John Yoo opposition group forming in the OC

Attn: Tibor - this ought to be of interest to you...

Got this from one of my connections in the anti-war movement:

Meet with OC Activists to Continue Fight to Fire/Disbar War Criminal John Yoo
Sat., Feb. 21st, Noon, at Rutabegorz Restaurant http://www.rutabego rz.com/orange

Southern California activists are carrying on the fight begun in Berkeley to fire and disbar John Yoo, the attorney who crafted the infamous "Torture Memos" for the Bush Regime, and has now begun teaching at Chapman University School of Law. Yesterday, the LA Times carried this story: http://www.latimes. com/news/ local/la- me-yoo11- 2009feb11, 0,7413410. story
It seems Yoo has issued a challenge to us to build a strong movement against torture in SoCal. In response to the article, we received this great email:

"I live and work in Orange, two blocks away from the Chapman Law School. I'm amazed by the story about this man and that he is allowed to teach in my town. I know the University President Jim Doti and plan on emailing him next. Please let me know if you plan any demonstrations against this guy because I would be happy to walk up the street and participate. This is not a matter of "freedom of speech", this man has done a huge disservice to me and my country. I want him out of my city."

Also, the new issue of Chapman U's paper has a front-page article on Yoo and a column from the editor-in-chief: http://www.thepanth eronline. com/downloads/ 02-09-09paper. pdf. We've heard that this has created a lot of awareness on campus among many who didn't know who Yoo is or that he was now a "distinguished visiting professor". We understand that he has refused an interview to the campus newspaper, reserving his time only for national and international media.

In preparation for the meeting, we suggest viewing (in groups!) the Democracy Now interview with Jane Mayer, author of "The Dark Side" here. In the final 20 minutes she speaks specifically to the role John Yoo has played in legalizing a torture state. Also, at WorldCantWait. org, read "Obama's Justice Department: Covering up Outsourcing of Torture and Death here, and keep checking the website for daily updates on analysis and actions.

****************

BTW, I just checked the link to the Chapman student newspaper and it's not working, even after I tried correcting the link text, nor could I find the article - maybe withdrawn? Anyway, here's a link that is working:
http://www.thepantheronline.com/archives_results.php

From what I've heard and read over the years, this Yoo guy is something of a nasty character, if you believe in basic civil/human/individual rights and limited government, anyway. It might be interesting if some local objectivists used this as an opportunity to inject a rational position on rights into the discussion, rather than having it stolen once again by the Left, and then bundled with their agenda as an intellectual package deal.

There must be some objectivists among the students and staff at Chapman - besides Tibor, I mean. I think it would be cool to divert this left-oriented discussion into a more productive direction.

(Edited by Phil Osborn on 2/15, 12:49pm)

Post 1

Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 8:06pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

With a little further thought on the matter, I've come to the conclusion that perhaps a public trial is in order, here. Mr. Yoo can be invited to present his side of the matters under consideration, perhaps with a defense attorney, not necessarily real - say an impersonator playing the part of a resurrected Heinrich Himmler - or whoever he chooses who is willing to take his case. (Pol Pot also comes to mind.) Just kidding...

Seriously, I would be happy to give Mr. Yoo every consideration and chance to defend his record, and bend over backward as necessary. Any other course would of course naturally lend itself to allegations of bias and make a mockery of the procedings. If the public evidence or purported evidence is enough to make so many people as angry as they have demonstrated, however, then this might be great chance to set the record straight. Perhaps we could even do a phone link with some of the people who were actually tortured via rendition, or at Gitmo or perhaps some of the secret prisons the CIA ran in Eastern Europe.

A jury could be selected of local notables from accross the political spectrum, I'm thinking that on the Objectivist/Libertarian side, Tibor would be good, as well as Alan Bock, OC Register Editorialist, and whoever the local Greens, Demos, whoever can come up with. I'm almost betting that we could get Maxine Waters on the dems side, if this were presented as a serious matter, with backing and legal support perhaps from the ACLU. There are certainly local attorneys who could act as prosecutors - and would probably jump at the chance. Who could serve as Judge?

This could also be a chance for Chapman to put itself on the world map as a sponsor of public forums. I'm sure that such a trial - while holding no legal weight, of course - would be sufficiently compelling as to draw world media coverage, both broadcast and netcast, and could serve as a precedent for further trials.

