It wasn’t too long ago that the students of Berkeley would have protested immediately upon hearing evidence that one of their faculty members had authored a legal document as tyrannical as any of John Yoo’s earlier OLC memos. By this time, Boalt Hall would have been shut down due to student sit-ins.

Not today! Recently, the UC Administration issued a statement that they “could see no reason” why they should consider terminating Mr. Yoo’s position as a law professor. Yet, there have been no signs of student protest. Just another sunny day on the bay!

We’re talking about “Berkeley” here, for Chri’ sake, not Liberty University. Are we all going to stand around and watch as our Constitutional rights are flushed down the Kohler?

Thanks so much for writing such a thorough response to John Yoo's disgraceful editorial. It's amazing how unconcerned certain members (and ex-members) of the Bush administration are with using facts to support their positions. I guess its just easier to fear monger...

Actually, we enjoyed your rebuttal so much that we included excerpts in our [Alliance for Justice] Justice Watch blog today!

Thanks again!

YOO-HOO, IS THERE ANYONE THERE TO, OR AT, HOME

IN John Yoo's EMPTY BRAIN-PAN NOGGIN DOME?????

ACCORDING TO THIS MORON Yoo, THE SUPREME COURT "PROTECTED

al-Qaeda TERRORISTS?" WHAT OUTRAGEOUS ROT Reich-wing SELECTED!!!!!

ENOUGH, Yoo, OF YOUR IRRATIONAL, WARPED, DOGMATIC, JINGOISTIC UN-REASONING NON-BRAIN THAT SOMEWHERE DOES ROAM!!!!!!

John Yoo SHOULD TAKE A PERMANENT DIRT-NAP

ALONG WITH OTHER Bush-ANUS-SUCKING CREEPS, THE IMBECILE SAP!!!!!

SUCH FAULTY SPECIOUS Yoo-THINKING

IS ESPECIALLY RANCIDLY STINKING!!!!!

SO Yoo's BETTER OFF DEAD AND BURIED DEEP IN THE EARTH'S YAWNING GAP!!!!!

A BERKELEY LAW PROFESSOR, YOU SAY?????

BERKELEY MUST BE PRETTY DAMNED HARD UP TO PAY

THIS WAR CRIMINAL AND ENEMY OF FREEDOM CALLED John Yoo

WHO PRACTICES HIS "LAWLESS" SORCERY AND HOODOO VOODOO

DISGUISED AMONGST Bush-ANUS-SUCKING SYCOPHANTIC LOGORRHEIC MONKEY-PLAY!!!!!

Ref. John Yoo.

My dear Glenn,

Once again many thanks for your insight regarding this specific war criminal.

Like his pay masters and handlers, the Bush/ Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Wolfowitz/ Feith et al, the world is looking forward to their trials in the HAIG.

Pleas keep up the good work.

Far be it from me to crash this party of absolute Greenwald syncophants, but as someone who has fought in this war on terror, I thought I should point out a couple things:

1) Greenwald totally ignored Yoo's statements on the implications for future wars, which was the whole heart of his column:

"In World War II, no civilian court reviewed the thousands of German prisoners housed in the U.S. Federal judges never heard cases from the Confederate prisoners of war held during the Civil War. In a trilogy of cases decided at the end of World War II, the Supreme Court agreed that the writ did not benefit enemy aliens held outside the U.S. In the months after the 9/11 attacks, we in the Justice Department relied on the Supreme Court's word when we evaluated Guantanamo Bay as a place to hold al Qaeda terrorists.... Soldiers will have to gather "evidence," which will have to be safeguarded until a court hearing, take statements from "witnesses," and probably provide some kind of Miranda-style warning upon capture. No doubt lawyers will swarm to provide representation for new prisoners."

Is this what we want? Should the hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese prisoners during WWII been allowed to hire lawyers and file challenges to their detentions in US courts?

2) And Khaled El-Masri and Maher Arar? Are you joking? These names are only thrown in Greenwald's column for to be inflammatory; since neither of them were ever held in Gitmo, and are not currently being held by the USA (the "innocent" El-Masri is now being held by the Germans for burning down a department store), they are totally irrelevant to this case.

More here: http://www.shieldofachilles.net/2008/06/future-of-war-battles-of-lawyers.html

Are you as stupid as you sound are you just assuming a pose to enable your blogwhoring?

Far be it from me to crash this party of absolute Greenwald syncophants[sic], but as someone who has fought in this war on terror, I thought I should point out a couple things:

Having been in the military myself I can attest that there are quite a number of really stupid O-3s there, but I have never seen one so ignorant of the Geneva Conventiions, the UCMJ, and the Constitution of the United States that you allegedly took an oath to "support and defend".

1) Greenwald totally ignored Yoo's statements on the implications for future wars, which was the whole heart of his column:

"In World War II, no civilian court reviewed the thousands of German prisoners housed in the U.S. Federal judges never heard cases from the Confederate prisoners of war held during the Civil War. In a trilogy of cases decided at the end of World War II, the Supreme Court agreed that the writ did not benefit enemy aliens held outside the U.S. In the months after the 9/11 attacks, we in the Justice Department relied on the Supreme Court's word when we evaluated Guantanamo Bay as a place to hold al Qaeda terrorists.... Soldiers will have to gather "evidence," which will have to be safeguarded until a court hearing, take statements from "witnesses," and probably provide some kind of Miranda-style warning upon capture. No doubt lawyers will swarm to provide representation for new prisoners."

Since both you and Yoo are obviously ignorant of American history (for Yoo this is understandable since he is not a native American citizen; I don't know what your excuse is), it needs to be pointed out that during the civil war the writ of habeas corpus was suspended as provided for by the Constitution "in cases of rebellion or invasion". Therefore Yoo's argument about habeas corpus and the Civil War is irrelevant and incompetent and Greenwald is quite right to ignore it.

Is this what we want? Should the hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese prisoners during WWII [have] been allowed to hire lawyers and file challenges to their detentions in US courts?

German and Japanese prisoners were held in compliance with the Geneva Conventions which provide for the detention of enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities. In case there is a question about the status of a prisoner as an enemy combatant, a duly authorized tribunal will rule on the prisoner's status.

2) And Khaled El-Masri and Maher Arar? Are you joking? These names are only thrown in Greenwald's column for to be inflammatory; since neither of them were ever held in Gitmo, and are not currently being held by the USA (the "innocent" El-Masri is now being held by the Germans for burning down a department store), they are totally irrelevant to this case.
— johnrohan

Hardly irrelevant. Both men were deprived of liberty without due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Note that this says "no person", not "no citizen". What part of "no person" don't you understand? Wherever the US government exercises its authority, "no person" can be deprived of liberty without due process of law. And the first step of due process is habeas corpus. Both of these men were deprived of liberty without due process (Arar on US soil). Both men sought redress through the courts only to have their suits dismissed because of "state secrets" (the Bush administration's mulligan). If I were Al-Masri, I think I would have burned something down myself just so I could get a chance to tell my story under oath in open court.