Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

A forum for applicants and admitted students to ask law students and graduates about law school and the practice of law.
User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby dresden doll » Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:01 pm

awesomepossum wrote:a strange fact of top law schools. they're willing to do a bit of "affirmative action" to get right wing crazies on their faculty ... they're like the URMs of the legal academia world.


Ann Coulter would be so proud. Promoting the diversity of thought by bringing in as many conservatives as possible was the centerpiece of her anti-AA PS statement for Michigan.

Esc
Posts: 724
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:09 pm

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby Esc » Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:48 pm

Torture, even if it were done solely out of a desire to protect one's country, cannot be excused. However, it should be remembered that this is not why torture was committed. The crimes were commited in order to create an excuse for an unjustifiable war. Frank Rich's article in the NYT summarizes these facts in a concise and chilling article :

....The report found that Maj. Paul Burney, a United States Army psychiatrist assigned to interrogations in Guantánamo Bay that summer of 2002, told Army investigators of another White House imperative: “A large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful.” As higher-ups got more “frustrated” at the inability to prove this connection, the major said, “there was more and more pressure to resort to measures” that might produce that intelligence.

(snip)

Bybee’s memo was written the week after the then-secret (and subsequently leaked) “Downing Street memo,” in which the head of British intelligence informed Tony Blair that the Bush White House was so determined to go to war in Iraq that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

(snip)

But there were no links between 9/11 and Iraq, and the White House knew it. Torture may have been the last hope for coercing such bogus “intelligence” from detainees who would be tempted to say anything to stop the waterboarding.

(snip)

Five years after the Abu Ghraib revelations, we must acknowledge that our government methodically authorized torture and lied about it. But we also must contemplate the possibility that it did so not just out of a sincere, if criminally misguided, desire to “protect” us but also to promote an unnecessary and catastrophic war. Instead of saving us from “another 9/11,” torture was a tool in the campaign to falsify and exploit 9/11 so that fearful Americans would be bamboozled into a mission that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.


Read the whole column. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/opinion/26rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

User avatar
zettsscores40
Posts: 2118
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:49 pm

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby zettsscores40 » Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:27 pm

dresden doll wrote:
awesomepossum wrote:a strange fact of top law schools. they're willing to do a bit of "affirmative action" to get right wing crazies on their faculty ... they're like the URMs of the legal academia world.


Ann Coulter would be so proud. Promoting the diversity of thought by bringing in as many conservatives as possible was the centerpiece of her anti-AA PS statement for Michigan.


I would love to get my hands on some the shit Ann Coulter wrote while at Michigan. I think she was on Law Review right?

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby dresden doll » Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:33 pm

zettsscores40 wrote:
dresden doll wrote:
awesomepossum wrote:a strange fact of top law schools. they're willing to do a bit of "affirmative action" to get right wing crazies on their faculty ... they're like the URMs of the legal academia world.


Ann Coulter would be so proud. Promoting the diversity of thought by bringing in as many conservatives as possible was the centerpiece of her anti-AA PS statement for Michigan.


I would love to get my hands on some the shit Ann Coulter wrote while at Michigan. I think she was on Law Review right?


She was, and she graduated with Order of the Coif honors too. Say what you will - and I'm no fan of hers - but the woman isn't unintelligent.

I'd love to get my hands on her PS as well as other stuff she wrote at Michigan myself. But, yeah, she railed against AA in that PS, saying that schools would better achieve the diversity grail if they focused on recruiting more conservatives, both in terms of faculty and student body.

User avatar
zettsscores40
Posts: 2118
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:49 pm

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby zettsscores40 » Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:36 pm

dresden doll wrote:
zettsscores40 wrote:
dresden doll wrote:
awesomepossum wrote:a strange fact of top law schools. they're willing to do a bit of "affirmative action" to get right wing crazies on their faculty ... they're like the URMs of the legal academia world.


Ann Coulter would be so proud. Promoting the diversity of thought by bringing in as many conservatives as possible was the centerpiece of her anti-AA PS statement for Michigan.


I would love to get my hands on some the shit Ann Coulter wrote while at Michigan. I think she was on Law Review right?


She was, and she graduated with Order of the Coif honors too. Say what you will - and I'm no fan of hers - but the woman isn't unintelligent.

