The one thing I have never understood about these arguments, if it were true that these horrible people were captured on a battlefield while fighting against the US, would not these captured people be called and treated as Prisoners of War?

It seems disingenuous to say they're caught fighting against the US in our glorious War on Terror, and then not call them prisoners of war. There are already established and recognized ways to treat such people.

You've answered your own question. If they had admitted that these people were either prisoners of war or suspected criminals, they wouldn't have been able to make up their own rules. This is just one of the more blatant examples of how this administration has behaved -- if there are rules they don't like, they make up their own. Signing statements, "unitary executive", "lost" emails ... it's all of a piece with Nixon's "when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."

The mcClatchey story reminded me of one important question that has gone unanswered for 7 years--who are the people in Guantonamo and (relatedly) how did they get there. No high profile person has asked this question in all this time.

As for the reader who wonders how this guy manages at Berkeley--he has tenure. The vast majority of tenured faculty at major universities deserve it, but some do not. Some quit working the day they got tneure, others got there through plagarism, invented data and other means. Yoo, as I understand it, already had tenure when he went whoring for Bush. There are ways to revoke his tenure, for example, if he plagarized work, or invented data (unfortuantely, he operates in a largely dat-free sphere). Otherwise, he's got a life time job. He probably wouldn't be the first fascist at a major university, just one whose been given a patina of respectaability by mainstream right wing outlets.

. . . did this guy get a job at UC Berkeley???!!! I don't see how his employers at UC can read this post, which correctly points out all the factual errors in his WSJ editorial, and continue to feel comfortable with him educating their law students. Someone needs to tell Yoo, for his own good, to keep his mouth shut. He just keeps digging that hole deeper and deeper. What's the weather like in the Hague this time of year?

Many of the highest-profile "War on Terror" detainees who have been held for years with no charges have been similarly "captured," while unarmed, in the most mundane of circumstances, far away from any "battlefield" -- not "captured fighting against the U.S.," as Yoo misleadingly put it today.

Everyone should remember that the entire world, including the U.S. Homeland is a battlefield in the Global War On Terror.

And I think all of you who are demanding Yoo's dismissal from Berkeley should remember the principle of Academic Freedom.

It's the same reason that all the outrageous ACLU-type law professors aren't fired when they come to the defense of homosexuals accused of committing unnatural acts with Christmas trees.

The justification for all of the incursions on constitutional rights is that we are at war - there have definitely been such incursions in past wars, such as the suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. It should be clear by now that the leadership of the Right, including John McCain, would be perfectly satisfied to have the US in an Orwellian state of perpetual war.

A major reason for this situation is the refusal of Congress to exercise its constitutional right and duty of deciding when the country is at war.

The one thing I have never understood about these arguments, if it were true that these horrible people were captured on a battlefield while fighting against the US, would not these captured people be called and treated as Prisoners of War?

It seems disingenuous to say they're caught fighting against the US in our glorious War on Terror, and then not call them prisoners of war. There are already established and recognized ways to treat such people.

Patrick,

The National Lawyers Guild has called for Yoo to be disbarred.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/09/nationals-lawyers-guild-
calls-for-yoos-disbarment/

And, there have been an array of efforts to initiate Yoo's disbarment by private citizens appealing to their state Bar Associations. There was also a letter writing campaign aimed directly at Berkeley. And, if you go into Balkinization's archives about mid-April this year you'll read a full blown discussion of the various issues and difficulties surrounding Yoo's disbarment or his revocation of tenure.

Blanch,

It begins by giving the detainees the designation enemy combatants as opposed to prisoners of war. And, the issues have been thoroughly dissected by a former commenter of Glenn's, ondelette. Ondelette started their own blog; Humanity Against Crimes. You might want to take a look at this particular post; Context And Ambiguity.

http://humanityagainstcrimes.blogspot.com/2008/04/context-and-ambiguity.html

Do you have proof that there are NO AlQaeda or battlefield combatants affected by this ruling as Yoo indicates?

Unless I'm misreading, Professor Yoo was the one claiming every detainee was a battlefield capture. Glenn was simply pointing out some known examples that show this to be false.

If not, then your statement here is false and his is true. I would think it more likely that both of you are partially correct.

Wait, you actually think? Or was that simply what you were instructed to say?

Why not try the true middle course rather than indulge in untrue absolutes? It's a more serious approach.

You, advocating "a more serious approach" and advising against "untrue absolutes"?

That's rather like taking cooking classes from a cannibal.

"Do you have proof that there are NO AlQaeda or battlefield combatants affected by this ruling as Yoo indicates?"

Which is exactly the point of the habeus corpus rights restored by the Supreme Court. A hearing is necessary to determine if there is any evidence that the detainee in question is a terrorist or merely a cab driver detained in exchange for a bounty. Keep and try the terrorists, let the innocent free.

It is affront to all that is civilized to claim, as the Bush administration and it's various toadies do, that the government can indefinitely detain, without trial or charges, anyone they choose on the basis that they might be a terrorist with no proof whatsoever one way or the other.