Hell, why is Yoo still allowed to practice law? We can't find the will to impeach Bush or Cheney, or disbar Yoo. Nothing could better illustrate how utterly broken and debased our legal institutions have become. Not a peep from the ABA disowning Yoo and holding his ideas up to the ridicule they deserve.

Maybe he's thinking about his "legacy" and is concerned there might be a Gitmo style cage in his future. Thus, his only option at this point is to spin, spin, spin.

It takes an indescribably authoritarian mind to believe that one's own Government should have the power to put people in cages for life without having to provide them any meaningful opportunity to prove that they did not do what they are accused of.

Sounds like the old Bourbon Lettres de cachet.

"If there's any justice in the universe, Professor Yoo will likewise 'disappear' into the monstrous system he helped create."

IOW, screw yoo, too.

It's a more serious approach.

... the very last resort of those who know they've got nothing else.

Never mind li'l Scoot. He's off to Whirled Nutz and won't be back today.

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

He's right, you know. John Yoo and his buddies want to turn the country into a police state, and the rest of us don't; so it's only fair that we hew to a true middle course and turn the country into HALF a police state.

See how easy it is?

It takes an indescribably authoritarian mind to believe that one's own Government should have the power to put people in cages for life without having to provide them any meaningful opportunity to prove that they did not do what they are accused of. -- Glenn Greenwald

And, I might add, to place the burden of proof on them, rather than on the power holding them. Not being a lawyer, I can't speak to their status or their rights as non-citizens in law and in our court proceedings, but this seems fundamental to me. If I deprive a person of his liberty -- not to mention torturing him as well -- it seems to me that it's my responsibility to prove that I'm doing so for good, and lawful reasons.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but hasn't Yoo inadvertently granted the Gitmo detainees a right denied them by the US Govt, that of the status of Prisoners of War to whom the Geneva Convention would apply? I would have thought Glenn would have mentioned this, but the hasn't, which leads me to believe I'm missing something actually...

Good grief! Snowballs in hell? George F. Will Condemns McCain's "Posturing" On Supreme Court Ruling

Actually, I generally think of George Will as one of the few honest conservatives left. Not that he hasn't done his fair share of enabling of Bush et al over the past few years. But he's done less of it than most of the blow-hards who pull a paycheck for being regularly wrong in public.

He actually makes sense once in a while, like today.

Of course, there are other times when he's unintentionally guffaw-producing, like when he tried to paint Obama (and Dems in general, of course) as elitist during the "bitter" bru-ha-ha. The thought of George Will -- of all people -- lecturing Dems about elitism still makes me chuckle.

That is the basis of the Bush Administration position. Prisoners it has decided to lock up are whatever the White House says they are, whenever they say it. If being a POW today is of more value than being a criminal, then that is what they are.

The status of the prisoners in Guantanamo really is "People that George W. Bush decided to lock up".

As such they exist at his pleasure, live or die at his discretion and have exactly the rights and privledges he allows to them.

That is John Yoo's position, that is the White House position and, unfortunately, out of 100% loyalty to George W. Bush that is the position of every Republican in America.

IOW, screw yoo, too.

Was that directed at myself or Professor Yoo?

"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.

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.

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