John Yoo
John Yoo
John Choon Yoo is a Korean-American attorney, law professor, and author. Yoo is currently the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley. Previously, he served as a political appointee, the Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, during the George W. Bush administration. He is best known for his opinions concerning the Geneva Conventions that legitimized the War on Terror by the United States. He also authored the...
NationalityAmerican
ProfessionEducator
Date of Birth10 June 1967
CountryUnited States of America
Punishing abuse in Iraq should not return the U.S. to Sept. 10, 2001, in the way it fights al Qaeda, while Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants remain at large and continue to plan attacks.
That is because the conflict with al Qaeda is not governed by the Geneva Conventions, which applies only to international conflicts between states that have signed them.
It shows an interest in thinking deeply about the role of the courts in society and the proper interpretation of the Constitution based on its text and history.
It urges policy makers and the Supreme Court to make the mistake of curing what could prove to be an isolated problem by disarming the government of its principal weapon to stop future terrorist attacks.
It's a document that reinforces tradition, ... incremental changes.
This means that the U.S. can pursue different interrogation policies in each location. In fact, Abu Ghraib highlights the benefits of Guantanamo.
The Bush administration policy is against torture of any kind; it's prohibited by federal criminal law.
The national government has certain kinds of compelling interests that conflict with the right of the press to keep their sources confidential, like national defense and security.
A decision by the Supreme Court to subject Guantanamo to judicial review would eliminate these advantages.
I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that.
Whatever benefits would have been gained by interrogating him are now gone,
I'm not talking policy. I'm just talking about the law.
The naval station's location means the military can base more personnel there and devote more resources to training and supervision.
If you believe those rules have been changed by the state Supreme Court in this instance, you have the legal right and indeed the constitutional duty at that point to intervene,