| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Professor Denounced for POW Memo for Bush |
| 2004-05-24 |
| Some graduating University of California law students used their commencement Saturday to denounce a professor who helped the Bush administration develop a legal framework that critics say led to the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. About one-quarter of the 270 graduates of Berkeley’s Boalt School of Law donned red armbands over their black robes in a silent protest of a legal memo law professor John Yoo co-wrote when he served in the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Outside the ceremony, they also passed out fliers denouncing Yoo for "aiding and abetting war crimes." Yoo said beforehand he didn’t plan to attend the graduation. "I respect freedom of thought, but I think he should abide by some basic moral standard," said Andrea Ruiz, 35, one of the armband-wearing students. "Respect for human persons is at the core of what the law is about." The Jan. 9, 2002, memo, first reported by Newsweek magazine Monday, laid out the legal reasons why the United States didn’t have to comply with international treaties governing prisoner rights. It argued that the normal laws of armed conflict didn’t apply to al-Qaida and Taliban militia prisoners because they didn’t belong to a state. Yoo, who worked for the Justice Department between 2001 and 2003, wouldn’t comment on the memo or his government work, but said the students have a right to express their opinions. "I’m happy to listen to their viewpoints. Beyond that I’m not going to change what I think," Yoo, 36, said during a telephone interview Friday. A petition signed by nearly 200 law students and alumni since Thursday alleges that Yoo’s memo "contributed directly to the reprehensible violation of human rights in Iraq and elsewhere." "We’re embarrassed that he’s at our institution," said law student Abby Reyes, who launched the petition. "We came to law school in order to uphold the rule of law, not to learn ways to wiggle our way out of compliance with it." The student petition urges Yoo to repudiate the memo, declare his opposition to torture and encourage the Bush administration to comply with the Geneva Conventions that protect the rights of prisoners of war. Otherwise, he should resign, the petition says. Yoo said he had no plans to resign. "To the extent that the petition goes beyond expressing views, I worry that it’s an unfortunate effort to interfere with academic freedom," he said. Interim Dean Robert C. Berring Jr. said the law school had no plans to discipline Yoo. "The image of Berkeley is the very progressive image," Berring said, "but I think you’d find at Berkeley a pretty wide range of opinions. Professor Yoo is certainly not the only conservative on campus or at the law school." During a May 13 appearance on "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," Yoo said he thought the pictures of prisoners being abused at the Baghdad prison showed clear violations of the Geneva Conventions. "So the question is not whether the Geneva Conventions apply or really whether they’re violated or not but how we’re going to remedy the situation, and the military is undertaking that," he said, adding that violators should be punished and tried. |
| Posted by:Mark Espinola |
| #15 I'm not sure there's any intel value, but these prisoners would cut your throat given half a chance - I don't think there's any rehabilitation possible with these animals. No release except at 25,000 feet... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-24 7:24:13 PM |
| #14 I guess my question was not clear. I never said these were nice guys, I never said they were human, and never said to release them outright. Short of executing them I don't see an advantage to using the Unlawful Combatant classification any longer. We're facing some serious legal problems as the thugs go to trial that could be settled with a change of classification. Classifying them as POWs eliminates any claims to a civilian jury trial, something that will be screamed about endlessly otherwise. It also allows us to hold onto the prisoners until there is a formal peace treaty (something I don't think will ever happen). What advantage is there in keeping these guys categorized as non-combatants after a two years of incarceration? Do you really think they have any intel at this point? Do you honestly think the Bush Administration would execute them? If your answer is no then whats the advantage? This is war and we shouldn't just let advantages slip by because of emotions. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-05-24 6:16:48 PM |
#13 ruprecht asks: I think such a move now would eliminate much of the human rights abuse claims against the US regarding such prisoners. Am I wrong?In a word, yes. The clowns who claim "human rights abuse" against us will continue to claim that, or something else, until America is defeated and destroyed. Nothing less will satisfy them. Anyway, the Gitmo inhabitants aren't human. If you think they are, I invite you to take some home with you for the weekend. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-05-24 5:19:46 PM |
