John Yoo Argues for Neutrality, Needs Empathy

John Yoo, legal scholar at Stanford and architect of the Bush torture regime, argues today against the criteria of “empathy” in choosing a Justice of the Supreme Court. Ironically, the only thing that will save Yoo when his actions are judged, save him from disbarment and worse, is an emphathic judge who goes beyond precedent.

http://allspinzone.com/wp/2009/05/10/john-yoo-argues-for-neutrality-needs-empathy/

Because empathy also means caring about people, he does not care about.

A neutral judge would have equal empathy for all people. Yoo's problem is he is not neutral because he only has empathy for himself and his group.

He wrote memos not caring about others so he could make his boss happy, either because his boss was in his empathy circle, or he thought it would help himself.


And to point out my view on the spiritual nature of the conversation.

Empathy/Caring/love your neighbor as yourself (almost the definition of empathy, and neighbor is defined as people of different unlinked culture in the good samaritan story)

versus

no feeling, no caring, do what is best for yourself.



There is an argument that not caring about 1 person, letting them suffer to save 100 is ok, because the greater good is served. But as soon as you stop caring, it becomes letting 1000 suffer to save 100. If a person has to make that kind of judgement, it should still bother them because they still care for anyone that suffers, because they try and have empathy for all.

When he sets foot outside the US he will be arrested, tried, convicted and likely sentenced to death for war crimes. It's sad that the US won't hold him accountable, but this will be assuaged by watching him snivel and cry while judgment is passed.