you know? It's necessary. War is necessary.

One of the fundamental pillars of international humanitarian law is that proper distinction should be made between military targets and civilians. That is why indiscriminate bombing, let alone the deliberate targeting of residential areas or agricultural infrastructure, is considered a war crime.

I know that Israeli soldiers will do everything they can in order to avoid loss of innocent life.

I would not restart, under any circumstances, an interrogation program at CIA.

The abuse of civilians and combatants has existed since the dawn of time.

The use of military force against a sovereign nation is an act of war. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the sole power to declare war.

I am not a pacifist and I would back a lawful, coherent and compelling case for the use of military force by the U.K. against Isis.

The whole essence of humanitarian work and the Geneva Convention is that neutral, impartial organisations can operate during war.