Letter to the Editor

Professor's Memo Challenges Nation's Values

Boalt Hall School of Law Professor John C. Yoo's defense of his notorious memo that ran in the June 14 issue of The Daily Californian is not actually much of a defense at all-it reeks of the evasions and deceptions that this administration has come to be known for. Yoo opens his piece by making reference to "a paroxysm of leaking," which reads as if he is trying to blame the contretemps over the memo on something other than the damning words he wrote.

However, this is simply a minor quibble compared with the crux of Yoo's self-defense, which is that "the president's policy is to treat the detainees humanely." In other words, more of the same "trust me" rhetoric that we have heard from the administration since the opening of the war on terror.

According to Yoo and many others in the goverment as well as its outside defenders, so long as the president simply promises to behave and respect the law and its principles, we should be satisfied, regardless of whether or not this is being upheld in practice.

The Abu Ghraib scandal shows that all we get from this administration and its apologists are words, words, words.

But Yoo is not finished with his defense, he proceeds to make the claim that regardless of what Congress has legislated, the president is free to ignore that, out of a fear that such restrictions "could interfere with the president's constitutional responsibility to manage wartime operations."

This is the very claim that has sparked outrage across the country, from the U.S. Senate to the editorial pages of the Washington Post, who opined in response to these claims that "There is no justification, legal or moral, for the judgments made by Mr. Bush's political appointees at the Justice and Defense departments. Theirs is the logic of criminal regimes, of dictatorships around the world that sanction torture on grounds of national security" ("Legalizing Torture," Washington Post, June 9).

The United States is a nation of laws, not men-unfortunately, neither Yoo nor the administration he worked for seem to respect that fundamental dictum.

From regretting that his secret machinations were exposed to a bald defense of arbitrary presidential powers that are not subject to legal review or control, Yoo's defense is in reality a bold confirmation of every criticism that has been leveled at him in Berkeley and nationwide. He is baldly refusing to admit any error, and continues to maintain that his role in helping our president violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the U.S. Constitution, is beyond reproach.

In essence, Yoo is challenging the Berkeley community and the American public to confront the basics of his deeply immoral stance. It is my belief that we should take up that challenge.

The Constitution, and our republican democracy, are not Yoo's, nor Bush's, nor anyone's plaything to alter or ignore at their pleasure. And there is no reason for UC to be a party to such dangerous nonsense.

Robert Cruickshank

UC Berkeley alumnus

Tags: