FTW, I sent a lengthy email to Boalt in response to their latest fund-raising solicitation explaining why I and my younger sister (class of ‘91) would not be contributing so long as Yoo is employed there.

Yoo, of course, means to speak only to the laws of war, not broader political events. But I think the two are inseparable. In no particular order, a short list might include: Oliver Cromwell’s rebellion, the Restoration of the House of Stuart and then its deposition by parliament’s substitution of the House of Orange in 1688. The Enlightenment. The American and French revolutions. The English and American history of extending the vote to all males and females. The American Revolution, Civil War, Indian Wars, Spanish-American War, Word Wars One and Two, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq One and numerous “counter-insurgencies” in Latin America. The United Nations, Geneva Conventions, Conventions Against Torture, etc. In short, today’s law is not the same as that which applied at the time of England’s James I.

As LHD and Christy have pointed out in several posts, Yoo also failed to apply the law as given in the cases he does cite, and often cited cases as if they meant the opposite of what they held. His arguments are often no more than political assertions backed up by nothing more than his or his colleague’s prior assertions to the same effect. All in, it’s rather too kind to call this example of Mr. Yoo’s work “disingenuous”.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/facult…..oetter.htm

Under traditional practice as expressed in the customary laws of war, the treatment of unlawful belligerents is left to the sovereign’s discretion.

p. 15. This sovereign right belongs to the president. id. Yoo cites Alberico Gentili, 2 De Jure Belli Libri Tres 22 (1612) (John C. Rolfe translation 1933) as authority for the proposition that unlawful belligerents “do not enjoy the privileges of a law to which they are foes.” I like the security of knowing that the rules of 1612 are applicable to my life.

I’m a little slow, but I wanted to comment on the previous article regarding How Could Yoo Leave Out Youngstown?

I’m guessing he treated Youngstown separately, as part of a still-classified Memo that is foundational to Establishing Bush as the UE. Then, on top of that Memo, he wrote the one that you analyzed and found woefully lacking in addressing all the applicable Law.

That seems like the Only reasonable explanation – because to have Ignored Youngstown alltogether would have been Criminal Legal Malpractice, especially in light of the willful harm done, imvho.

But, wouldn’t Bush just love to be able to say, “Who could have known? I relied on Yoo to cover me on the Super-Powers that are inherently mine, and he let me down.”

I assume that most of the readers of this site are familiar with moot court competitions. My idea is to propose a moot court competition, with the case to be whether or not United States executive branch officials are culpable under US and/or international law for the actions they have taken in connection with torture, extraordinary rendition, etc. (although it may be necessary to limit to torture to make it practicable). I would propose that one of the national moot court competition societies, that already has ties to the law schools, would be involved, that there be regional and national competitions and I would hope to be able to persuade one of the major law reviews to agree to publish the winning briefs for both sides. I am also willing to kick in a cash prize, let’s say $15,000, for the winners and I am sure that I could raise additional monies or other prizes for winners at the regional and national levels.

A little background on me. I am a lawyer, graduate of Boalt 1991 and have just ordered a copy of the US v. Alstoetter (the Justice Case), which I should have next week.

I would appreciate your thoughts and suggestions, as well as any ideas as to anyone else you think might have some good ideas.

Best regards and keep up the good work.

Howard Appel

They have, after all, concluded, or at least argued, that the AUMF gave them authorization to do all sorts of things that congress never specifically addressed…

That may have worked for George when he was a coke-snorting drunk-driving AWOL freak, but the Presidency is t’other way around: you are only authorized to do what the Constitution and Congress says and all else is prohibited.