« Pricing the Elections | Main | E-Readers and the Future »

November 04, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c031153ef00d834c27ac353ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Review of John's Yoo's WAR BY OTHER MEANS: AN INSIDER'S ACCOUNT OF THE WAR ON TERROR:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

JohnLopresti

I think the host is among the first to recognize the subtle invective in the ostensibly dispassionate theories of Yoo, a tragic hero's tension of conscious and subconscious, divulged by Yoo about himself in his own book. The timing of the book's publication must seem safely after MCA to Yoo, a timely, topical compilation of his work at OLC in a timeframe now prior to possible investigations of precisely what spectrum of legalities that branch of DOJ has proffered to the White House. Some critics are saying the White House was presented options that were less than full spectrum and inadequately documented especially during Yoo's tenure at OLC. My sense of that history is wits ruled in OLC and many other parts of government; the essence was to accomplish immediate quiescence of the global terrorist cell web risk to civilized societies. Now, it is written OLC has normalized somewhat. However, MCA remains untested, though cases are in the courts which might resolve some of its excesses. Torture certainly is among them, as MCA seems to invite workarounds, ennumerating a list of offenses, as it does.
Today there is in the news a declaration of an information official at CIA in one of the cases involving 'coercion of prisoners kept incommunicado in secret eastern bloc prisons'; this statement is *filed as an exhibit in Khan v Bush; the case is described in the Washington Post, and at the UPittJurist, as well. The contention of the information official seems to be a state secrets privilege covers methods of torture as well as conditions of detention; the declaration seems to desire that those secrets are sufficient cause to deny any detainee to give testimony about the torture or living conditions in detainment. I think this case is being brought by family, and that the witness would be a longtime US resident.

To me it is only the slowness of the courts to address unusual problems that has created tension over how to afford rights where due; and that the courts are methodical and thorough is to their credit. Unfortunately the willingness of the terror cells to perpetrate civil destruction precipitated a fairly illicit chain of events in US and other governments, which foremost seek to assure citizens that order is preserved. It is important that we progress beyond Yoo's own experiences at OLC and address the aftermath, as this declaration filed recently on October 26, 2006 shows. DoJ is defending an untested MCA, and how the various cases involved in that process are adjudicated will set the tone for how we proceed toward some kind of normalization and restoration of due process. I think what has occurred like the euphemestically titled AUMF is declaration of partial martial law, though it is couched in terms like the rewrite of FISA and MCA and Patriot; AUMF is a broad declaration of war although not admitting it precisely.

It is interesting the roll of electoral cycles in these slower government problems, as we get a chance again this week to revisit the majority as we see it should be in congress and other offices.
----
*http://balkin.blogspot.com/khan.dorn.aff.pdf

Robert Jackson

Comparing the Commander-in-Chief to a drug dealer is a bit much. Especially when the President is acting on behalf of national security and using his executive powers to do so.

Comparing the President to a licensed pharmacist who sells unprescribed morphine to a minor afflicted with a painful terminal illness might make sense if the argument is that the pharmacist has exceeded the power granted by his license.

But even then Yoo's exact point would be that the people can revoke the President's license by voting into office politicians who pledge to defund the President's policies.

What exactly is so perverse about that argument? And how is it less perverse than comparing the American President to Scarface? Especially since Professor Stone's op-ed is timed to affect the midterm elections held on November 7th and thus is an in-kind contribution to the Democratic Party?

Erasmussimo

Mr. Jackson, I have a nit to offer: the comment did not compare the President to a drug dealer: it compared the breaking of one law with the breaking of another law. Besides, the verb "compare" is notoriously vague in its meaning. I can compare Democrats with Republicans, but that does not mean that Democrats are similar to Republicans. I believe you misconstrue "compare" to mean "assert similarity".

On to a more substantive point: the suggestion that political wrongdoing is tolerable because the people can always vote the wrongdoer out of office falls far short of the need. Suppose that Mr. Bush were to begin summary executions of accused terrorists -- would you still shrug your shoulders and dismiss it with the observation that the people can always vote him out of office? Let's take your position to its logical extreme: suppose Mr. Bush declares Democratic opponents in Congress to be 'enemy combatants' and begins shooting them? Do we just shrug our shoulders and resolve to replace him in 2008 (which will happen regardless)?

