John Yoo Quotes

Applying different standards to al Qaeda does not abandon Geneva, but only recognizes that the U.S. faces a stateless enemy never contemplated by the Conventions.

Al Qaeda doesn't abide by the Geneva Conventions, so in my opinion, they should not be afforded the protections of them.

… 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.

The laws of war right now say that we can respond when our country is threatened. That is what international law says.

It is important to recognize the differences between the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. The treatment of those detained at Abu Ghraib is governed by the Geneva Conventions, which have been signed by both the U.S. and Iraq.

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

I knew that the Hague Convention prohibited the use of poison in war. I didn't know the details of the terms of the Convention, but I did know of that prohibition.

You should declare the Taliban and Al Qaeda outside the coverage of the Geneva Conventions. That would keep American officials from being exposed to the federal War Crimes Act.

Pre-emptive war might fall within the framework of international law.

We need to understand that the Geneva Conventions are not just some historical documents born of another time, created for another purpose.

The United States does not view our authority to use military force against Al Qaeda as being restricted solely to 'hot' battlefields like Afghanistan.

In line with international law, only the U.N. Security Council could sanction the use of force against a sovereign state. Any other pretext or method which might be used to justify the use of force against an independent sovereign state are inadmissible and can only be interpreted as an aggression.

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

If America has the right to target Osama bin Laden, or terrorists, of course Israel has the right to defend itself from terrorism.

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

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

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

Governments cannot be denied the right to legitimate self defense once every means of peaceful settlement has been exhausted.

International law seeks to avoid the use of force but does not preclude it.

The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions: To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance; To carry arms openly; and To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

Russia has the right to deliver preventive strikes against bases of bandits, wherever they are located, including the territory of Chechnya.

Self defense is the most difficult element of International Law.

According to the laws of war, a warring party can just walk away from civilian harm that they have caused.

… the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.