John Yoo's Constitutional Arguments are Worth a Hearing, Law Dean Says
It has become almost a truism, to a significant portion of the legal community, that former U.S. Department of Justice attorney John Yoo was way off target when he authored legal memos supporting interrogation methods some consider tantamount to torture.
But the dean of the law school at which Yoo has been teaching says the controversial lawyer has a legitimate voice in the ongoing debate about United States policy concerning terrorism suspects. Invited to accept a one-semester academic gig along with left-leaning Richard Falk, Yoo is playing an important role in helping to teach students about some of the most important legal issues of our time, writes Dean John Eastman of the Chapman University School of Law in a Los Angeles Times op-ed piece.
“In my view, the legal positions Yoo advanced in the post-9/11 memos are supported—some well-supported; others at least arguable—by constitutional text, historical understanding and legal precedent,” Eastman writes. “In fact, many of those positions were shared by Clinton administration officials now serving in the Obama administration.”
For the specifics of Eastman’s analysis of Yoo’s constitutional arguments, read the full article.
Related coverage:
ABAJournal.com: “Should Yoo Be Punished for Memos? Experts Disagree, DOJ Opposes Liability”
