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.

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.

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.

. . . 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?

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.

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."

What is with the use of "falsehood(s)?" Why not just lie(s)? Is "lie" unserious?" While they are synonymous obviously, falsehood makes it seem like he is just wrong... he just got it wrong, potentially unintentionally. Lie doesn't make that mistake... it could never be misinterpreted in that way. It also holds more punch. The use of falsehood makes it seem like there is wiggle room or there is potential that he doesn't mean to lie.

John Yoo is a fucking liar. So is Bush. So are Cheney and Rice and damn near every other crank conservative on God's green earth. Falsehood makes it seem like you are scared to call him what he is. Falsehood is a Joe Klein word. A David Broder word.

John Yoo's ongoing falsehoods in service...

John Yoo's ongoing lies in service...

Which reads and sounds more accurate?

G.G. linked to, and quoted from, a "superb McClatchy article" published on Sunday 6/15/2008.

Sunday's article was the first part of a five part series.

The Star-Ledger, the leading newspaper in New Jersey, featured part one as their lead story on the front page of the Star-Ledger's Sunday morning editions.

That's an especially notable decision by the Star-Ledger, because the Star-Ledger is a Newhouse paper, not a McClatchy paper.

Today's (Tuesday 6/17) editions of the Star-Ledger are featuring part three of the series - - below the fold but still on the front page.

Many NYC media professionals live in NJ and see the Star-Ledger "dead tree" (hard copy) front page every day and are seeing part three today.

Here's what they're seeing today (not available online at the Star-Ledger web edition):

* * *

The Star-Ledger's editors exercised their prerogative to re-write McClatchy's headline and first few paragraphs, and you might say that their headline is balanced and generous and forgiving to the Bush Administration today.

That is, Tuesday's front page Star-Ledger headline, for part three of the McClatchy series, says that the Bush Administration's net results in the "war on terror" were achieved accidentally, not on purpose.

THE STAR-LEDGER
Tuesday, June 17, 2008

The accidental incubator for radical Islamists
Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders managed to exploit Guantanamo

BY TOM LASSETER
McClatchy-Tribune News Service

GARDEZ, Afghanistan — Radical Islamists held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanomo Bay, Cuba, were quick to exploit flaws in the U.S. detention system and turn the camp into a school for jihad.

An eight-month investigation by McClatchy Newspapers found that by placing low-level foot soldiers and men with no allegiance to radical Islam in cells next to Taliban and al Qaeda leaders, the camp managed to create more radicals and foster within them a deep hatred of the United States.

The camp set up in Cuba by the Bush administration under special rules soon became a school for jihad [...]

[...] In a classified review of 35 men released from Guantanamo, Pakistani police intelligence concluded in 2005 that the men — most of whom had been subjected to "severe mental and physical torture" — had "extreme feelings of resentment and hatred against USA."

"A lot of our friends are working against the Americans now, because if you torture someone without any reason, what do you expect?" Issa Khan, a former detainee from Pakistan, said in an interview in Islamabad. [...]

- - Today's Guantanamo story (part 3 of a 5 part series) as published on the front page of today's Star-Ledger

* * *

The events of 9/11 had the immediate effect of weakening al Qaeda and of strengthening the USA.

The Bush administration responsed, in Guantanamo and elsewhere, with policies and actions which had the net effect of strengthening al Qaeda and weakening the USA.

The administration proved that it's not necessary to choose between civil liberties and national security - - they destroyed both.