Talk:John Yoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Wolfgang Kaleck page redirect?

Why does the page for Wolfgang Kaleck (if you click on the link to him under 3.3 War crimes accusations) go to the page for Donald Rumsfeld? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.109.216 (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rel to christopher yoo?

Does anyone know whether John Yoo is the brother of law professor Christopher Yoo, who also has advanced the theory of the unitary executive?

[edit] NPOV - See Also

There is no relation that merits having Carl Schmitt in the 'See also' other than implying a comparison between John Yoo, a modern American legal professor and jurist, to Nazis. That is a opinion one is entitled to, but it does not belong in the wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmidtr1 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 2006 June 10

Carl Schmitt was a German jurist, political theorist, and professor of law with similar opinions as John Yoo. Two peas in a pod. The link is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.192.246 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 2007 April 21
sounds like you are playing the "Hitler Card" - that is, The Nazis accepted idea I. Therefore, I must be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.226.76 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 2007 May 7
actually, its more like, idea "I" is wrong, AND the Nazis accepted the idea. That should be worthy of noting.
I removed some see alsos that are already linked in the article per GTL. Thanks, --Tom 14:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Korean name

What is his Korean first name? Badagnani 02:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unitary Executive Theory does not equal "Yoo Doctrine", other issues

The section discussing the so-called "Yoo Doctrine" is extremely problematic. This is partially because it suggests that Yoo himself is somehow exceptionally in his beliefs in the separation of powers; yet the belief for a firm separation required in Constitutional law is not unique to Mr. Yoo (see for example Justice Scalia's dissent in Morrison v. Olson. The term "Yoo Doctrine" is indeed apparent a negative term intended to deride Mr. Yoo and his opinions and certainly does not belong in an encyclopedia as an an objective fact.

Also there is little explaining why Mr. Yoo has reached the legal conclusions he has. The entry states that he has opinions X, and that various people object to them, and does only a cursory job of explaining his understanding of the Constitution and the law considering the amount of writing that he has done (which is rather extensive).JimServo (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It would also appear from a Google search of the term "Yoo Doctrine" that the term is almost exclusively used on left-wing websites. That being the case, it is probably not appropriate for Wikipedia unless prefaced by something along the order of "liberal critics of Yoo have coined the phrase 'the Yoo Doctrine' to describe. . ."Jvward (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


New Talk Entry January 17, 2008: However it is "named," whether it be the "Yoo Doctrine" or "the Torture Memoranda" (the latter being the common named applied to his work), Yoo's opinions on the so-called unitary executive have been explictly rejected by the Supreme Court in the Hamdi opinion and Yoo's opinions on torture law were (1) rejected/challenged almost immediately by large numbers of lawyers in the Justice Department and in the various military judge advocate corps, and (2) withdrawn by Goldsmith (the new head of the Office of Legal Counsel after Bybee, Yoo's boss, was confirmed as an appellate court judge -- see below for additional information) because they were wrong. The most elegant elucidation of the contemporaneous firestorm of legal opposition to the Torture Memoranda I have seen is in a law review-type essay by Hatfield at Lewis and Clark obtainable in pdf form here: http://www.lclark.edu/org/lclr/objects/LCB10_3_Hatfield.pdf If anything, the Wikipedia entries on Yoo pose the problem of being too reserved. Yoo is directly responsible for the creation of a population of Americans who believe that a U.S. citizen can properly/Constitutionally be held indefinitely in the continental U.S., tortured, denied habeas corpus relief, convicted on evidence without the ability to confront the source of the evidence, etc., etc. These are extraordinarily dangerous beliefs. And, as one sees in the Hatfield essay, some of the most relevant citations are to Nazi war crimes cases against Nazi lawyers responsible for authorizing torture and imprisonment. The problem of silence and politesse regarding Yoo is best illustrated by the fact that because the Torture Memoranda written by Yoo were hidden by a veil of secrecy, Judge Bybee of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the person who ultimately signed the memos, was nominated and appointed to his lifetime position on the bench without being questioned in Senate hearings about the Torture Memoranda. Thus, the Senate's Constitutional role was evicerated and the faith in the judiciary severely eroded. (Who could argue against the proposition that Bybee must forever recuse himself from any consideration of any case involving torture claims, habeas corpus, etc., etc.?) The absence of outrage over this sequence of events is the remarkable thing. Indeed, one could argue that so far the Wikipedia entries on Yoo fail to adequately expose the error and criminality of his activities (cf. Hatfield, above). Waltbenjbro (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect sir, it is not the job of an encyclopedia to "expose the error and criminality" of individuals when that error is far from obvious. Mr. Yoo's positions are subject to debate, and he has not been convicted of any crime. His is held in respect by mainstream American conservative publications such as Commentary. In essence, apparently he is a criminal for putting forward his honest opinions as to his beliefs on constitutional law. That may be wrong, sir, but it is not criminal.
(OT) As to Bybee, the fact that a judged is not questioned is not unusual because of Senate negotiations. I think that if there was a strong feeling in the opposition of the Senate's role being diminished then it can be placed on the appropriate page as an opinion. JimServo (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the POV term "left-leaning bloggers" as the source for the term "Yoo doctrine." Ref 5 quotes Paul M. Barrett as writing in the Wall Street Journal "The Yoo Doctrine, as it might be called, fits with the broader Bush-administration view that pursuing American interests is best for the country and the rest of the world." (The WSJ is behind a paywall). Google scholar shows [1] 'Legislating the Fourth Amendment: Can Congressional Legislation Make the Unconstitutional Legal' by KA Burdge - Howard Law Journal, 2006 - HeinOnline ... 2007]as saying Yoo is the 'most noted proponent of the unitary executive theory,247 sometimes also referred to as the "Yoo Doctrine."' The Howard Law Journal also can hardly be called a "left-leaning blogger." Edison (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Smear?

