The big story this morning is the release of one John Yoo’s memos about how legal it is to torture people if the president says so. The lawyers among you will no doubt be appalled. Egads!! Sloppy legal reasoning. Actually, it was just a power-play. They defined themselves as above the law and above international standards of morality. They were wrong.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
20 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Oui has a diary up with more details.
he’s always on top of stuff like this.
.
Thanks Boo.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I’m glad you got your anti-lawyer feelings out of the way today early.
I’m not more anti-lawyer than the next guy. Some of my best friends are lawyers.
I agree.
is your snark detector on the fritz this a.m.?
Must be.
Of course there is funny snark that doesn’t belittle any people or any group of people. I like that kind of snark.
And then there’s the rest. The passive aggressive – oh HOW can you see anything wrong in what I said, it’s just snark, kind of snark. You remember, it used to happen a lot here.
Let me give you a hint. It’s not the part that you probably think of as snark. That didn’t bother me.
It was “actually” and “just”.
My point is that the lawyers will read and scoff at the quality of the legal reasoning (but!!! he didn’t even cite Youngstown once!!!), but that’s a distraction. It isn’t bad legal reasoning so much as extra-legal reasoning.
sigh. The next time Diane101 tells you that she just doesn’t see or hear the dog-whistle racial language, I want you to remember this conversation.
Yes – your point was that ‘actually’ the lawyers aren’t going to write anything worth the time of your readers because that’s what lawyers do and everybody should ignore them and instead realize that it’s all about ‘just’ one thing.
One questions under your interpretation why it was even necessary to fight to obtain a copy of the memo. You certainly made clear that you don’t even need to read it to know what it’s all about. And the time the lawyers will spend – worthless.
In rebuttal let me link everybody to one of the best legal minds writing today who wrote a post about the Yoo memo this morning and note that he spends exactly one sentence on the legal reasoning in the memo.
Instead he answers the broader question that you don’t quite get to in your conclusion. If an administration does a power grab like this, is there any chance a supreme court would uphold it and if they would does that mean our whole system is worthless. And he response leads ultimately to the conclusion that the fate of our constitutional system lies in our hands not in the hands of courts. I actually think this is something worth thinking about AND given the predilication of many of your current and past readers to advocate for taking matters into our own hands, something they might find interesting too.
(emphasis mine)
then that particular lawyer sees it the same way that I do. It’s not about the quality of the legal reasoning, it’s about jettisoning all standards of legal reasoning.
Unlike you he didn’t insult lawyers as a group on the way to making his conclusion.
And that’s not what he said at all.
It’s not really an insult. Take it that way if you must.
You are unfuckingbelievable. No wonder Diane and Susie and the other women who find your language sexist get so angry at you.
If a member of a group tells you that they think something is insulting to that group – you should do better than to make a blanket assertion that it isn’t an insult. As if you are the judge of all insults. You might say that you didn’t intend it as an insult. You might even consider apologizing to the person for inadvertantly insulting them if the circumstances are appropriate (and no I’m not saying you need to do it here).
But to follow up that blanket assertion by telling the person that they should take it that way if [they] must. From which the person can reasonably infer that you don’t give a shit. Don’t be suprised when the reaction is one of anger.
Racial speech isn’t the only type of speech where we should stop and examine it when someone claims it’s insulting.
where the hell is the sexist language?
Don’t just drop that on me. I don’t even think Diane or Susie have ever accused me of using sexist language. At worst, Susie lumped me in with other people that are anti-Clinton.
That’s not right of you to say that.
As for your other point, I’m sorry I offended you.
I assumed from Susie’s comments that by lumping you in with others she was including use of sexist language. But if that’s not what she meant, then certainly I was wrong. And I assumed Diane’s use of the phrase hate speech somehow implied sexist language. But perhaps I was wrong there too. I’m sorry if I misrepresented why they were upset with you.
And for the record, I’ve never thought you used sexist language.
As for the other – I appreciate the apology but it really wasn’t that big of a deal š
I give you John Boehner, “CHAMPION OF THE RULE OF LAW” and “FIGHTER FOR ACCOUNTABILITY”
Boehner wins $1M judgment
Here is where it gets really rich.
Wow. In honor of John I think I’m going to go cry now.
Some comedy just writes itself.
illegally recording the phone calls of American citizens!!! It’s an outrage.
My blood runs cold at the thought of John Yoo teaching impressionable minds at Berkley. Believe me, a man like John Yoo has nothing of value to teach anyone.
He is a monster dressed-up as a teacher. He is Neocon-classic; He truly is. The man needs a jail cell-not a classroom or a lecture hall.