John Yoo: Spearhead or scapegoat? - Glenn Greenwald

[Ichingcarpenter]

In response to mounting criticisms of its ongoing employment of John Yoo, UC Berkeley School of Law's Dean William Orrick issued a Memorandum -- entitled "The Torture Memos and Academic Freedom" -- citing the "near absolute" values of academic freedom and tenure to explain why the law school will not dismiss Yoo nor even initiate an inquiry into whether action ought to be taken against him. There are all sorts of interesting exchanges regarding those questions -- from academics such as Berkeley Professor Brad DeLong, Marty Lederman, and Henry Farrell. The comment sections to those posts are well worth reading as well.

Some of those commentators argue -- persuasively -- that mere citation to "academic freedom" does not resolve the question, since Yoo is charged not merely with advocating repellent ideas (something that should never result in dismissal), but far beyond that, was acting as an architect of an actual torture regime. Others raise the concern that Yoo should be entitled to full due process, that all facts ought to be fully investigated and disclosed before one can determine what, if any, action is appropriate. I think all of those concerns are valid, though ultimately, what matters most is that some important American institution -- somewhere -- meaningfully demonstrate that perpetrating systematic torture and committing war crimes renders one beyond the pale in the United States. It shouldn't be up to Berkeley to enforce that precept by itself, but if no other institutions are doing so, then (after a full and careful investigation), Berkeley should.

But I want to focus on a slightly different problem -- namely, the danger of turning John Yoo into a scapegoat through unwarranted focus on him. Yoo's defense that he was merely offering legal opinions, not making any policy decisions, is absurd, since, as he surely knew at the time, the purpose of those opinions was to enable and legally authorize savage and illegal acts. But it is true that he did not act alone, or with supreme authority -- really, he lacked authority to implement any policies at all. And it's also true that he could not have accomplished anything without the highest officials in our government at least implicitly encouraging and supporting what he was doing. >>>>snip


http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/12/yoo/index.html

[tanyev]

1. It would be unfair to prosecute Yoo for war crimes without also

going after everyone else that was in those meetings.

[Mist]

2. I can't agree--it's not okay to let one criminal go because you can't lay hands

on the others. Yoo should answer for this, and later, maybe there will be some forum in which the others can be made accountable.

[tanyev]

3. I'm not saying they should let him go.

I'm saying they need to get them all.

[mac2]

4. Yoo is scary and dangerous.

He certainly shows unprofessional conduct. He went to law school (even teaches) but doesn't know the Constitution and our rights? He wants to make his own law and have Bush KING!

If anything he is spreading fear among the people. Some expert.

All those liars and traitors before Congress seem to have something the administration has to bribe them. What is it about Yoo?