Dear Panther, (Chapman University Student Newspaper)

I strongly support academic freedom, and I am trying to establish global standards of academic freedom. I do not support firing John Yoo, Fletcher Jones Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law.

However, I can not remain apathetic about torture, kidnapping, habeas corpus, posse comitatus, due process, rendition, signing statements and the imperial presidency, the rule of law, warrantless wiretapping, or the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Yoo’s hiring at Chapman provides us with a special opportunity to rationally discuss these issues, to promote critical thinking, and to bring them to public attention.  

I leave disbarment and judgment of unethical conduct to the bar. Even were Yoo behind bars I would support his freedom of speech and academic freedom. His employment at Chapman and academic competency I leave to the Chapman academic community, however, I caution against using competency as an excuse to eliminate currently unpopular views.

With respect to Yoo’s criminal culpability, the question is whether his memos, not as a professor, but as an employee of the administration, are protected by free speech, or whether they constitute conspiracy to commit crimes, like torture, etc., or to subvert the Constitution. I do support prosecution of egregious criminal activity, especially when it threatens national security. His individual culpability should be decided in court, but could be used as a focus on the issues, which should be widely reviewed and discussed.

Academic freedom is much more important to society than it is to academia. In order to find their way, societies need critical thinking where ideas can compete on the basis of their merit rather than be sold like commodities. The remedy for bad ideas is better ideas. Prisons can be good sources of critical thinking.

Roger Dittmann,

Professor of Physics Emeritus

California State University, Fullerton

I reponded in an email to one of our other organizers as follows:

BTW, I assume you got the letter that Roger sent to the Panther.  I tend to agree with him on the issue of academic freedom.  It's pretty dicey, however, when you start granting professorial status to someone who advocates positions that most people see as morally reprehensible.  Would they hire an alchemist to present an opposing view of chemistry?  Or a "young earth" creationist to present an opposing view of archeology?

The state-funded schools are in a special moral dilemna: Science, by its nature, is based on free inquiry. However, finite resources forces them to choose who is or is not qualified and what conclusions and theories should be presented as fact.  Thus, the state, using money taken by force from alchemists and creationists, then forces the students to test on an unopposed opposing viewpoint.  Is the state morally qualified to make that call?

The field of law is similarly challenged to choose positions on many issues, such as, for example, the legitimacy of various jurisdictions implicit in the common law versus positive law. 

Chapman, as a private institution paid for by the students and other private contributors, has the option of choosing the positions that it will teach, not merely presenting a random assortment of various unintegrated and conflicting views.  Thus, they are under no obligation to allow equal or even balanced access.  Their only real obligation as educators providing a product for a fee is to ensure that the education they provide enhances the students' understanding of that subject matter.  If having Yoo present his position furthers that goal, then so be it.

If, on the other hand, they hired Yoo out of some misguided sense of moral agnosticism, that they had to balance a leftist with a fascist, for example, then they fall prey to the problem that there are not just two sides here.  The spectrum of legal positions is vast, and they HAVE to make choices as to relevance. 

In a true twist of irony, it is the very moral agnosticism that supports hiring someone like Yoo, that is essential to the positions that he took regarding human rights.  Yoo clearly does not support any position that human rights, for example, are anything more than what the state grants us.  So, legality, for Yoo, as far as I can tell, boils down to simple power - what you can get away with in court.

It is not so essential that we get him fired, as Chapman may be right in that his positions - because of their current and historical relevance - should be aired and debated, but rather that we DO in fact expose his positions in the context of our own understanding of moral behavior.  If we are inviting him to speak, in this regard, then we can hardly condemn Chapman for doing the same.

On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with his victims and potential victims who escaped torture, rendition, false imprisonment, etc. by luck sueing him along with the entire Bush administration as co-conspirators.


(Edited by Phil Osborn on 3/21, 3:22pm)

Academic Conference Organizational Meeting 

“National Security and Torture:

Human Rights, Rule of Law, and War Crimes;

The “torture memos” of John Yoo, Fletcher Jones Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law at Chapman University”

Saturday. 18 April 2009

The Tentative Conference Program

9:45 – 10:15 am. Breakfast mixer, poster session, and art show.

[Carol Wells of the Center for Political Graphics has agreed to provide a relevant poster art display, including a continuous power point presentation for which we need a computer, projector, and screen.