We do, of course, have impeachment as a means of relief in such cases. But impeachment is only effective as a deterrent if we all embrace the expectation that the President will comport himself in strict accordance with the law. What's so wrong with the Yoo position is that it declares the President to be above lawful restraint -- thereby subverting the expectation of strict respect for the law.

Fight for Justice

I agree with Geoffrey. I hope he is just as concerned about protecting constitional rights when a Democrat is president.

Robert Jackson

Erasmussimo,
I neither misconstrued the word compare, nor did I misconstrue Stone's piece. You appear neither to know how to define the word compare nor to possess basic literacy.

Erasmussimo: "I believe you misconstrue 'compare' to mean 'assert similarity'."

Main Entry: 1com·pare
Pronunciation: k&m-'per
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): com·pared; com·par·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French comparer, from Latin comparare to couple, compare, from compar like, from com- + par equal
transitive verb
1 : to represent as similar : LIKEN

Erasmussimo: "[T]he comment did not compare the President to a drug dealer"

Stone wrote: "It no more offered the president a 'deal' than our drug laws offer pushers a deal: Don't sell drugs, and you won't go to jail; sell drugs, and you 'take your chances.'"

You're right. Stone compared the President to a pusher, not a drug dealer.

Erasmussimo

Mr. Jackson, you are presenting one definition of a word with many meanings. Yes, 'compare' can be used to mean 'similar'. And since you used the word, you are free to use whatever meaning you intend. So let's use your definition. You say that:

"It no more offered the president a 'deal' than our drug laws offer pushers a deal: Don't sell drugs, and you won't go to jail; sell drugs, and you 'take your chances.'"

means:

"The president is similar to a drug pusher."

Phrasing it this way reveals just how much of a non sequitur your statement is.

GARY

Unfortunately the timing of a political op-ed detracts from the serious torture issues. Does the good professor believe he can unseat the president at the polls? Does the good professor suggest that democrats who support the president in his war on terror should also not be elected? e.g.Conn.
If the offical administration position on torture is as described here, I do not see how anyone can defend it. Unfortunately the argument on that issue will be overlooked by the Bush haters on one side and the Bush lovers on the other.

BAC

The idea that Prof. Stone's book review was designed to affect the election is crazy talk. Although I can't speak for his intentions, I would be very surprised if he actually thought that a 1/3-page review in the Sunday Books section of the Washington Post would have any effect on voters.

If you want to complain about ham-handed politics in the guise of a book review, check out the Kinsley article in the NY Times books section last Sunday. (In any event, even Kinsley's piece is just another voice in the crowd at this point. Now, if Kinsley had reported that George Allen had killed Anna Nicole's son in a lover's spat, that might affect the election; although it is unclear in which direction.)

As for his views on Yoo, I agree wholeheartedly. Our democracy would be well served if our leaders adopted the rule of thumb that whatever Yoo do, you do the opposite.

Joan A. Conway

The excesses of the "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and the collateral damage of Katrina and Rita leave the mark on humanity, and the fat lady hasn't sung just yet!

As the Queen supposedly said, "This untimely death of Diana has diminished the royal throne and the history of the monarch."

As Tony Blair has supposedly said, "The Queen has saved herself."

As many Americans are saying, "This has diminished the U.S. Constitution, because it was only present in form only, and decisions were being made elsewhere."

However, I am extremely happy I am alive to argue this issue, aren't you?

George W. Bush's managerial style, in spite of the growing national debt, is about bottom line.

Yet, in the performance business of engaging the Iraq War, most of his supporters say it is a stalemate, and an oiligarchy about how controls the oil in the Middle East.

The blame game cannot survive our dependency on this source of oil, let alone how most of us do not reflect on the pain and sorrow of our armed forces once a day.

In the important month of November as we gather together to ask the Lord's blessings, let us realize that sharing power in this situation was not what George W. Bush was all about.

He removed decision by committee or by due process. The terrorist and their front organizations were not wearing a uniform belonging to a country.