(Edited by Phil Osborn on 2/17, 8:12pm)

Post 2

Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 9:37pm

Hi Phil,

How about the lawsuits that previously popped up against Mr. Yoo? http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2182262

Jordan

Post 3

Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 6:42pm

Hey thanks for the link, Jordan.

I think that it might be quite entertaining. Look at "People's Court." I wonder if we could get Judge Judy to preside.

Of course there would be no legal weight to the proceedings, and everyone would have to be careful about slander and libel, etc., altho there's quite a bit of latitude when it comes to public figures in state office. It's even conceivable that an occasional politician or financial miscreant might win over a jury. (In a pig's eye...)

However, I've been looking for some time for a way to make people aware of what goes on in their name. Public trials conducted with reasonable fairness and objectivity could be the next Reality TV. No? Cheap on the special effects and location and full of potential drama and surprises, provided gratis by the participants. What network could turn it down?

And then maybe the 2nd Lifers could get involved, doing reenactments of the alleged crimes and misdemeanors that could be critiqued and played back on any PC, or bundled for distribution via Ipods, etc. And the Onion could do parodies of particular cases. And the betting houses might find it in their hearts - as if - to donate some bucks to pay a professional staff or fund discovery, as I'm sure that there would be wagering on outcomes.

I personally just want a tee-shirt, with a certain celebrity's face on it.

;->

Post 4

Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 12:56pm

Update: The meeting yesterday went quite well. Instead of just the usual suspects from the "progressive" and left ethnic camps, it attracted five Chapman College students, an ACLU rep, and several college professors - none, however, from Chapman.

The Chapman students, who appeared to be acting separately and independently, reported that there is considerable interest on campus in the issue of torture by the U.S. and in Professor John Yoo's role in allegedly providing the Bush administration legal cover via his memos in authorizing both torture by U.S. officials as well as "rendition" and other violations of constitutionally guaranteed rights. They also indicated that various professors at Chapman were strongly supportive of either a move to oust Professor Yoo or one to at least publicize the facts about torture and his involvement.

One of the professors attending the meeting offered a thousand dollars out of his own pocket to fund either a teach-in on torture and/or a tribunal specifically addressing Yoo's involvement, so long as it was done objectively and fairly, specifically inviting Professor Yoo, as well as others supporting his positions, to present their case.

In fact, the major issue that may be clarified or resolved at our next meeting - same place/time, next Saturday - is whether the focus should be on pressuring Chapman to either fire or fail to offer employment next year to Yoo, or whether it should be an open, fair and transparent effort, likely inviting Professor Yoo to participate, to examine the facts, the moral issues and consequences of the policies that he promoted.

A slight majority of attendees at the meeting appeared to be rather strongly in favor of the latter course, including all the actual Chapman students, who emphasized that any cooperation from the college administration (or from various other sources who might come down on the side of academic freedom if it were simply posed as a pressure campaign to fire Mr. Yoo) would hinge upon this being done objectively, professionally and fairly, first establishing the facts and then allowing complete opportunity for rebutal and rejoinder, with the emphasis on legal as well as moral issues.

I was quite pleased to note how thoughtful and integrated the perspectives of the Chapman students were. Certainly not your typical "party school" attitude.

The organizers of the event, who drove down from Los Angeles, cited the site www.firejohnyoo.com as a primary resource.

(Edited by Phil Osborn on 2/22, 1:04pm)

Post 5

Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 2:33pm

Phil,

Can you clarify your position on your opposition to interrogation methods such as 'water-boarding' - which seems to be the worst practice the US employed. Are there circumstances where you would agree to water-boarding?

My own position is that these prisoners - labelled 'enemy combatants - should be clearly known to be involved, not just 'thought to be' involved, before any such interrogation could take place. However, under that important condition, I have no objection to their being water-boarded.

There are those who say such interrogation (torture) is ineffective. I certainly think it is not always effective, but the fact that it can be effective at times, still recommends it when there is a chance that 'breaking' the subject will result in saving lives.

Such methods are not for everyday cases, they are for cases where extreme risk is involved when not learning key information. I do think that careful guidelines should be established about the when and how, and drilled into the consciousness of those men and women who would be involved in employing such interrogation techniques. But the world is too dangerous, I think, to simply remove these methods from the table.