See this. utcursch | talk 07:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This biography of a living person has significant WP:NPOV and WP:SYN problems. Jas public (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No matter how obvious it may seem I would encourage contributors to offer specific instances of the perceived lapses from WP:NPOV that trigger their concern. Nothing is obvious.
Regarding the note from the PowerLine blog... just because Powerline is a blog from the extreme doesn't mean we shouldn't consider any valid points it makes, here in our talk page discussion.
Was Padilla tortured? Actual proof of torture remains unconfirmed, I believe.
However, haven't his attorneys stated that his mental health was so damaged by the conditions of his interrogations and incarceration that his mind had snapped? that he was unable to participate in his own defense? that he did not seem aware of what was going on during his trial? If I am not mistaken his attorney's account is verifiable. The standard the wikipedia aims for is "verifiability, not truth".
This article should not be smearing Yoo. Powerline complains that a passage from the wikipedia was editorializing. I'll agree, that passage could do with a bit of improvement. But it doesn't seem to be nearly as bad as Powerline pretends. Powerline is just an opinion blog, so there is nothing wrong with it editorializing. Powerline's characterization of Padilla's lawsuit as "frivolous" is editorializing. Wikipedia contributors should discount this characterization, and rely on informed opinions on this case from more authoritative sources.
I doubt whether either the Consortium News Powerline criticizes the article for using, or Powerline itself, would make the cut to be considered a reliable source.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section deleted

I deleted the section "War crimes accusations" because it had only one external link and no inline citations, as per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The lawsuits are of encyclopedic interest, but should only be written citing reliable sources. Andjam (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing sourced info is a bit silly, especially a wellknown fact as this. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The external link doesn't even link to a valid page. Even if it weren't an invalid page, by itself it wouldn't satisfy reliable sources, especially for a biography of a living person. Wikipedia:BLP#Well_known_public_figures gives court-related documents as a specific example of something to avoid using as a primary source about individuals unless a secondary source has already cited them. Andjam (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I've listed this article at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#John Yoo. Andjam (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Will add RS so your objedction will be moot. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Restored the sourced material and trust no valid argument exists to continue deleting it. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Do the inline citations include the nazi comparisons? (Please try to use a reliable source rather than an activist outlet to support such a claim) Andjam (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Andjam is absolutely correct that WP:BLP requires reliable sources for any such statement in the article. Unsourced or poorly sourced derogatory information must be removed. Edison (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sure the numerous legal sources supporting alost each sentence (hyperbole) are not part of your comment. Actually, none of the sources in that section can even remotely be said to fail WP:RS or WP:V.~~

[edit] Reliability of After Downing Street article

Can an article that mocks Asian accents from a web site that features 9/11 truthers be considered a reliable source? Or is this only intending to illustrate an example of anti-Yoo sentiment? Andjam (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources sometimes also include lapses of good journalism. The Wall Street Journal is usually considered a reliable source, but it has also printed fringe anti Bill Clinton material. Most newspapers have had examples of phony reporting or ill considered editorial policy. A source should be considere in balance, and also in terms of how it is look at by other reliable sources. Edison (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi comparisons (again)