George W. Bush throw hell to the wind, went into it with purpose, and many followed his lead.

How many other leaders were that forceful and inspired to defeat the terrorists.

If it in hindsight becomes an irresponsible act, I for one am grateful I have lived to complain about it.

xian

Ms. Conway:
Way to present false choices. Acquiesce to illegal acts because the alternative is death? Is that not the false choice that terrorism is designed to elicit?

Robert Jackson

Erasmussimo: Phrasing it this way reveals just how much of a non sequitur your statement is.

Apparently, Erasmussimo, you don't know what non sequitur means, either. You are saying that comparable parts of an analogy are logically unrelated. That is absurd.

LAK

Robert,

You are disingenuous. Stone contrasted Yoo's characterization of FISA with drug laws. In no way shape or form was he comapring the President to a drug pusher.

If you would read the paragraph in an honest way, Stone is simply illustrating Yoo's bizzare interprestation of FISA, which YOO charaterizes as offering the president a "deal" whereby he takes his chances if he engages in wireless surveillance without a warrant. Stone simply compares this charaterization of FISA with a similarly absurd interprestation of drug laws, to highlightthe absurdity, whereby if one sells drugs, they are "taking their chances" with breaking the law rather than obviously committing a crime.

I mean this with all sincerity:

You shuold really be ashamed of yourself, of your intellect and how you shoose to argue. And that is coming from me, who is not ery concerned with discoruse ethics.

Lying and misconstruing language to place ideas in the mouths of people is nothing short of pathetic. At least just resort to insults like I do to conservative fools like yourself. But purposefully bending words? You'd be better off and more welcome on the Harvard law blog.


Joan A. Conway

xian's comment that the "Way to present false choices. Acquiesce to illegal acts because the alternative is death? Is that not the false choice that terrorism is designed to elicit?" Posted by: xian | November 06, 2006 at 05:19 PM

Are you a friend of Scarlett? Yet, in the performance business of engaging the Iraq War, most of his (Bush's) supporters say it is a stalemate, and an oiligarchy about how controls the oil in the Middle East.

When American just about exterminated the American Indians in their crusade to civilize the West and other terrorities, the famous line was the Calvary is coming!

But everyone knows, especially after Katrina and Rita, that the Federal government is carrying its citizens in spirit alone and that its minutemen, militia, vigilantes, and posses must go it alone, because the federal government can't do the impossible.

What was available to G. W. Bush was an interpretation of the Geneva Convention where like minds could disagree.

What was Bush's job, Bush did, and he capitulated with Donald Rumsfeld on 11/8/06, at noon, Central Standard Time, to the people's disgust with his failings.

This is untimely for the many who lost their lives in the war and its collateral damage, even in America.

But Bush was a single issue Presidency, and he had not build a voter's bank of favorable outcomes on other issues.

His mandate was what it was!

I believe Clinton tried to negotiate with an unreasonable authority in the area, and failed before Bush took office.

I believe Bush and the Clinton administration were at a lost of how to defend our nation without the attendant abuses to human rights, prisoners and surveillance on citizens.

But when push came to shove, both Clinton and Bush were working for Americans, without perfect knowledge as to how to defeat an enemy, who pushed the envelope to the edge.

If the enemy takes hostage behind women and children, innocent vulnerable people, then the enemy forced the outcome to be as ruthless as the enemy's strategy.

That cannot excuse the atrocity, but "an eye for an eye" became the logan of the immediate reaction to the 911 attack.

Let the attacker beware! Yes, that is the jujitsu of the biocidal process. A circle of violence, isn't it!

Erasmussimo

Ms. Conway, you seem to be arguing something along the lines of "desperate times call for desperate measures", or perhaps "fight fire with fire" (I'm sure there are other cliches I could dig up, and I apologize if I'm twisting your words, but I want to clarify the notion I think I'm responding to.)

What I object to about this line of thinking is its short-sightedness. Yes, we want to worry about the bottom line -- but WHICH bottom line? When we add up the pluses and minuses of the various policy options, do we include only those consequences that manifest themselves in 2006? What about consequences that won't manifest themselves until 2010? 2015? Most of my objections to current policy concern the long-term consequences of our actions.

