Conservative Berkeley Professor...

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
So, as Oski suggested, many of the students think it is OK to shout such speakers down?

[/ QUOTE ]

Many? Who knows. The loud ones, certainly.

[ QUOTE ]
The far Left seems to love to squelch free speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but I don't think either extreme has a whole lot going for them.

My point was that professors with wildly unpopular views taught, and continue to teach, at Berkeley.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]


My point was that professors with wildly unpopular views taught, and continue to teach, at Berkeley.

[/ QUOTE ]

As they should: certainly no argument here. Accademia is the best proving ground for ideas. It seems the politicians have trouble understanding the proper applications.

[HDPM]

[ QUOTE ]

SO should a Law School have a Teacher that doesn't have enough moral guidance to know that he shouldn't be looking for ways around the Geneva Convention in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]


I would guess that less than 10% of law school professors have a developed and rational "moral compass." Law schools are intellectual cesspools for the most part, and few law professors are capable of making difficult moral choices in real life. IME, IMO, FWIW.

Also FWIW, his memo isn't anything like what you are accusing him of.


P.S. I don't think very many people in general have a really developed moral sense or have the courage to make hard moral choices. Law professors are just funny because they have enough cleverness to think about morality, but continually make wrong choices in very petty affairs they think are important. They really would engage in immoral conduct to be a philosopher king espousing the latest irrationality I think. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Boris]

in academia you get to speak your mind once you have tenure. It is the one place where you dont have to move on if you don't fit in.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
in academia you get to speak your mind once you have tenure. It is the one place where you dont have to move on if you don't fit in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its like Montana without the Cowboys.

[Chris Alger]

If a law professor is accused of giving shoddy adivce to the government that causes law-breaking and suffering, should he be immune from harsh criticism? If the advice is truly bad and the suffering it causes was intentional and foreseeable, should his tenure be immune?

Fact issues aside, the obvious answer to both questions is no. The only issue, therefore, is the quality of the advice and its foreseeable effect. It's a perfectly appropriate subject for debate and Yoo should be forced to defend himself against colorable criticism. If his defense is judged weak, then firing is definitely an option.

Most of the repsonses here, however, suggest that the quality of the advice isn't a fit subject for discussion. He was a lawyer, he gave legal advice, case closed. This is nonsensical because no lawyer or other professional operates under this standard.

What's really driving these responses is that the advice supported an aggressive approach toward alleged enemies of the state. If the subject were anything but national defense, there wouldn't be any controversy. Lawyers are accused of giving and held accountable for bad advice all the time.

Unless we look at the merits of the advice, we're left with the notion that there should be some special exception for legal advice advocating an aggressive approach toward "the war on terror," even if professional standards arguably are violated and innocent people suffer as a result. This is an extreme form of the ethic that one should set aside categories of political discourse as exempt from criticism, or what right-wingers in other contexts castigate as PC.

[ACPlayer]

Boris' memo used the words contributor to the environment that led to the abuses

I think it is obvious from the reports that have emerged that the Gitmo standard of treatment of prisoners in Iraq was condoned at the highest levels of the Pentagon. That in turn set the "environment" for the mistreatment by a few scapegoats who got caught.

I cant say if he should be fired, but for sure he should never be teaching a class in legal ethics (if there is such a thing!).

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
If a law professor is accused of giving shoddy adivce to the government that causes law-breaking and suffering, should he be immune from harsh criticism? If the advice is truly bad and the suffering it causes was intentional and foreseeable, should his tenure be immune?

Fact issues aside, the obvious answer to both questions is no. The only issue, therefore, is the quality of the advice and its foreseeable effect. It's a perfectly appropriate subject for debate and Yoo should be forced to defend himself against colorable criticism. If his defense is judged weak, then firing is definitely an option.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is silly.

First of all, I would lay huge odds this guy's legal opinion is correct, or at the least highly defensible. Of course, it is healthy to debate the merits of his work for many reasons. The least of all, would be to determine whether he should be fired.

Read his piece and tell me where it is wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
One thing should remain clear. Physical abuse violates the Conventions . The armed forces have long operated a system designed to investigate violations of the laws of war, and ultimately to try and punish the offenders. And it is important to let the military justice system run its course. Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs the treatment of civilians in occupied territories, states that if a civilian "is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the States, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in favor of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State." To be sure, Art. 31 of the Fourth Convention prohibits any "physical or moral coercion" of civilians "to obtain information from them," and there is a clear prohibition of torture, physical abuse, and denial of medical care, food, and shelter. Nonetheless, Art. 5 makes clear that if an Iraqi civilian who is not a member of the armed forces, has engaged in attacks on Coalition forces, the Geneva Convention permits the use of more coercive interrogation approaches to prevent future attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only problem I have with this whole thing is this passage does not contemplate an organized group of fighters during a "declared" war. It is not uncommon that a member of a uniformed army will disguise oneself in civilian clothes to escape detection. Oh, Geneva Convention does not apply? Of course it does; we have a clear-defined enemy and must apply the protections of the Convention.

Here, we knew who we were fighting, so there was little danger of mistaking civilians for soldiers.

I think the ultimate application of Yoo's position is supportble, but not enlightened. At a time the whole world is watching us, we need to set better examples, especially about the virtues of our justice system. At the very least, this is an opportunity lost, at the worst, a black eye on our reputation.

Second of all, professors should be (and are) protected the same way politicians and judges are for making political decisions (essentially, doing their job within the scope of their elected duties). I don't have a problem with the tenure system, which I think is vital.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
This is silly.
First of all, I would lay huge odds this guy's legal opinion is correct, or at the least highly defensible. Of course, it is healthy to debate the merits of his work for many reasons. The least of all, would be to determine whether he should be fired.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not disputing the merits of the advice. The original article said nothing about the merits, whether in the opinion of most professionals it's sound or would withstand peer review. Apparently, there's a debate the existence of which several here find offensive. Most of the posters assumed this could only be some sort of witch hunt. Since you argue that the advice is probably good, and that debating its merits is "healthy," I don't see where we disagree.

The passage you quoted might be defensible, but I don't necessarily agree that the absence of protections that would, if applied, be prejudicial to the security of the state, amounts to a license to use "more coercive" interrogation procedures than are allowed under the Conventions. It seems to me that he's trying to create a gray area between prohibited "physical abuse" and acceptable "more coercion" that the conventions don't contemplate.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]


The passage you quoted might be defensible, but I don't necessarily agree that the absence of protections that would, if applied, be prejudicial to the security of the state, amounts to a license to use "more coercive" interrogation procedures than are allowed under the Conventions. It seems to me that he's trying to create a gray area between prohibited "physical abuse" and acceptable "more coercion" that the conventions don't contemplate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok: I guess we disagree on what the professor is "doing." He did not create the grey area, he found it. Not only did he find it, he was asked to try to find it. You assume a greater motivation than is evident. Of course, academians undergo theoretical debates all of the time, that is part of their purpose.

Similarly, and more to your original point, lawyers make such inquiries all of the time. The legal memo is merely an investigation into the state of the law. No judgment is necessary until action is taken on that advice, and the judmgent properly affixes to the acting party.

I agree with your fundamental point that the Convention seemed skirted in a cavalier fashion. Such is a shame, as it defeats our message of having a superior justice system, etc.