The Chairman of the CSUF Political Science Department has agreed to suggest that his faculty assign essays to students that could be displayed as posters. We could offer a prize, but, unless someone acts quickly it will be too late to do it.]

        Conference Chair: Ian Masters [?], Blasé Bonpane [?], Dean Eastman [?]

10:15-11 am. What is the law?—a summary. Nuremberg, Geneva Accords, UN Charter, US Constitution, Treaties.

Introduction by Chapman University President Jim Doti [?]

Erwin Chemerinsky [?] Marjorie Cohn [?], Lisa Hajar, UCSB [?]

11 – 12 am. What is the relationship between torture, national security, and empire?

Larry Everest, author of “Oil, Power, and Empire”

Chalmers Johnson [?]

Noon – 12:30 pm.  Luncheon Concert, Videos

12:30 – 1 pm. The Moral Issue

Stephen Abraham, University Synagogue [interested, not yet confirmed]

Can a religious leader be found to support torture?

1 – 1:30 pm. Personal experiences

IVAW [interested, not yet confirmed]

2 – 2:15 pm. Coffee Break

2:15-3:15 pm. What is the evidence? The Yoo memos and dossier. Issues: torture, rendition, habeas corpus, posse comitatus, subversion of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, warrantless spying, Obama administration practices.

Ann Fagan Ginger, President of the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute, Vincent Bugliosi [?], Center for Constitutional Rights ?

3:15 – 3:20 pm. Coffee Break

3:20 – 4:15 pm. What is the defense?

John Yoo, Fletcher Jones Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law and Dean John C. Eastman

Does torture enhance national or personal security?

Are the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus threats to national and/or personal security?

4:15 – 4:20 pm. Coffee Break

4:20 – 5:20 pm.  Debate, Panel Discussion, and Summaries

John Yoo has verbally committed to debate.

5:20 – 6 pm. Workshop “juries”  on Torture, Posse Comitatus, Habeas Corpus, Due Process, Subversion of the US Constitution

6 – 6:30 pm. Plenary Session, Presentation of “verdicts”.

6:30 – 7 pm Artists and Speakers Reception

7 – 8:30 pm. Dinner and Keynote Speaker

NATIONAL SECURITY, RULE OF LAW & TORTURE

The “torture memos” of John Yoo, FLETCHER JONES Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law at Chapman University 

An Academic Forum

10 am – 2 pm Saturday, 18 April 2009

Chapman University School of Law – Orange, CA

Glassell between Maple and Sycamore Sts.

Room 237A/B -2^nd Fl,

FREE EVENT

Hosted by National Lawyers Guild  Chapman Student Chapter

ohn Yoo, former Bush administration Office of Legal Counsel, drafted legal memos which, some say, influenced the U.S.’s decision to torture. He is a visiting professor at Chapman University School of Law, where the controversy continues.

Join us for an academic forum with Q & A investigating:

·        Whether Yoo is complicit in the commission of war crimes.

·        Whether torture is deleterious to national security.

·        The impact of torture on our basic human and civil rights.

·        The relevant law: Geneva Conventions, U.S. Constitution and Treaties.

·        What remedy is available to torture victims?

Speakers include:

Larry Everest, author of “Oil Power and Empire”

Ann Fagan Ginger, Founder, Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute

Ameena Qazi, Staff Attorney, Council of American Islamic Relations

Tim Goodrich – Iraq Veterans Against the War

Moderated by Michael Slate, KPFK Radio

Endorsed by: Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute - Scientists Without Borders - US Federation of Scholars and Scientists - Social Justice Committee of the Unitarian-Universalist Church in Anaheim - California Teachers for Academic Excellence - Orange County Peace Coalition - World Can’t Wait – LA - Patrick Henry Democratic Club National Lawyers Guild – LA - Code Pink –OC- ANSWER-LA – Military Families Speak Out - OC

Contact  worldcantwait_la@yahoo.com, or 949-257-8501 for more information.

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

Note that most of the speakers are from the left.  I tried to get someone from libertarian or objectivist, but without any response, except for two of the Register editorial staff who are probably going to cover the event.  O'well.  Outreach seems to be a foreign concept to both objectivists and libertarians.

The controversial interrogation technique that simulates drowning was used at least 83 times on suspected al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah, and 183 times on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, believed to be the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, according to the memo.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/20/cia.waterboarding/index.html