12 May John Yoo, Columnist
You have got to be kidding:
John Yoo has written freelance commentaries for The Inquirer since 2005, however he entered into a contract to write a monthly column in late 2008. I won’t discuss the compensation of anyone who writes for us. Of course, we know more about Mr. Yoo’s actions in the Justice Department now than we did at the time we contracted him. But we did not blindly enter into our agreement. He’s a Philadelphian, and very knowledgeable about the legal subjects he discusses in his commentaries. Our readers have been able to get directly from Mr. Yoo his thoughts on a number of subjects concerning law and the courts, including measures taken by the White House post-9/11. That has promoted further discourse, which is the objective of newspaper commentary (emphasis in original).
I think the Philadelphia Inquirer needs a new name. I suggest the National Enquirer.
Heh.
Well it’s been obvious for a long time that the newspapers and law school legal symposia think he’s a draw.
And it’s actually kind of useful: the new administration can rely on his advice to be pure poison.
*facepalm*
Imagine how my wife and I feel when most people who ask us where our daughter attends school proceed to inform us they first heard of Chapman University upon learning that Yoo is a visiting professor at its law school.
I second vimothy, and I’ll add my own *headdesk*.
Well, if you wanted the possibility of him voiding his good faith claim regarding the torture memos, the only way is to keep him talking.
A question: are lawyers trained to be shameless? This is NOT intended as a contentious question. There is a body of work (i.e. Bernard Williams, *Shame and Necessity*, Mary Douglas *Purity and Danger*, Martha Nussbaum, *Disgust*, Michael Lewis, *Shame: The Exposed Self*, Donald Nathanson, *The Many Faces of Shame*) to suggest that the question is neither rhetorical nor trivial. Yoo is clearly shameless; is this a defect of personality or a professional virtue?
David Fisher
David,
I would be reluctant to say it’s a professional virtue to be shameless, though it probably depends on what area of law you specialize in (personal injury law, high-profile criminal defense, etc.) In Yoo’s case, I’d say he doesn’t feel any shame because (unlike most other people) he still thinks he’s right. Shame is the province of those who admit to making mistakes.
John Yoo is one of the top ten most heavily cited scholars in the field of int’l law. If this theories were so bunk, then why are they cited so frequently?
NSD,
This time you must be kidding. Do you really think that if you examined the citations to Yoo’s work, most of them would be positive? Scholars cite the people they’re criticizing, too.
Perhaps your blog could aspire to more robust analysis than ad hominum attacks on John Yoo and those who want to hear his views.
if you want to carry out character assassination, at least go through the effort to make an argument considering the man’s work.
In addition, if you disagree with his viewpoints on this matter, does that mean that all that his viewpoints are automatically wrong? Does he lack any valid insight on that legal issue or any others? You might believe so. Although I might not agree with his opinions, I do enjoy his work to see how he explains the logic underpinning the analysis. The readers of your blog deserve better than sophomoric character assassination.
I would take your criticism seriously, but for the fact that I have explained at length in other posts why his arguments are profoundly, irredeemably flawed. See, for example, here. But I guess reading those posts isn’t your cup of tea — you’d rather engage in the same kind of “sophomoric character assassination” for which you (wrongly) criticize the blog (ie., me).
For the record, though, we do have one thing in common — I also enjoy reading Yoo’s work “to see how he explains the logic underpinning the analysis.”
Kevin, why don’t you address Erik’s original question. Are John Yoo’s thoughts on any legal matter now automatically in question because of his flawed analysis concerning the torture memos?
I also agree with Erik. Your posts and the tone in which they are written are getting immature. And your response to Erik is really defensive. I think it might be a good idea for you to count to 100 before you respond to people’s posts. Please try to remain civil.
The fact that you previously wrote on John Yoo’s works doesn’t mean you have not committed an ad hominum attack in this particular entry.
Overall, I actually agree with the brunt of your analysis in the linked post ; it might be better to link it next time so that interested (and those who don’t read every post) have easier access to your opinions.