I'd love to get my hands on her PS as well as other stuff she wrote at Michigan myself. But, yeah, she railed against AA in that PS, saying that schools would better achieve the diversity grail if they focused on recruiting more conservatives, both in terms of faculty and student body.


I'm sure her articles are archived somewhere.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby dresden doll » Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:37 pm

zettsscores40 wrote:I'm sure her articles are archived somewhere.


Agreed. I'll probably try to get my hands on some of that during my tenure in AA.

Esc
Posts: 724
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:09 pm

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby Esc » Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:54 pm

dresden doll wrote:
zettsscores40 wrote:
dresden doll wrote:
awesomepossum wrote:a strange fact of top law schools. they're willing to do a bit of "affirmative action" to get right wing crazies on their faculty ... they're like the URMs of the legal academia world.


Ann Coulter would be so proud. Promoting the diversity of thought by bringing in as many conservatives as possible was the centerpiece of her anti-AA PS statement for Michigan.


I would love to get my hands on some the shit Ann Coulter wrote while at Michigan. I think she was on Law Review right?


She was, and she graduated with Order of the Coif honors too. Say what you will - and I'm no fan of hers - but the woman isn't unintelligent.

I'd love to get my hands on her PS as well as other stuff she wrote at Michigan myself. But, yeah, she railed against AA in that PS, saying that schools would better achieve the diversity grail if they focused on recruiting more conservatives, both in terms of faculty and student body.


I've always thought that she simply says inflammatory things just for the attention and the money that comes with it. I'm sure she is very conservative, but I can't help but think she is too smart to believe half the stuff she says.

As regards her Mich PS, given that the diversity goal of AA was/is mainly focused on underrepresented racial groups, how on earth would recruiting conservatives achieve that goal? Considering that there are a higher proportion of white conservatives in the U.S. than there are white non-conservatives, I don't see how that argument would make any logical sense.

User avatar
darkarmour
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 6:38 pm

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby darkarmour » Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:00 pm


SethD2767
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:20 pm

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby SethD2767 » Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:18 pm

Esc wrote:Torture, even if it were done solely out of a desire to protect one's country, cannot be excused. However, it should be remembered that this is not why torture was committed. The crimes were commited in order to create an excuse for an unjustifiable war. Frank Rich's article in the NYT summarizes these facts in a concise and chilling article :

....The report found that Maj. Paul Burney, a United States Army psychiatrist assigned to interrogations in Guantánamo Bay that summer of 2002, told Army investigators of another White House imperative: “A large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful.” As higher-ups got more “frustrated” at the inability to prove this connection, the major said, “there was more and more pressure to resort to measures” that might produce that intelligence.

(snip

Bybee’s memo was written the week after the then-secret (and subsequently leaked) “Downing Street memo,” in which the head of British intelligence informed Tony Blair that the Bush White House was so determined to go to war in Iraq that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

(snip)

But there were no links between 9/11 and Iraq, and the White House knew it. Torture may have been the last hope for coercing such bogus “intelligence” from detainees who would be tempted to say anything to stop the waterboarding.

(snip)

Five years after the Abu Ghraib revelations, we must acknowledge that our government methodically authorized torture and lied about it. But we also must contemplate the possibility that it did so not just out of a sincere, if criminally misguided, desire to “protect” us but also to promote an unnecessary and catastrophic war. Instead of saving us from “another 9/11,” torture was a tool in the campaign to falsify and exploit 9/11 so that fearful Americans would be bamboozled into a mission that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.


Read the whole column. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/opinion/26rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion


Suppose a situation in which we know of a plot to detonate 3 nuclear bombs in America's 3 most populous cities in the next 24 hours. We also know of an individual who has information vital to preventing the bombs from going off. But, the individual refuses to talk. Now, suppose in addition that there is a strong possibility that by torturing him he will reveal this information, and we will be able to prevent the terrorist attacks. Couldn't we say that in this situation we are justified, along utilitarian lines, in using torture?