For example, any informed application of historical knowledge would lead to the conclusion that the notion of bringing democracy to Iraq was doomed to utter failure. Sure, we were able to get purple fingers -- but one election does not a democracy make. Building a successful, stable democracy requires conditions that simply don't exist in Iraq. In the short run, democracy looked possible. But in the long run, it was doomed from the outset.

I have two responses to your point that one must be alive to enjoy the benefits of liberty -- implying that freedom must take a lower priority than security. First, we must remember the trade-off between short-term security and long-term security. The war in Iraq might -- MIGHT -- have enhanced our short term security. But it most certainly has diminished our long term security.

More important is the fact that security is not a black-and-white consideration, it's a matter of degree. Absolute, 100% security is an unobtainable ideal. We can only reduce annual casualties to some level we find acceptable. On this point, Americans have lost all sense of perspective. They have gone hysterical about 9/11, screaming mindlessly over and over "9/11!!! 9/11!!! 9/11!!!" Let's put this in perspective. 3,000 people died on 9/11. We kill more than 10 times that many people every year on our roads. Would you banish automobiles? We kill more people with guns every year -- would you revoke the Second Amendment? Americans are dying every day of all manner of preventable causes and you are fixated on one cause that, in any list of dangers, falls in the same general area as snakebites and accidental electrocutions.

The goal of terrorists is to terrorize people. They seem to have succeeded fabulously in your case.

David

Eras--

1. There is no way to foresee what will happen in December 2006, let alone in 2015. Speculation about the future is exactly that: speculation. E.g. on Monday, November 6, would you have predicted that Rumsfeld would be out as Defense Secretary on November 8?

2. Based on my fairly good knowledge of history, I believe that the chances of ultimately bringing some kind of democracy to Iraq are much higher than the chances of our ultimate success in Afghanistan.

3. You believe that the War in Iraq has decreased our security long-term. I believe that the opposite is true. See the following commentary: http://fbc.binghamton.edu/commentr.htm (Commentary No. 4, Nov. 15, 1998
("The Strategy of Saddam Hussein"). You seem to think that the jihadis would leave us alone if we quit Iraq or if we had never toppled Saddam. There is no evidence at all for that, other than wishful thinking, and much evidence to the contrary: e.g. 9/11.

Joan A. Conway

Pardon the pun: "Its the economy stupid!"

This is a capitalistic system.

And the system took a very bad blow from the 911 disaster.

The airline industry was very hard hit, vacation resorts were also affected, the financial market suffered from dislocation and the destruction to our human resource pool of talent cannot be measured in our life time.

This does not mention every economy that was sent down the tubes either, not forget the Pentagon also suffered severe damage. This affected our national security.

Be real!

With the American Capitalistic System it is always capital before democracy.

Without capital there is no democracy.

Sorry, but you are arguing with someone who shares and sees where you are coming from, but also understands the waste associated with the squander is the exact reason for our woes and why we voted the democrats into office.

The question remains for the MidEast region are they happier with the Demos in power or the would they have preferred the Republicans?

The goal of terrorists is to terrorize people. They seem to have succeeded fabulously in your case.

Posted by: Erasmussimo | November 09, 2006 at 10:09 AM

You seem to think that the jihadis would leave us alone if we quit Iraq or if we had never toppled Saddam. There is no evidence at all for that, other than wishful thinking, and much evidence to the contrary: e.g. 9/11.

Posted by: David | November 09, 2006 at 01:28 PM


The social myth of democracy within a chauvinistic nation, like Iraq, is driven by needs of ethnic purification, and stimulates xenophobic attacks on those that the terrorists feel makes it look bad, namely the Israeli and the United States.

These attempts to tie the Iraqi people into being full participants in govenment in order to make government fair for the diverse sects (to influence the outcome of its government) cannot but be a blunder in a culture that is many centuries old, and hardened to dispair. A more reasonable authority will not result in this region because of leaving the barn yard door open.

And when the political stage is left bare in Iraq, with the main protagonist behind bars, we invite in the protective associations bent on their idea of purification and which group should rule.