In the meantime, you still might want to give further thought to avoid “poisoning the well” arguments. Yoo might have made poor (or even professionally irresponsible/criminal ) arguments in the past. That fact doesn’t necessarily imply that every idea he writes about is incorrect or criminal. I say this not to pick a fight with you or even criticize you, but to simply state that you are a scholar above this type of writing.
Jamal,
John Yoo is a liar, a fraud, and a charlatan. Read his 2001.09.25 OLC Memo THE PRESIDENT’S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM — it says everything anyone needs to know about Mr. Yoo.
A lawyer who would sign off on that document is unfit to hold any position of public or academic trust. The man is a new-age Nazi.
Charly
Actually, as much as you disagree with him, I can’t see that Yoo is such a bad columnist. We might like to pretend otherwise but law is much like any other discipline and columnist are often chosen as much for their controversy as for their expertise. Consider Maureen Dowd, for example!
Or more seriously, consider Paul Krugman. His column frequently veers off economics into quite controversial politics, which, combined with his brilliant writing style and readability, makes him very widely read and a major draw as a columnist.
I don’t say that Yoo has Krugman’s level of expertise in his chosen discipline, but he is certainly a very accomplished lawyer and the points made above to the effect that some errors in one area do not necessarily diminish his expertise in others are quite apposite.
So I think it is silly to criticise the Philadephia Enquirer for employing him and sillier yet to think that he is unemployable as a legal columnist.
Paul Krugman — Nobel-prize winning economist.
John Yoo — disgraced law professor, likely member of conspiracy to commit torture.
Yep, I see the equivalence.
I admitted it wasn’t a perfect analogy but since I don’t read papers very much I had to think of someone! I don’t think the point is fundamentally damaged.
Taking a quote from Kevin Jon Heller himself on a May 9 posting, both Kevin Jon Heller and Charles Gittings need to “dial down the rhetoric!” 🙂
I did read Mr. Yoo’s OLC memo. While I disagree with the legal analysis, it would be illogical for people to conclude that this memo “says everything anyone needs to know about Mr. Yoo.”
How can a single memo encapsulate every single aspect — personal and professional — of an individual?
Also, while Kevin Heller has every right to post whatever he wants on Opinio Juris, I think he needs to exercise better judgment and restraint. I almost get the sense that he really just writes about ANYTHING that pops into mind. And this reflects poorly on the other contributors who largely address issues with a level head.
Kevin, I also understand that you are representing Radovan Karadzic. If you keep posting intemperate thoughts and smart-alecky comments on this heavily-trafficked website, it will only plant seeds of doubt about your judgment, professionalism, and self-control.
Karen, I am hardly supportive of KJH on this and related issues, but I don’t find him writing about whatever pops into his head is not such a bad thing – that helps start debate and foster communication, ideas, etc.
So keep up the ‘reactive’ posting, Kevin!
Nonetheless Karen has a point about the intemperacy of some of your comments – that is the downside of ‘having the strength of one’s convictions’, I guess, but it certainly doesn’t seem particularly laudable to those who don’t share those convictions (as I don’t).
Karen, Charles is a different case, I don’t think there is much point in appealing to his sense of restraint, or proportion, or indeed to his sense at all.
here is kevin heller’s logic:
(a) john yoo authored a lousy legal justification for torture.
(b) john yoo will write columns for a newspaper.
(c) therefore john yoo’s columns will be lousy.
yep i see the logic.
kevin we all know that you totally hate john yoo. but don’t act like a arrogant teenager who aced the SAT and all his AP exams. write a law review article that demolishes the torture memos. you could have done so in the time you spent writing and responding to all this stuff. well maybe a really short law review article.
Karen,
When you read the memo did you understand that it effectively nullified the US Constitution and the U.S. Code in full?
My statement was not rhetorical in the least: John yoo is unfoit to hold any position of public trust. Like his masters, Bush, Cheney, and Addington, he is a war criminal, a neo-fascist political subversive, and for all practical purposes, a traitor.