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby OperaSoprano » Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:23 pm

SethD2767 wrote:
Esc wrote:Torture, even if it were done solely out of a desire to protect one's country, cannot be excused. However, it should be remembered that this is not why torture was committed. The crimes were commited in order to create an excuse for an unjustifiable war. Frank Rich's article in the NYT summarizes these facts in a concise and chilling article :

....The report found that Maj. Paul Burney, a United States Army psychiatrist assigned to interrogations in Guantánamo Bay that summer of 2002, told Army investigators of another White House imperative: “A large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful.” As higher-ups got more “frustrated” at the inability to prove this connection, the major said, “there was more and more pressure to resort to measures” that might produce that intelligence.

(snip

Bybee’s memo was written the week after the then-secret (and subsequently leaked) “Downing Street memo,” in which the head of British intelligence informed Tony Blair that the Bush White House was so determined to go to war in Iraq that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

(snip)

But there were no links between 9/11 and Iraq, and the White House knew it. Torture may have been the last hope for coercing such bogus “intelligence” from detainees who would be tempted to say anything to stop the waterboarding.

(snip)

Five years after the Abu Ghraib revelations, we must acknowledge that our government methodically authorized torture and lied about it. But we also must contemplate the possibility that it did so not just out of a sincere, if criminally misguided, desire to “protect” us but also to promote an unnecessary and catastrophic war. Instead of saving us from “another 9/11,” torture was a tool in the campaign to falsify and exploit 9/11 so that fearful Americans would be bamboozled into a mission that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.


Read the whole column. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/opinion/26rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion


Suppose a situation in which we know of a plot to detonate 3 nuclear bombs in America's 3 most populous cities in the next 24 hours. We also know of an individual who has information vital to preventing the bombs from going off. But, the individual refuses to talk. Now, suppose in addition that there is a strong possibility that by torturing him he will reveal this information, and we will be able to prevent the terrorist attacks. Couldn't we say that in this situation we are justified, along utilitarian lines, in using torture?


A firm and simple NO should suffice here.

User avatar
singularity
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby singularity » Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:26 pm

SethD2767 wrote:
Suppose a situation in which we know of a plot to detonate 3 nuclear bombs in America's 3 most populous cities in the next 24 hours. We also know of an individual who has information vital to preventing the bombs from going off. But, the individual refuses to talk. Now, suppose in addition that there is a strong possibility that by torturing him he will reveal this information, and we will be able to prevent the terrorist attacks. Couldn't we say that in this situation we are justified, along utilitarian lines, in using torture?



I dunno, which side is Vin Diesel on?

SethD2767
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:20 pm

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby SethD2767 » Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:28 pm

OperaSoprano wrote:
SethD2767 wrote:
Esc wrote:Torture, even if it were done solely out of a desire to protect one's country, cannot be excused. However, it should be remembered that this is not why torture was committed. The crimes were commited in order to create an excuse for an unjustifiable war. Frank Rich's article in the NYT summarizes these facts in a concise and chilling article :

....The report found that Maj. Paul Burney, a United States Army psychiatrist assigned to interrogations in Guantánamo Bay that summer of 2002, told Army investigators of another White House imperative: “A large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful.” As higher-ups got more “frustrated” at the inability to prove this connection, the major said, “there was more and more pressure to resort to measures” that might produce that intelligence.

(snip

Bybee’s memo was written the week after the then-secret (and subsequently leaked) “Downing Street memo,” in which the head of British intelligence informed Tony Blair that the Bush White House was so determined to go to war in Iraq that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

(snip)

But there were no links between 9/11 and Iraq, and the White House knew it. Torture may have been the last hope for coercing such bogus “intelligence” from detainees who would be tempted to say anything to stop the waterboarding.

(snip)

Five years after the Abu Ghraib revelations, we must acknowledge that our government methodically authorized torture and lied about it. But we also must contemplate the possibility that it did so not just out of a sincere, if criminally misguided, desire to “protect” us but also to promote an unnecessary and catastrophic war. Instead of saving us from “another 9/11,” torture was a tool in the campaign to falsify and exploit 9/11 so that fearful Americans would be bamboozled into a mission that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.


Read the whole column. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/opinion/26rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion


Suppose a situation in which we know of a plot to detonate 3 nuclear bombs in America's 3 most populous cities in the next 24 hours. We also know of an individual who has information vital to preventing the bombs from going off. But, the individual refuses to talk. Now, suppose in addition that there is a strong possibility that by torturing him he will reveal this information, and we will be able to prevent the terrorist attacks. Couldn't we say that in this situation we are justified, along utilitarian lines, in using torture?