The neighboring countries will force the Iraqi people to be dependent on the acquisition power and subordinate them in the outcome with its self-serving policies.

Much like Germany did to the Netherlands.

I really don't see where all of this is leading to -- except to announce war with Iran, China, and Russia in the near future.

Perhaps one of the reasons that we have not been attacked since 911 is that we brought the wide world to them with road building and educational programs, since the region and its terrorists have no economic policies to offer its subjects. We inadvertently made them look good. This destroys the motivation to attack us with chauvinists!

Therefore, they exploit their population for Western resources that they would ordinarily dispose of one way or another.

It appears to be an opportunity to get something for a few Muslim lives from a hostile government, the United States, without going forward and returning to their purification activities.

The is not an end game for anyone; it is to squander lives and resources to even the political stakes between warring groups.

Many don't wish to discuss it, because of the groups involved and the lack of a political process.

The reults are that rule of force and cunning oppresses diversity and full participation in government, which would follow the rule of law.

Posted by: Joan A. Conway | September 11, 2006 at 04:51 PM

离心风机

Posted by: 离心风机 | September 15, 2006 at 03:50 AM

Paid loyalties and ethic purification rooting from civilians contribute to party boss and government's "revenue" stream, pecuniary and inflammatory. The ethic purification is not limited within religion in Middle East but covers democracy system and mercantile doctrine. If the assertion is rebelled, people scattered globally would not have taken serious caution and hardened stance toward terrorists and plus Congress would not have authorized that notorious Iraq War.
It shall be noted here with a fluorescent tag that attacks never stop and terrorists never suspend malicious plots. Infrastructure building and self-serving deplomatic policies driven by ulterior motives seem to be malfunctioning to get innocent swamped soldiers retreating from under hell grotto/sword. As a plus, Large-scale biocidal proceedings have diffused into Europe.
Global unification in front of terrorism gives many states an opportunity reflecting from the interdependence between politics, economy, military and any other fields which could be a competitive qualification in diplomacy, esp formal talk and trade-like territory coorperation.
It can be said again that these series of events devote to world-politically structural remodification and enable countries to find an easier execuse to launch actions.
But the potential turnaround or potential inertia stalemate in Iraq cannot be announced conclusively by my quotes from Joan A.Conway here:
"I really don't see where all of this is leading to -- except to announce war with Iran, China, and Russia in the near future."

Posted by: Scarlett | October 14, 2006 at 10:21 AM

Whether the Iraq conflict can stand the test of time or withstand the assault of the ballot box remains to be seen. It also may be seen as the end of the conflict with the American pull-out of all of Scarlett's potentials.

Terrorism is what happens when the is no opportunity for potentials.

"It can be said again that these series of events devote to world-politically structural remodification and enable countries to find an easier execuse to launch actions," a quote by Scarlett.

This is the second time I retried to make this statement. The first time was more rehearsed.

Erasmussimo

David, I have a couple of thoughts to offer. You mention the cost of 9/11. There have been a number of estimates of the total cost of 9/11. The problem in making such estimate lies in whether to factor in the responses to 9/11. If you confine the calculation to economic losses sustained directly from the attacks, then the estimates range from a low of $200 billion to a high of $500 billion (at least in the numbers I have seen.) Yes, it was expensive. But the reaction to 9/11 is already more costly than the attack itself. Iraq has cost us about $400 billion so far and is projected to cost a total of perhaps a trillion dollars. I don't have the figures for Afghanistan at hand, but they are much lower -- perhaps only about $100 billion. Then there is the damage done to the airline industry by the increased security standards and the reduction in travel efficiency. And of course there are the direct costs of the Department of Homeland Security.

I suggest that our reaction to 9/11 has been more destructive than the attack itself.

Your reading of history suggests to you that the chances of bringing democracy to Iraq are higher the chances of bringing democracy to Afghanistan. I agree with this. However, those overall chances remain tiny because Iraq is essentially a patronage-based society. The transition from patronage to the rule of law is a slow and difficult process. It took us about a thousand years to pull it off. Whatever leads you to believe that it could be done in substantially less time?

As to your speculation about my beliefs regarding Islamic terrorism, you are incorrect.