Sorry if this offends you, but this is my opinion.

jt

Post 6

Monday, February 23, 2009 - 8:25pm

My position is that when and if you can get a known terrorist or other serious criminal to give you details that will definitely save lives on an immediate basis, then you are morally justified in using torture for that purpose. Otherwise, if you either do not know with any reasonable certainly that the person is even a terrorist at all, or are simply conducting a "fishing expedition," hoping to find something that will get you a promotion, torture is simply criminal assault, made worse by being commited under cover of authority.

The facts as far as I can ascertain them, however, are that the various prisoners in Gitmo, the secret CIA prisons, possible holding locations here in the U.S. for enemy combatants, "rendition" countries, etc. held mostly people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, especially foreigners who were vulnerable to being grabbed by the Afgan warlords and then sold to the U.S. troops as alleged terrorists. These people were never subjected to any kind of reasonable, objective examination as to whether they actually were terrorists to begin with.

There was no immediate basis for the use of torture on these people, so far as I know, nothing that prevented any immediate harm. Instead, they were imprisoned, in many cases, for seven years, and subjected to all manner of what anyone enduring it would certainly call "torture." I.e., forced to crouch in stress positions, blindfolded, with heavy duty headphones blasting distorted heavy metal music, and then randomly being slapped around or kicked, while otherwise being cut off from all meaningful contact with reality, for periods lasting up to 12 hours straight, repeated day after day after day for months on end. This is somehow NOT torture? And we haven't even gotten to electroshock and water-boarding yet.

Prevention from sleeping for ONE night is torture, if torture is defined by its epistemological essentials.

What IS torture?

How about: "pain or other suffering deliberately and coercively imposed in order to force someone to do something that they would otherwise consider to be wrong or against their interests."

The degree of pain and/or suffering and its duration are only relevant with regard to assessing the amount of damages due to the victim in the aftermath. The use of torture without a clear, immediate, emergency justification - to save innocent lives - is clearly simply criminal coercion, and when you open the bar to that kind of inherently unjustifiable behavior, it should not come as any surprise that all manner of absurdly destructive further behaviors result.

You might want to see "The Road to Guantanemo."

Post 7

Monday, February 23, 2009 - 9:19pm

Phil,

I think this is an issue where the nuts and bolts of the circumstance are really important to the discussion. We can get into several cases here easily in effort to adhere to an ethical position.

For instance, you mention "clear, immediate, emergency" justification, but at the point a situation reaches emergency status, obtaining that information may be too late. So, do you allow that someone knowing details of active terrorist cells which are at least in the planning stage of a serious attack, would be a justifiable candidate for such interrogations? Such an attack may not occur for months. Yet, unchecked, could have devastating and deadly impact on innocent people.

You also suppose that many innocent US citizens and foreign nationals are among the ranks of those quartered in Guantanamo. I have to at least question how you have ascertained that "most" of these people just "happened to be in the wrong place" and are innocent. If you are relying on speculations of the press or human rights groups, then you have no actual facts. If you're relying on credible intelligence reports, then Guantanamo is an abomination, and details from these reports would have quickly been spread by the news services. This latter case, I judge, is unlikely.

What is quite believable, but appears as yet undocumented, is that there probably were some mistakes made in picking up innocent people. Government and bureaucracy are sloppy by nature. They make mistakes (witness the economic crisis and stimulus bill), and they are too big and powerful to stop. However, to suggest that they've gathered up mostly innocent people is more conspiracy theory than rational analysis. Despite some of the public gaffs, I'm much more inclined to trust the US intelligence community to have a pretty good read on who they've got penned up in Guantanamo. I find it far more scary to think the Obama administration would release or move some of these high profile terrorists to US soil - like painting a target on the unfortunate local community.

Personally, I would hope that we have some of our smartest people running Intelligence and interrogations at Guantanamo - people that can recognize the confirmed terrorist, and recognize which people may "have been in the wrong place".

jt

Post 8

Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - 6:18am

I would be good with some sort of reasonable process, and with torture being allowed only with Presidential authorization - that would limit it to only the extreme cases. I don't think that had we say captured Hitler by "rendition" we should worry about his constitutional rights.