| #12 "Who do we negotiate with and why?" If Al Queda or the Taliban choose to negotiate they determine who the negotiator will be. We then determine how much we trust that negotiators ability to do what he says. Saying we negotiate is a far cry from saying we'll bend over and release everyone. I'd turn over a hundred Al Queda lackeys for Bin Laden (or his head). "Any Al'Qaeda we capture should be grilled for intelligence info, then executed." What are we waiting for then. We've gotten all of the intelligence out of these guys months or years ago. Now they are in legal limbo. I'd be happy to execute them. I'd be happy to change their legal status to POW and otherwise let them rot. As I said above, I'd be happy to free a few POWs if the exchange resulted in Bin Laden (or some other Al Queda leaders) capture. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-05-24 5:01:49 PM |
| #11 When Al Queda and the Taliban surrender (or we find some other route to peace) we can discuss a prisoner transfer. Nope. Absolutely not. Any al'Qaeda we capture should be grilled for intelligence info, then executed. They've placed themselves outside the law; let them pay the price for it. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-05-24 4:35:51 PM |
| #10 When Al Queda and the Taliban surrender (or we find some other route to peace) we can discuss a prisoner transfer. Who do we negotiate with and why? Do we release killers so the world feels better about us? I don't think so |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-24 4:28:10 PM |
| #9 It is stuff like this that makes it so hard to admit being an attorney in California. |
| Posted by: Sgt.DT 2004-05-24 4:20:08 PM |
| #8 I agree with the absence of POW status for the Guantanimo hardboys, at least for the first year or so when we still might get some information out of them, but now, I think things might be better to grant them POW status since any info they have is old, and the identities of most is known already because we've released so many prisoners already. When Al Queda and the Taliban surrender (or we find some other route to peace) we can discuss a prisoner transfer. I think such a move now would eliminate much of the human rights abuse claims against the US regarding such prisoners. Am I wrong? |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-05-24 3:25:37 PM |
| #7 Looks like the Public Defenders office for you, Abby... and it ain't like the movies... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-05-24 1:19:43 PM |
| #6 "We came to law school in order to uphold the rule of law, not to learn ways to wiggle our way out of compliance with it." So much for your career in Democratic politics... |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-05-24 12:53:38 PM |
| #5 Great. More lawyer larvae. Just what we needed. |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-05-24 10:54:20 AM |
| #4 About one-quarter of the 270 graduates of Berkeley’s Boalt School of Law donned red armbands over their black robes in a silent protest So, about three-fourth's didn't participate in the protest. . |
| Posted by: Anonymous4978 2004-05-24 2:51:36 AM |
| #3 "We came to law school in order to uphold the rule of law, not to learn ways to wiggle our way out of compliance with it." It's funny, I didn't read a thing in the article that pointed out how Prof. Yoo was wrong in his legal analysis. It's all emotion. I thought law school was intended to teach legal reasoning and argument. I'm not surprised they didn't point out Prof. Yoo's errors, because he didn't make any. The Geneva Conventions apply only to those States, which have signed the treaties and have agreed to abide by their provisions. The terrorists do none of this. Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg show how they treat prisoners, not to mention the fact that both of these guys were non-combatants. You should only benefit from the rules of civilization, when you abide by those rules. There is no obligantion, explicitly stated in the Geneva Conventions, to treat terrorists as decent human beings. Not there and this is no attack on human rights. It's upholding human rights. If one-side doesn't play by the rules, it has an advantage. There's no reason to tie our hands, unless you want America to lose. Now, that's the crux. |
| Posted by: Jabba the Nutt 2004-05-24 2:14:15 AM |
| #2 These spoiled Mumia-cong brats have no problem with another and much more illustrious legal colleague, Ramsey Clark, profitably abetting Saddam Hussein's atrocities for years in his capacity as Saddam's official legal representative in the United States. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-05-24 1:38:42 AM |
| #1 "We came to law school in order to uphold the rule of law, not to learn ways to wiggle our way out of compliance with it." This woman has completely missed the point of law school. A googling on Abby Reyes is most instructive. Previous anti-war activities. Letter to Al Gore re: her dead boyfriend, Terence Freitas. It's high time that someone tried to clarify the legal status of captured Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Reyes et al would like to make them equivalent to captured Nazis, if not captured burglars. Someone alse needs to explain that "not covered by the GC" does not necessarily mean they are fair game for torture. |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz 2004-05-24 12:39:23 AM |