Brad DeLong to UC-Berkeley: Fire John Yoo

[ProSense]

Letter

Delong's blog




Edited to add this quote from June 2008: "We Should Not Let Them Back into Polite Society" - Richard Clarke on GWB and His Cronies

[Cha]

1. Thanks, PS..I would

hope they would fire john yoo..didn't even know he was working there.

[tularetom]

2. I'd support that and I'm a Cal alum

Maybe I'll stop making donations unless they fire Yoo.

I'd like to see them try and survive without my generous gifts.

:sarcasm:

[Arugula Latte]

11. Me too. I'm a Cal grad. ... I'll cut 'em off.

That'll show 'em. ...

I wish. :(

Seriously, though, they need to get rid of this war criminal.

[lunatica]

3. Faculty, staff and students have been trying to get him fired for years

A couple of years ago UC decided to send everyone an email with a letter written by the Chancellor about why he wouldn't fire him. Something about diversity of ideas to no clear crime committed by being asked for his legal opinion, etc.

It's not going to happen. The world will have to go after John Woo in a different way.

[jwirr]

4. So boycott his classes. Students led the protests in 60-70s - now they

can again.

[Mojorabbit]

13. I got that lame letter

from them when I wrote to protest his hiring.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. There are very few cases where tenured professors should be fired.

This is one of them.

[Hepburn]

6. A-fucking-men!

Yoo NEEDS to go! :applause: K&R

[Brother Buzz]

7. A brief primer designed to help you understand Yoo's circular logic

A brief primer designed to help you understand the twisted logic John Yoo was able to sell to the Bush Administration.

Jon Carroll
Monday, January 2, 2006

Perhaps you have been unable to follow the intricacies of the logic used by John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who has emerged as the president's foremost apologist for all the stuff he has to apologize for. I have therefore prepared a brief, informal summary of the relevant arguments.

Why does the president have the power to unilaterally authorize wiretaps of American citizens?

Because he is the president.

Does the president always have that power?

No. Only when he is fighting the war on terror does he have that power.

When will the war on terror be over?

The fight against terror is eternal. Terror is not a nation; it is a tactic. As long as the president is fighting a tactic, he can use any means he deems appropriate.

Why does the president have that power?

It's in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution?

It can be inferred from the Constitution. When the president is protecting America, he may by definition make any inference from the Constitution that he chooses. He is keeping America safe.

Who decides what measures are necessary to keep America safe?

The president.

Who has oversight over the actions of the president?

The president oversees his own actions. If at any time he determines that he is a danger to America, he has the right to wiretap himself, name himself an enemy combatant and spirit himself away to a secret prison in Egypt.

But isn't there a secret court, the FISA court, that has the power to authorize wiretapping warrants? Wasn't that court set up for just such situations when national security is at stake?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court might disagree with the president. It might thwart his plans. It is a danger to the democracy that we hold so dear. We must never let the courts stand in the way of America's safety.

So there are no guarantees that the president will act in the best interests of the country?

The president was elected by the people. They chose him; therefore he represents the will of the people. The people would never act against their own interests; therefore, the president can never act against the best interests of the people. It's a doctrine I like to call "the triumph of the will."

But surely the Congress was also elected by the people, and therefore also represents the will of the people. Is that not true?

Congress? Please.

It's sounding more and more as if your version of the presidency resembles an absolute monarchy. Does it?

Of course not. We Americans hate kings. Kings must wear crowns and visit trade fairs and expositions. The president only wears a cowboy hat and visits military bases, and then only if he wants to.

Can the president authorize torture?

No. The president can only authorize appropriate means.

Could those appropriate means include torture?

It's not torture if the president says it's not torture. It's merely appropriate. Remember, America is under constant attack from terrorism. The president must use any means necessary to protect America.

Won't the American people object?

Not if they're scared enough.

What if the Supreme Court rules against the president?

The president has respect for the Supreme Court. We are a nation of laws, not of men. In the unlikely event that the court would rule against the president, he has the right to deny that he was ever doing what he was accused of doing, and to keep further actions secret. He also has the right to rename any practices the court finds repugnant. "Wiretapping" could be called "protective listening." There's nothing the matter with protective listening.

Recently, a White House spokesman defended the wiretaps this way: "This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches." If these very bad people have blown up churches, why not just arrest them?

That information is classified.

Have many weddings been blown up by terrorists?

No, they haven't, which is proof that the system works. The president does reserve the right to blow up gay terrorist weddings -- but only if he determines that the safety of the nation is at stake. The president is also keeping his eye on churches, many of which have become fonts of sedition. I do not believe that the president has any problem with commuter trains, although that could always change.

So this policy will be in place right up until the next election?

Election? Let's just say that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It may not be wise to have an election in a time of national peril.

[Liberal_in_LA]

8. what the heck?!

[Brother Buzz]

9. I say Yoo's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third.

;)

[AtomicKitten]

10. At the very least he should be shunned. I'd prefer jail time. n/t

[Mz Pip]

12. Yoo is not at Berkeley now

He's doing some visiting professor gig at Chapman University. Maybe they will keep him.

http://www.chapman.edu/law/faculty/visiting/yoo.asp

I found this paragraph from their website particulary ironic.

<<Spiritual growth and moral education
As an institution, Chapman University draws strength from its denominational origin and
affiliation with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); thus a Chapman education is
dedicated to openly affirming diverse ethical and religious perspectives. We are proud to call
ourselves a value-centered institution, meaning that we place the exploration of values at the
center of thinking and learning. We do not prescribe values, but we do encourage all students to
reflect on their personal values and think about the values of others. Because we believe that the
life of the mind embraces an individual’s spiritual growth and moral education, we also draw
upon the traditions of peace and social justice that are rooted in Disciples teaching. We
encourage a commitment to service and volunteerism among all members of the Chapman
community at the same time that we encourage students to become ethical and responsible
citizens.>>

[AtomicKitten]

14. thanks for the link

I think the stink of Yoo's actions will follow him around like poo on his shoe for the rest of his life, and that should be as good as it gets for him.