Please stop it with the Nazi comparisons in a living person's biography without citing a sufficiently reliable source. Someone who has appeared in antiwar.com, which also features a certain stormfront-lover, doesn't seem awfully reliable. Andjam (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Please stop removing sourced material as you were told before by others.[citation needed] Nowhere does it say Nazi. Clearly your POV is not suuuuperior to material that adheres to WP:V and WP:RS. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone seriously think that Yoo based his opinions on those of the Nazis in WWII? If so that should be stated explicitly in the article, cited from RS's of course. If not the essay comparing the two is kind of out of place in a bio of Yoo. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read the provided refs (they are at the end of the statements and section in case you missed them) and then we can discuss further. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I did that. They seem to be one person presenting a fringe theory. This is kind of going off on a side track from the topic of the article, which is Yoo himself, his work, and his theories. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW the arguments which the Nazis presented to justify their actions on the Eastern Front: "We are defending our people from an evil force that wants to destroy us", "The other side does worse things", "The rules are outdated", etc. are quite common thoughout history and are much the same as lots of parties involved in wars use. There is nothing special about Yoo using them that proves he got them from the Nazis. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that this section is inappropriate. It is gratuitous editorializing and politicizing. It is certainly possible to show that Yoo's Justice Department memos were controversial without bringing in the fringe elements and implying he is a Nazi. While it this section may conform to WP:V (true) and WP:RS (I have my doubts here), it is a violation of WP:WEIGHT and should be removed from the article. --Paul (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The Nazi's also read and spoke. Does that mean that everyone discussing this can be compared to a Nazi? Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.35.160.136 (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Having been away I see the sourced marterial is removed. In the mean time I found numerous nother legal sources, as such there is no reason to nexclude what certainly is valid material. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Declassified

The latter (2003) memo has now been declassified, and should be discussed here and uploaded to Wikisource. See the Washington Post article. Superm401 - Talk 07:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dates of birth

See Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_personal_information. Yoo is marginally notable - if he were highly notable, there wouldn't have been an Alex Jones article on him added (like there was last night) - so we shouldn't publish his date of birth. Andjam (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Can people please discuss the issue here, rather than reverting without an edit summary and marking the edits as minor? Andjam (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Discussion please? Andjam (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