Joan A. Conway

Remember the historical fact that the English and the French have been battling out their superiority over terrority for many centuries, like the Iroquois Indians.

This is a white man conquest of the oil resources of the Middle East, or an oilogarchy with the English and its independent colonies in support of its endeavors.

You see where the French are don't you.

This is for world dominance of natural resources and to extend American/English control of natural resources over the entire globe.

We don't trust anyone else! Cost/Benefit Ration affects our interest and we move slowly toward the stated goal, but nevertheless the pattern for the English and French confrontations is about terrority and dominance of natural resources, now it is ours as well.

We purchased our security with intervention and development of the primative warring states.
Erasmussimo | November 09, 2006 at 02:10 PM

Your reading of history suggests to you that the chances of bringing democracy to Iraq are higher the chances of bringing democracy to Afghanistan. I agree with this. However, those overall chances remain tiny because Iraq is essentially a patronage-based society. The transition from patronage to the rule of law is a slow and difficult process. It took us about a thousand years to pull it off. Whatever leads you to believe that it could be done in substantially less time?

Robert Jackson

LAK,

If I say that the sun is like a wilting rose, and then you say "You mean that the sun is going down (dying)" and I say yes and then you say "And you also mean that the sun is round and bright red" and then I say no, what I am doing is denying the truth. Much like yourself here. If you put forth an analogy, you commit to all its relationships. In the analogy Stone used, President Bush = drug pusher.

Please take your medication.

Erasmussimo

Mr. Jackson, I am surprised that you continue to pound this drum. You confuse analogy with equality. An analogy posits some points of similarity between two otherwise different concepts. "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" does not mean that the girl is a 24-hour period with more sunlit time than dark time. It means that, although the girl and the summer's day are very different, in one or more respects they have something in common.

LAK

Robert,

Your mind must be smaller than even your penis. You are a shallow thinker and it must be embarassing to think as poorly as you do.

Please, do go to hell and get off this blog if you must continue to lie and say bizzare things and attribute statements and comparisons to those who do not make them.

I truly pity you.

Robert Jackson

Apparently, Eras, you don't know what an analogy is, either.

Analogy

–noun, plural -gies. 1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3. Biology. an analogous relationship.
4. Linguistics. a. the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
b. a form resulting from such a process.

5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

George Bush is rumored to have had a drug problem.

Robert Jackson

"Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?"

This is not an analogy.

LAK

Right. So what was being analogized was Yoo's interpretation of FISA to a equally absurd inetrpretation of drug laws.

Seriously, how can you live with yourself? How do you not suffer from the shame of knowing you are an intellectual coward?

You must be a pitiable human being. Your shame must be overwhelming when you bother to have any.


curtisstrong

Robert Jackson,

I may not know a whole lot...but I do know a bit about literature, a definition which you don´t mention above, but is actually what we´re dealing with in Shakespeare´s Sonnet 18.

The short cut for an analogy, you probably learned this in 7th grade reading class, is a comparison using "like" or "as." The basic idea is to compare two things that have some similar qualities. As we learn more about literature, we´ll find that there are other instances, such as this one, where a comparison is made without using "like" or "as," but rather with words such as "compare," "similar," or "you share the qualities of"...etc.

Shakespeare is creating an analogy here with the open lines, and later expresses specific qualities that the two subjects have in common. Shakespeare then takes the "thee" (most probably speaking of his own sonnet...a bit arrogent, but interesting nonetheless), and shows that in all the similarites the two share, "thee" is even more delightful than the summer´s day. There are absolutely some similarities between the two here in the Sonnet, and they are delineated in a fairly clear manner (although, as I said, "thee" has MORE of these qualities, where we would actually expect it to be the reverse).

I´m surprised at your repeated use of the dictionary to define something that you clearly have little knowledge about.

Moreover, Stone´s analogy above is an analogy between his personal views of what should be similarities in ACCOUNTABILITY when someone breaks the law, NOT the actions themselves. He´s talking about the vagueness of the term "takes his chances,"
and feels that this is inappropriate, just as THAT TERM would be inappropriate for anyone else who breaks the law.

Any other uninformed things you´d like to add?

The comments to this entry are closed.