Comments on: It all depends on who’s ox is gored: John Yoo and Youngstown

By: Robert

Robert — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:42:50 +0000

Alright Lynda, being a victim of a corporate domestic attack and having war decleared on my family by our own Government I’ll sleep better knowing that you would support anything I feel I should do. Ya, right. Personally I’d like them subjected to the rule of law as well. I guess in real life personal desire is all we have. I’d go along with a military action to remove the scum from running our courts. The AG’s office or state federal agencies won’t do it. They piss on the constitution and everyone else seeking justice pisses in the wind.

By: NMC

NMC — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:46:56 +0000

Anderson, I was thinking more on the lines of “we gave that up when we said goodbye to George III.”

I am almost curious whether Lynda has the same unblinking complete faith and allegiance in President Obama, who is now our wartime leader.

Personally, I want them all subject to the rule of law.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:32:39 +0000

People like Lynda made Hitler possible.

Lynda, there are countries where a Supreme Leader gets to do whatever he deems necessary, with no legal constraints.

A little internet research might help you find them, and I’m sure you’d be happier there, living among other people who admire dictatorship, than you would be in the United States of America, a country conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal … even presidents.

By: Lynda

Lynda — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:22:30 +0000

FOr those of you who seem to have difficulty in figuring out what it means to be “at war”, let me explain it to you. When a representative of any group, whether foreign or domestic, decides to attack citizens of the United States by flying airplanes into buildings, denoting “dirty” bombs, poisoning our water supply, or crippling our economy by destroying infrastructure, he, she or it has declared WAR on US. At that point, WAR has begun even if the planned act itself is not successful. And, at that point in time, our President is OBLIGATED to do whatever is needed to stop the attack AND punish the offender(s). To this end, he or she will have MY complete & total support for whatever action he or she deems is necessary to protect me and my family for the immediate threat as well as discourage similar acts in the future.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:35:42 +0000

The concept of legal seizures of anything, ranks right up there with whatever gets extorted in the process. Is it an ingrained notion that we can only look back on such things as violations of law by pass dictatorships because they were supported by political powers. Even when these things are discovered there’s little concern. Is there even a thought that anything could be done to correct the problem. Just guessing, probably not. So I’d add legal hit and run as a general term explaining much about the Bush years and the government it spawned. The man from Texas was a real cowboy. ” YA!-YOO!!

By: somslawyer

somslawyer — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:32:44 +0000

Unfortunately, Outsider, I agree entirely with your assessment. There’s no unringing that bell. Nor does it toll for Yoo.

By: Outsider

Outsider — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:06:41 +0000

Somslawyer, no one is going to take the fall for the decision to torture prisoners. That decision is just one of the reasons we have lost our moral authority and respectablility in international relations. People outside this country watch what we do more than they listen to what we say. What the United States did (to the horror of many of its citizens) was torture prisoners; and what the United States is now going to do about that (to the disgust of many of its citizens) is exactly nothing.

By: somslawyer

somslawyer — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:07:14 +0000

The concept of a “war crime” has always seemed to me to be an elastic concept designed to give cover to the victors’ killing off their enemies’ leadership after the end of hostilities. If there is domestic law sufficient to prosecute Yoo, Bybee and others for their official actions in the name of the United States, then that prosecution should occur in a United States courtroom. Otherwise, we look like hypocrites – and worse, we will be.

By: JohnR

JohnR — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:20:26 +0000

“How did the line between war and peace get so fuzzy, and who now holds the power to declare this country to be at war?”

We have moved beyond such antiquated, indeed ‘quaint’, notions of separations of powers into the bold new age of the Strong President (which naturally encompasses the Strong Vice-President when the Strong President is unable or unwilling to make the Hard Decisions which need to be made). Only He holds the power to decide when (if ever) we will be at peace again. It’s clear, by the way, that Mr. Yoo feels relieved that his penetrating and trenchant legal reasoning was vindicated by Mr. Margolis’ decision. Not so much that he was afraid of being held legally liable for any supposed “wrong-doing”, but it was uncomfortable to be treated as a legal lightweight at faculty affairs. Thanks to this excellent decision a clear precedent has been set, and furthermore it is now clear that the term “war crimes” does not, by definition, apply to any action by any individual in the Executive Branch of the US government, nor to anyone acting on the orders of such. That’s a relief – now our long national nightmare is finally over.

By: Joe S.

Joe S. — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:18:16 +0000

Shorter Somslawyer: If Yoo is an ethical lawyer, he is a war criminal.

I agree with this. Although it is also possible that he is both.

NOTE TO JOE S. and others: Under my commenting guidelines, I do not allow comments with fake email addresses. I let this one slip by and rather than delete it after the fact, ask that Joe S. email me (your email address will remain anonymous and in fact I don’t need to know who you are).