To the Editor:
Re “An
Executive Without Much Privilege,” by John Yoo (Op-Ed, May 26):
Mr. Yoo, as a deputy assistant attorney general under President George
W. Bush, was a key architect of the Bush-Cheney policy of torture used
to brutalize prisoners suspected of terrorism—torture that was one of
the darkest chapters in American history.
As such, he has no credibility with regard to Supreme Court nominees,
nor should he be given a platform for his radical views on executive
privilege.
Brian Rose
New York, May 26, 2010
Note from KBJ: Where to begin? First, Professor Yoo wasn't the "architect" of anything. His job was to research the law and render a judgment about what it permitted and required. If the letter writer thinks Yoo misread the law, he should give specifics. Has it occurred to the letter writer that the law doesn't protect nonuniformed combatants? Second, what does Yoo's interpretation of the law regarding torture have to do with his views about Supreme Court nominees? How could he lose credibility in one area because of something he says in an unrelated area? Third, is it the letter writer's position that radical views, as such, should not be "given a platform"? Who gets to decide which views are radical? The letter writer? By any reasonable standard, Peter Singer has radical views. He writes regularly for the New York Times. Does the letter writer oppose this? How about Paul Krugman? Frank Rich? Oh, wait. Maybe "radical views" means views the letter writer dislikes. What I'm wondering is why the New York Times published this asinine letter. It does nothing to advance discussion of any important issue. It is the equivalent of a baby throwing a tantrum.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 