Post 9

Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - 12:25pm

Hello, Mr. President? Yes. This is Jack Bauer. I've got a man here that I caught with plans to the superbowl stadium, and some bomb materials. Yes. Yes. His associates are not here, and it does appear the have taken the active bombs. Yes. Well, he hasn't volunteered where they're hiding, or their names, yes... and I just thought that if I attached some wires to his scrotum... yes, that's correct... he might volunteer the information. May I have your approval, sir. uh huh. Yes, sir. Kick off is at six tonight. Perhaps...

Kurt,

I assume you mean approval of the guidelines?

: )

jt

Post 10

Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - 12:34pm

The question is, "What is it proper for a government to do?" It is never proper to behave like the monsters we are fighting. If we think it is okay, under some conditions, following some procedure, to let government officials torture people... then we have thrown our principles out the window. The very idea is repugnant.

We have (or had) habeous corpus to protect against a government holding a person without charging them - that is, to make sure government abides by the law.

And we have (or had) probable cause to ensure that government couldn't interfere in our lives without the justification that a valid law may have been violated by the person being investigated.

These are legal safeguards against government becoming a rights violator. Any government that puts 'laws' or procedures on the books permitting torture has left the arena of individual rights and joined the ranks of the tyrants. If our government gets away with torturing detainees while avoiding the tough decisions, like going after Saudi Arabia for it's support of terrorists, then it isn't doing the job it is supposed to do.

Post 11

Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - 1:39pm

depends if they are citizens or not - if they are enemy combatants that is fine by me

Post 12

Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - 6:44pm

Yes, Kurt, but you seem to be missing the point, which is - by what process is that determination - "enemy combattant" made?

If this is simply a unitary decision by the President or whoever he appoints, without judicial review, and this is ok, then we have already lost, so we might as well torture and murder anyone who gets in our way. We determine who is a criminal by means of a process that is aimed - one hopes - at verifiably making a correct determination based on the evidence. When the determinations are made behind closed doors and signed off on virtually 100% of the time by a secret FISA court, with no public accountability and no recourse, then I would not trust a single such determination.

So far as torture itself is concerned, as I've already stated in so many words, I'm a Harry Calahan fan. In "Dirty Harry," he used torture because he KNEW that the person he was torturing had the information to save the life of his victim, and that time was running out. That's got to be a personal call by someone who is willing to take full responsibility for their actions, not a national policy of preemptive torture.

Post 13

Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 9:26am

Phil,

I think we agree in principle, if not on the approach. I do think there must be carefully thought out guidelines, and that these guideline must first set out the process for determining whether an 'enemy combatant' is definitely with-holding vital information. This, of necessity, must be determined on the scene, and therefore, of necessity, the persons making that final decision should themselves be experienced, responsible, and highly intelligent. Resorting to even the mildest form of torture should be a decision carefully weighed against the risks. Further, this well qualified person making the final decision must be still willing to accept that they can be held accountable for poor judgement.

I want to say that the "Dirty Harry" scenario is different. Intellectually, I don't think that would be accurate though. Those situations, which may crop up more often than we think, are unlikely to be presided over by a highly trained, specially selected 'responsible person'. For this reason, I don't think it is possible to legally sanction such decisions (involving criminal suspects).

I'd like to add, the "Jack Bauer" method I cited, mostly in fun, is not a means that I personally support. I don't even watch the show.

jt

jt

(Edited by Jay Abbott on 2/25, 11:24am)

Post 14

Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 6:08pm

The point(s) of this discussion were that:

1. John Yoo is allegedly responsible for a whole lot of government wrongdoing via his providing legal cover through his supportive memos for various egregious violations of basic human rights and distortions of legal principles, written to order. As an alleged major criminal - and the facts of his positions do not appear to be in question - he should not be given the sanction of a professorial position in a reputable school of law, such as Chapman, any more than Chapman should hire Osama Bin Laden to provide an opposing viewpoint for their "Peace Studies" program. I would have no objection to Yoo being invited to defend his position in a seminar setting, but granting him the status of professor is a little beyond the pall.