One concern I have is that people may use Yoo's date of birth to obtain other information such as his home address. I've asked at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Abuse_of_date_of_birth, for those interested in formulating general policy. Andjam (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The WHO's WHO entry on Yoo begins: born **** **, 1967. Anyone can go to a good library and find it there or in other public sources. It's on the Internet too. Other Wikipedia articles begin with the date of birth. His address is not there, and knowing he what day he was born 41 years ago South Korea is not possibly going to tell you his address today in the United States. That's just silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrible typist (talk • contribs) 13:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the book, which Who's Who is it? Is it a reliable source? What is its ISBN? With regards to the use of dates of birth, if DOB can help with identity fraud, why can't it help with physical address? Andjam (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says "Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published, but editors should exercise caution with less notable people." A Google search for Yoo's name and birthdate, exclusive of Wikipedia and its mirrors only turns up "brainyhistory" and "brainyquotes." When his birthdate is written in the date-month-year format it shows up at two more sites. Thus publishing it in Wikipedia would augment the online access to it and diminish his privacy. In this respect, Yoo seems to fall outside the category of "well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published." By comparison, a similar search for sites with Clarence Thomas's birthdate shows that it appears at 2730 sites,and John Ashcroft's appears at 445 sites, so it appearing in Wikipedia has little effect on their privacy. Even José Padilla's birthdate appears online over at over 100 sites,as it does in Wikipedia, but that may be influenced by the sites pointing out he is a native-born U.S. citizen who was imprisoned without due process and allegedly tortured. Edison (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yoo's full birthdate also appears in Gale's Contemporary Authors Online, a standard library reference work. He is far from marginally notable. He played a significant role in the Bush administration and is central to a leading controversy about the legality of torture. He's also the author of a widely reviewed book and a prominent law professor. There's nothing about him that is marginal. Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course he's notable, but we're not talking about deleting the article. Above all else, we should do no harm to the subjects of BLPs, and with this individual it seems there's a reasonable argument we shouldn't list the date of birth. Most professors do not seem to have birth dates, while most politicians, judges, and pop stars do. That's not an irrational line to draw. It's not clear whether he's more like a professor or more like a cabinet-level official. This is debatable, and I'm mildly in favor of removing the date. Cool Hand Luke 17:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm stressing the notability because Yoo isn't even close to being marginally notable. I suspect some of the editors here are simply not familiar with him or his importance. The birthdate removal policy wasn't intended to cover major public figures like Yoo, but people like minor actors, authors, etc. who are barely public figures, not a significant presidential appointee. The policy simply isn't being applied correctly in this case. Gamaliel (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I think not. "When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth."
Furthermore, I'm honestly troubled that the date was being aggressively pushed by an SPA. If Yoo had held a cabinet-level position, or was appointed as an Article III judge (like John Bybee), or already had his date of birth widely known on the internet, I would agree with you. But he doesn't, so we should err on the side of doing no harm. Cool Hand Luke 21:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and because this is a BLP, we ought to leave it out until there's consensus to include it. Cool Hand Luke 18:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Haven't had much time to devote to this issue of late, but I agree with CHL's comment above. I believe that the ref was added by me earlier (but only in the edit summary, to prevent the removal of the year of his birth (which I thought we should keep). But then TTypist added back in the exact day and put the ref in the article. I reverted at the time, thinking that because he was a new user, he might not have considered all of the concerns. I stopped reverting once he responded to my comment at his talk page (at which time I realized we just disagreed). I'm still thinking that not much is gained by adding the exact day, but there is the potential for harm there. I still mildly support just keeping the year of birth. R. Baley (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I also support the year. Cool Hand Luke 18:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I support the year w/o the exact date at this stage of fame for Yoo. I noted above that his exact birthdate was only found at 6 or so websites exclusive of Wikipedia and mirrors. Please check my analysis. I do not see how it improves the article to include it, and it does increase the chance of identity theft. It should be left out until there is a consensus for inclusion, even if a book somewhere includes it. If it can be shown that Yoo himself provided it to a Who's Who, then I would not object to including it here (unless he personnly objects to it via OTRS). I believe in the rights of the individual and in due process. I certainly would not want him to be tortured by inclusion of too much personal information which has little relevance to his effects on American society. Edison (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sourced material

After being away I readded the extensively sourced material regarding the origins of his legal opinions. Before objecting please consider the following:

  1. Do numerous legal experts violate WP:RS?
  2. When we have numerous experts pointing out something is there anything in WP policy stating we are prohibited from using such material?
  3. Is a source discussing Yoo about the source or Yoo? I ask this because people assert that this article is not about Scoot Horton and therefore his analysis of Yoo is not allowed.
  4. Is his principal and major contribution, and possibly the sole basis of his notability, not exactly his views on executive power justifying actions taken in the War on terror? Why would mentioning this violate WP:UNDUE?

Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] The paragraph on crushing a child's testicles.

I have removed this paragraph because:

(1) "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous."

(2)This transcript is not from a reliable source, rather it is from Philip Watts, a writer for the website of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, which has a definite POV on the subject involved. The citation for the transcript should refer to Philip Watts' press release [2], but instead links to an audio file on the same website, a brief excerpt whose authenticity has not been verified by a reliable source.

(3)Both the brief excerpt (0:19) cited in this Wikipedia article's notes, and the longer (5:55) one available on the RCP web page mentioned above stop at approximately the same point, right after the purported voice of Woo says, "I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that." That sentence has the form of a topic sentence of some kind of explanatory paragraph, but the speaker is cut off at that point in the shorter audio clip and in the longer clip the speaker is interrupted by derisive laughter, presumably from some members of the audience. In neither case is Woo given the opportunity to make his case and perhaps revise or correct a misconstruing of his remarks. The only discussion I found of the provenance of this audio clip [3], does nothing to inspire confidence in its authenticity or completeness.

(4)Even if the transcript were to be verified and put in a wider context, it is Professor Cassel's tendentiously provoking imagery of crushing the testicles of an innocent child that disqualifies the passage from being used to characterize the subject of a Wikipedia biography. It is the verbal equivalent of insisting on displaying the crushed head of an aborted fetus in the biography of a pro-choice legal scholar, and has no place where one is expected to maintain a neutral point of view. —Blanchette (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)