"A Discussion With The Devil."

When I found out this morning that Jon Stewart had interviewed former Bush Administration lawyer and author of the notorious torture memos, UC-Berkeley Law Professor John Yoo, earlier this week, I stopped what I was doing and went searching for video.  As usual with interviews where there is far too much content to edit for the show, Stewart and The Daily Show staff put the entirety of the interview online in its 25 minute glory.

Usually in these interviews with high profile Bush Administration officers or controversial figures, Stewart comes out in his best form, asking questions few in the MSM will and press for answers in layman terms - I think, beyond his comedic prowess, this is his most valuable and incredible talent.  So seeing him suddenly square off with Yoo, who four years of political science and some international and constitutional law studies have taught me to subtally loath, I was excited.  Even the usually enthusiastic TDS audience, who will whoop and hollar for nearly anyone who walks over to Stewarts desk, only greeted Yoo with very quiet, controlled, dare-I-say forced applause.

And yet what happened next kinda shocked me.  Go ahead and watch, I'll wait:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Daily Show: Exclusive - John Yoo Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - John Yoo Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - John Yoo Extended Interview Pt. 3
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

A few things I was struck by while watching:

First, how nice of a guy Yoo seemed to be.  He's doesn't have the cockiness, the smugness of Cheney or Rumsfeld, nor the know-nothing act that Alberto Gonzalez has put on display.  Stewart even admits something along the line of Yoo being, "the most charming torturer" he's ever met.  But it's true - the guy had real class, and to come into the lion's den of Stewart's studio and defend his positions the way he did was far more courageous than the bold, arrogant displays others have tried to pull off.

Which leads to the second surprise - I understood where Yoo was coming from, perhaps for the first time.  It made me want to go read his book, Crisis And Command, so that I could try and better understand where he was pulling this precident from for his President to authorize the torture of terror suspects.  Don't get me wrong - I still think what his memo did and resulted in is foul and disgusting, a very black stain on the pages of American history that did far more harm than good.  But I saw where he was coming from with this, that it wasn't just bullcrap.

Jon Stewart, for once, had a very worthy opponent in his guest chair, and the countless times that he became frustrated, I found myself becoming more so too - how could this person, John Yoo, be convincing me that what he did was not unconstitutional?  He was being logical, and yet the end result I knew was nefarious and wrong in it's entire being.

Lastly, Stewart's little section at the end of the interview about not demonizing those we don't agree with as pitch perfect.  Something I wish more people would understand and embrace - I try to do it as much as possible, and considering how willing I was to throw Yoo in with the lot of rogues and demons he worked for, it really did make me step back, after hearing this man explain himself so well, and think if he was worthy of such venom.

And so I've been lingering upon it all day.  Tonight I come home, and still just can't figure out what the problem was here, how I could be agreeing with the logical basis of policies I knew were wrong.  Even Stewart, on the following night's show, admitted that Yoo matched him - that there was no typical Jon Stewart-On- Crossfire "gotcha" moment.  And then I went into reading the comments at TPM - and I found my answer.

Commenter LarsThor:

Here's the thing, and it's kind of frightening.

Once you get into a debate in great detail over the legalities of this and the legalities of that, once you get down into the debate and discussion of whether, in a time of war, a President has the authority, in the protection of the Constitution to take actions in this regard or in that regard, what you find is you get way, way down into the weeds quickly. Because it is a largely academic sort of thing, and you can reach a point where A is more reasonable than B, but A is also less reasonable than C.

And then you look up and you realize that you have been seriously debating whether you can make another human being feel like he is drowning to get information out of him. You realize, whoa: I have just been seriously debating the merits of torture.

It's hard to describe. probably easier for lawyers to understand.

But the point is, every now and then you must -- must -- step back and see the forest for the trees. You have to think of the broader parameters of what you are talking about. Because when you back away from the pointilism, you see that what you are really talking about is altogether something else entirely.

Yoo got into the pointilism of the legalities of torture and executive power. What Yoo didn't do is back up and look at it broadly, and he never realized that what he was painting was an enormous mural of horror.

Stewart wasn't lied to or blindsided by false facts. He was dealing with a man who is able to describe how bit by tiny little bit, it's okay to look at a point from this angle or that, not from the perspective of right and wrong, but from the perspective of what the letter of the law says.

Discussions with the Devil are very pleasant, and very reasonable, and seem very sane. And that's what frustrates Stewart.

I am a serious man who is serious about certain things, and the misuse of the law is one. And as a serious man on that subject, I say this with absolute conviction, and absolute certainty, and absolute seriousness:

Jon Stewart, in my personal view, had a discussion with the Devil.

Now I don't think John Yoo is the Devil, but I do think the Devil did his work through him in writing those memos to allow for the torture of other human beings.  It's funny, and even gets mentioned to some extent in the interview, that all things can be used for the greater good and for the greater evil in our being, and that's what it comes down to - all men are good, and all men are evil, and that political power, much like nearly anything else in this world, depends on those who yield it to do good or evil and what their intentions are.  Sometimes even those intentions can seem good in isolation, but in the wider, grander picture are cruel, horrible, and wrong.  And that is where John Yoo was able to make his case - the isolated incident, picking examples through history that justify his ends.

I have a new appreciation for John Yoo - give the Devil his due, so to speak -  he is far from being the monster I wanted to believe he was.  But that does not now, nor will it ever, make what he served as a catalyst for anywhere near or close to being right, noble, or American.