2. As a good example of the kind of violation of human rights that the U.S. government has become notorious for, this may be the perfect opportunity to make this whole set of issues a matter of public debate and disclosure. If successful in drawing sufficient attention, it could easilly serve as a precedent for an ongoing and profit-making enterprise aimed at entertaining and educating the general public as to the actual criminal behavior that our supposed moral leaders in office and as heads of various corporate criminal ventures are guilty of. Even in those cases in which no criminal or civil indictment was forthcoming, the public record of an objective examination and an expert verdict would be sufficiently damning, I would venture, to pose a serious deterent to such behavior. Correspondingly, a positive verdict that exonerated a defendant could serve as a badge of honor.

Post 15

Thursday, February 26, 2009 - 6:07am

It is the last thing I am worrying about. I am far more worried about the whitewashing of Islamist crimes. You should take pause any time you are on the same side as radical leftists.

Post 16

Thursday, February 26, 2009 - 11:41am

I'd like to quote a recent article in the Daily Journal (a California legal newspaper) entitled, "Lawyers Who Bent Law to OK Torture Should Be Prosecuted," by Marjorie Cohn:

"When the United States ratified the Convention Against Torture, we promised to extradite or prosecute those who commit, or are complicit in the commission of, torture. We have two federal criminal statutes for torture prosecutions -- the Torture Statute and the War Crimes Act (torture is considered a war crime under U.S. law). The Torture Convention is unequivocal: Nothing, including a state of war, can be invoked as a justification for torture.

"Yoo redefined torture much more narrowly than U.S. law provides, and counseled the White House that it could evade prosecution under the War Crimes Act by claiming self-defense or necessity. Yoo knew or should have known of the Torture Convention's absolute prohibition on torture.

"There is precedent for holding lawyers criminally liable for giving legally erroneous advice that resulted in great physical or mental harm or death. In U.S. v. Altstoetter, Nazi lawyers were convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity for advising Hitler on how to 'legally' disappear political suspects to special detention camps."

Jordan

Post 17

Thursday, February 26, 2009 - 6:00pm

Thanks, Jordan.

Kurt, I have the same lack of sympathy for torture committed by Islamists. There are times and places in which - as I've implied above - torture is not just morally justified but actually morally mandated. If your loved one was clearly going to die unless you got the information out of some criminal in a hurry, then it would be a betrayal of your own values NOT to torture, if that was the only way to get the information.

However, that's NOT the general situation here. Throwing people secretly into prison with no time limits on detention, no communication with the outside or chance to refute whatever the charges are, on the basis of "Trust me; I'm the President." etc., is a FAR cry from "Dirty Harry."

What screwed-up irrational, malevolent values some Islamic, Christian, or atheist terrorist holds is less my concern than simply protecting myself and those who I do value from their irrational, malevolent actions.

Torture, in that respect, has little to offer as a deterrent to someone who is already planning to die as a suicide bomber, etc. Nor does the military itself see much value in the information so derived, as it is quite possible and even likely that someone will lie and continue to lie under torture.

So torture is only valuable - outside of the limited "Dirty Harry" scenario - if you yourself value revenge and, in the circumstances under discussion, are happy to exact it even if the particular individuals are not guilty of anything but being Muslim, and even though the result will be the radicalization of many more Muslims.

I understand the frustration of feeling victimized and having no recourse. I've had enough robberies and assaults committed against me over the years, believe me. However, I not going to start kidnapping and torturing the next person I notice "looks like" a possible gang-banger.

If you are so frustrated personally that you are willing to hand out symbolic, collective "justice" against a whole class of people, because some small percentage of them are criminals - or to sanction the state doing so, which is morally equivalent, then that's too bad. Because, if so, how are you better than they are?

In fact, if it means so much to you, then why not pull a "Death Wish," and set yourself up as a willing and armed target. Let the terrorists come to you, and then blow them away, and I will applaud, just like the entire theater audience did when I went to see the first in the Bronson series.

Post 18

Friday, February 27, 2009 - 11:28am

Some asides: What makes people think torture is an effective method for getting info. Last I checked it wasn't. And is there nothing to be said for the fact that we've agreed by treaty and federal statute not to torture, so even if it were efficacious, we've given it up as an option in exchange for whatever those treaties and statutes offer in return.

Jordan

Post 19

Friday, February 27, 2009 - 1:38pm