A firm and simple NO should suffice here.


Well, suppose we don't torture the individual and the bombs go off. 20 million people lose their lives and countless other die of radiation poisoning. Aren't we morally culpable for failing to undertake actions necessary to prevent these deaths?

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby dresden doll » Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:32 pm

SethD2767 wrote:Suppose a situation in which we know of a plot to detonate 3 nuclear bombs in America's 3 most populous cities in the next 24 hours. We also know of an individual who has information vital to preventing the bombs from going off. But, the individual refuses to talk. Now, suppose in addition that there is a strong possibility that by torturing him he will reveal this information, and we will be able to prevent the terrorist attacks. Couldn't we say that in this situation we are justified, along utilitarian lines, in using torture?


Suppose none of this applies to the actual torture situations Yoo was involved in?

User avatar
Rotor
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:06 pm

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby Rotor » Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:34 pm

OperaSoprano wrote:
A firm and simple NO should suffice here.


HA. I had a firm and very complicated NO drafted here (which I know many will think is contradicting my prior posts above, but it doesn't. It's 100% consistent)

I'm glad to have clicked cancel and deferred to the eloquence of OS's conciseness.

(And to the hypo, assuming I'm not one of the 20M, I would be sad for those folks, pissed at the offender and would expect to take appropriate action to those responsible.)

SethD2767
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:20 pm

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby SethD2767 » Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:35 pm

singularity wrote:
SethD2767 wrote:
Suppose a situation in which we know of a plot to detonate 3 nuclear bombs in America's 3 most populous cities in the next 24 hours. We also know of an individual who has information vital to preventing the bombs from going off. But, the individual refuses to talk. Now, suppose in addition that there is a strong possibility that by torturing him he will reveal this information, and we will be able to prevent the terrorist attacks. Couldn't we say that in this situation we are justified, along utilitarian lines, in using torture?



I dunno, which side is Vin Diesel on?


Fine, substitute the three American cities with a US military base called Pearl Harbor, and the atomic bombs with several hundred bomber planes owned by the Japanese. If you wanted a more realistic situation...

SethD2767
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:20 pm

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby SethD2767 » Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:37 pm

dresden doll wrote:
SethD2767 wrote:Suppose a situation in which we know of a plot to detonate 3 nuclear bombs in America's 3 most populous cities in the next 24 hours. We also know of an individual who has information vital to preventing the bombs from going off. But, the individual refuses to talk. Now, suppose in addition that there is a strong possibility that by torturing him he will reveal this information, and we will be able to prevent the terrorist attacks. Couldn't we say that in this situation we are justified, along utilitarian lines, in using torture?


Suppose none of this applies to the actual torture situations Yoo was involved in?


I'm only concerned here with whether torture is unjustified in ALL situations, as an above poster mentioned. Whether the conditions justifying torture and those who contribute to it obtain in the case of Yoo is another issue.

Esc
Posts: 724
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:09 pm

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby Esc » Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:45 pm

SethD2767 wrote:
singularity wrote:
SethD2767 wrote:
Suppose a situation in which we know of a plot to detonate 3 nuclear bombs in America's 3 most populous cities in the next 24 hours. We also know of an individual who has information vital to preventing the bombs from going off. But, the individual refuses to talk. Now, suppose in addition that there is a strong possibility that by torturing him he will reveal this information, and we will be able to prevent the terrorist attacks. Couldn't we say that in this situation we are justified, along utilitarian lines, in using torture?



I dunno, which side is Vin Diesel on?


Fine, substitute the three American cities with a US military base called Pearl Harbor, and the atomic bombs with several hundred bomber planes owned by the Japanese. If you wanted a more realistic situation...


According to the U.S. Military...

...The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible - in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life - has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture. Conceptually, proponents envision the application of torture as a means to expedite the exploitation process. In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate intelligence. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption....

CONCLUSION: The application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably, the potential to result in unreliable information....




