Why Is Torture Lawyer John Yoo Still Teaching at Berkeley?

John Yoo is one of the prime--if not the prime--formulators of the blatantly inadequate and outrageous legal opinions that justified the Bush administration's use of torture.

His opinions were not just idle academic theories: They helped further the actual practice of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Why is he still allowed to teach at Berkeley? Why hasn't or doesn't the Berkeley faculty senate or law-school senate demand his dismissal? Why haven't or aren't disbarment proceedings being brought against him?

Scott Horton today quotes an article in Vanity Fair excerpted from Philippe Sands' new expose of Bush's torture lawyers:

"Addington, Bybee, Gonzales, Haynes, and Yoo became, in effect, a torture team of lawyers, freeing the administration from the constraints of all international rules prohibiting abuse."

Horton then himself writes:

"They (Yoo et al) also missed the established precedent I have cited repeatedly here, namely United States v. Altstoetter, under the rule of which the conduct of the torture lawyers is a criminal act not shielded by any notions of government immunity."

Why is Berkeley providing employment to a likely war criminal? Why aren't thousands of people gathering at the Law School, demanding Yoo's ouster?

Comments

[BronxGOPer]

What specific law did water-boarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed violate?

It didn"t violate the Geneva Convention. Al Qaeda is not a signatory. Therefore, Al Qaeda prisoners have no rights under it. The idea behind having "rules of war" is that they are binding on both sides and therefore, by following the rules, you protect your own captured soldiers. You can ask Daniel Pearl if Al Qaeda respects the rules of the Geneva Convention despite not being a signatory. No wait, you can"t because Khalid Sheik Mohammed cut his head off with a knife as part of a snuff film.

It was not unconstitutional. The Eighth Amendment prohibits torture as punishment, but the water boarding that was done was for interrogation purposes, not punishment. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause would prohibit the use of a coerced statement at a trial, but the information was instead used to disrupt ongoing Al Qaeda operations, preventing several planned terrorist attacks and saving lives.

There are certainly arguments against the use of torture by the United States but I would vehemently disagree with any kind of argument that alleges water boarding a terrorist makes us just as bad as they are.

The late William F. Buckley, Jr. used to use this analogy about moral equivalence. A man who pushes an old lady in front of a bus and a man that pushes an old lady out of the way of a bus ought not be lumped together as people that push old ladies around.

[wldnswmmr]

You might want to review certain recent Supreme Court decisions on the applicability of Common Article 3 to all detainees, whether signatories or not, and then start your argument over.

[BronxGOPer]

I have followed your advice and looked at Common Article 3. The Supreme Court, in the Hamdan case, did hold that the Geneva Conventions" Common Article 3 was incorporated into a statute, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and therefore prohibited military tribunals without congressional authorization. However, the Court did not address whether the prohibitions on "torture," "cruel treatment," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" were also incorporated into U.S. law. But even assuming it does apply, the question becomes one of definition. Congress has had the opportunity to define waterboarding as torture but as thus far declined to do so.

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 generally prohibits "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of detainees by any person. But only military interrogators are limited to the "U.S. Army Field Manual for Human Intelligence Collector Operations." This would prohibit waterboarding. Last year Congress declined to extend this requirement to CIA interrogators.

Decry the cowardice of Congress if you like, but they have failed to make waterboarding illegal. At the very least, there is a legitimate question of interpretation. Disbarring or firing Yoo for rendering a legal opinion is ridiculous. Maybe we should consider a Constitutional amendment that protects a person"s right to hold an unpopular opinion without the threat of prosecution or the denial of a job with a state university. I am surprised someone hasn"t thought of that already.

[tinmanic]

But people were swept up and put into Guantanamo without it first being proved that they were part of Al Qaeda, and the memo put forth arguments stating that such people could be tortured.

[Presidentclouseau]

Sorry folks, calling for the firing of professors for their opinions is what right-wingers do. As a 1969 graduate of U.C., I saw first hand the political attacks on leftist academics like Herbert Marcuse and Angela Davis. Before that, it was the era of loyalty oaths and McCarthyism. Right-wing professors have the same academic freedom as those on the left.

As a lawyer, I have to say the idea of firing a law professor for a legal opinion he gave to his client--however despicable--is absurdly irrelevant to his teaching position. Leave the witch-hunting to the professionals, like David Horowitz.

[hapkidokid]

Sorry, but i don't see "opinion" as the issue. This is a law professor who told his highly privileged client, the president, how to use an argument to commit an illegal act. If you were the parent of a law student, would you really want them being taught by someone who taught them how to write erroneous or outright illegal opinions? Seems like the equivalent of this would be, being taught creationism by a science professor who disdains evolution.

[wldnswmmr]

As a Cal grad and a lawyer, I have asked myself this same question before. It's doubly important to publicize this issue in this case because the entire "exoneration" regime enacted in the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act is based on the "advice of counsel." Bush et al saw this coming a long time ago, so they built in an escape provision that's based on circular reasoning. Bush/Cheney asked the torture lawyers to draft an opinion saying it was okay; the torture lawyers, most especially Yoo, wrote that opinion; then Congress let everyone off the hook who tortured people based on believing it was okay because the torture lawyers said it was okay. That's why this issue needs to be attacked at its base. I don't know if Yoo should be fired for expressing his opinion, but the basis of that opinion, how it developed, needs to be thoroughly aired out and Yoo exposed.

[BronxGOPer]

I understand your point. Having a good faith basis for believing waterboarding does not violate the Detainee Treatment Act immunizes you from prosecution. Woo"s legal opinion that it does not violate the Act provides that good faith basis. But your issue is really with Congress, not Yoo.

I think there are two major reasons Congress has left this ambiguity. First of all, they do not want to take the political heat for either endorsing or prohibiting torture so they split the difference and leave it ambiguous. The second, is that some of them may be legitimately concerned that a situation may arise where waterboarding is necessary.

In 2004, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer said:

"I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake. . . . It is easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used, but when you are in the foxhole it is a very different deal. And I respect, I think we all respect the fact that the President is in the foxhole every day."

Just as an aside to the other lawyers here, can you imagine if briefs were limited to 250 words? Imagine the lost billing¦

[hopeless277]

Uh, because we just don't care what happens to brown people? Anyway, legal opinions do not carry the weight of law. If the people of this country had say, representatives, then perhaps they could intervene on our behalf with the Unitary Executive and beg him for mercy from torture. That not being the case, we'll just have to hope that GWB decides to leave office voluntarily and the next Unitary Executive will agree to hear our case. Failing that, we'll all just have to keep our heads down and our mouths shut for fear of being 'dissappeared' into the United States of America's criminal punishment system.

[lisakaz]

Good question. Wonder what Berkeley's excuse is?

[BronxGOPer]

I imagine their excuse is that John Woo is a brilliant lawyer with world class experience. Boalt Hall is one of the 5 best law schools in the country. It graduates some of the top lawyers in the country. What a terrible thing it would be if some of them are partially educated by a conservative lawyer. After all, it"s not like there are any liberal faculty members at U.C. Berkeley to provide balance.

[Cathexis]

A damned good question, Mr Yourgrau! Anyone who can attempt to finesse/spin an agregiously unlawful and unthinkable avenue has no business influencing the minds of those trying to master the fundamentals of the law profession.

[BronxGOPer]

I"ll ask again. Can you with some specificity cite the statute, treaty, or Constitutional provision that makes it "agregiously unlawful"?

You may find something morally repugnant, but that in and of itself does make it illegal.

[ajax2]

Why Is Torture Lawyer John Yoo Still Teaching at Berkeley? To torture people who love this country, the constitution, and democracy.

[zjr909]

Sadly, the age of people caring about much of anything outside their own immediate well-being seems to be over. Besides which, are there any colleges or universities left whose hands are not firmly entrenched in the vast military-industrial till funded by taxpayers? Who's left on campus to cast the first stone?

[dannyo152]

Reason 1: he isn't a war criminal until convicted. He isn't convicted until he's been indicted and had a fair trial.

Reason 2: Opinions are not sufficient reason to remove a faculty member. In this way I look at Yoo's situation as comparable to Angela Davis' in the late 60s/early 70s.

[madridwontgodown]

what about Ward Churchill? espcially with reference to reason 2