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403171_pf.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/pdf/JPRA-Memo_042409.pdf

Emphasis added. Now, why don't you STFU, take your bullshit "time bomb" scenario, and go have a wet dream to an episode of 24?

flaco17
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:50 pm

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby flaco17 » Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:55 pm

Esc wrote:
SethD2767 wrote:
singularity wrote:
SethD2767 wrote:
Suppose a situation in which we know of a plot to detonate 3 nuclear bombs in America's 3 most populous cities in the next 24 hours. We also know of an individual who has information vital to preventing the bombs from going off. But, the individual refuses to talk. Now, suppose in addition that there is a strong possibility that by torturing him he will reveal this information, and we will be able to prevent the terrorist attacks. Couldn't we say that in this situation we are justified, along utilitarian lines, in using torture?



I dunno, which side is Vin Diesel on?


Fine, substitute the three American cities with a US military base called Pearl Harbor, and the atomic bombs with several hundred bomber planes owned by the Japanese. If you wanted a more realistic situation...


According to the U.S. Military...

...The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible - in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life - has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture. Conceptually, proponents envision the application of torture as a means to expedite the exploitation process. In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate intelligence. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption....

CONCLUSION: The application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably, the potential to result in unreliable information....




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403171_pf.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/pdf/JPRA-Memo_042409.pdf

Emphasis added. Now, why don't you STFU, take your bullshit "time bomb" scenario, and go have a wet dream to an episode of 24?


This is stupid. If he says 50 terrorists are in X location. You can verify this information. Of course somebody might lie if they are tortured. And they might tell you the truth. If the government has the ability to verify which is the truth or not, then it doesn't matter all that much that somebody will lie X percent of the time.

There are good arguments against torture. However, the it just doesn't work argument is horrible.

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby OperaSoprano » Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:02 am

Even if torture "worked" 100% of the time (and it does not): NO.

That is all.

SethD2767
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:20 pm

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby SethD2767 » Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:17 am

OperaSoprano wrote:Even if torture "worked" 100% of the time (and it does not): NO.

That is all.


Why? Do you have any argument to support your position?

User avatar
econtutornv
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby econtutornv » Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:21 am

SethD2767 wrote:
OperaSoprano wrote:Even if torture "worked" 100% of the time (and it does not): NO.

That is all.


Why? Do you have any argument to support your position?


You could just go off of the 8th amendment...

User avatar
Rotor
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:06 pm

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby Rotor » Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:22 am

SethD2767 wrote:
OperaSoprano wrote:Even if torture "worked" 100% of the time (and it does not): NO.

That is all.


Why? Do you have any argument to support your position?

Because doing so (torturing) subjects Americans to torture when held by other states or non-state actors. If you don't think we have anyone in that situation, I suggest you ask the Iranian-American woman recently convicted of espionage by the Islamic Republic.

(Edit: This is not to say they HAVE tortured her, but rather to say there are instances around the world where our adhearance to international law (or lack thereof) can have serious implications.)

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby OperaSoprano » Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:31 am

SethD2767 wrote:
OperaSoprano wrote:Even if torture "worked" 100% of the time (and it does not): NO.

That is all.


Why? Do you have any argument to support your position?


I look forward to reading the excellent arguments put forth by my peers.

I have supplied the conclusion; I will let others wiser than myself give you the premises.

danconstan
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:42 pm

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby danconstan » Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:32 am

wrigley wrote:crazy smart...like a fox

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GT-BZvhrw


Too funny! Is the guy who is sitting behind Yoo and wispering to him what he should say also present during Yoo's lectures just in case a student asks him a question?

User avatar
badlydrawn
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:11 am

Re: Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo???

Postby badlydrawn » Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:39 am

But, let's say for the sake of argument that the intelligence extracted from torture were reliable, and that time bomb hypothetical you just described became manifest. Let's say, for the sake of argument, I concede that torture in this scenario would be acceptable on utilitarian grounds. Does it demand the proliferation of memos justifying torture which consequently lead to the wholesale implementation of torture torture methods? I would say it does not.

Also, please correct me if I have a quaint view of the practice of law, but if a lawyer is advising a client, and the client asks "Is this action legal?", doesn't a lawyer provide an exhaustive analysis of all sides to a legal question? Or, do we simply espouse solely our own ideological views, however controversial? If not germane to the topic at hand, I would like to know for professional reasons if and when I pass the bar.




Return to “Ask a Law Student / Graduate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests