Gavin Cans Film Commission Head Stephanie Coyote
Evan Low to Become Country's Youngest Gay Asian-American Mayor
San Francisco Society Tips: How to End a Party
NY Times Singles Out Vallejo As Battleground Between Gays & Christians
Redheads Unite!
Under the false impression that Melanie Morgan doesn't already have enough ammunition, the fruit-and-nut granola bar that is the Berkeley City Council will vote today on whether to demand the U.S. government charge Berkeley resident, UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School tenured professor, and former Bush adviser John Yoo with war crimes.
This all stems from a 2002 that Yoo drafted that provided "the legal basis to justify torture in interrogating terrorism suspects." Yoo argued "that habeas corpus and other legal protections don't apply to CIA detainees because Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib are not on U.S. soil."
The measures attacking him also wants some sort of deal that would allow Boalt students - ones who disagree with Yoo - to be able to take alternative courses.
This, of course, is insane. And not all council members agree.
"This measure seems to fly in the face of a good liberal arts education," says Councilman Laurie Capitelli. Also, according to the Clog, no student is forced to take his courses.
This makes the 574286739th time the Berkeley City Council has dipped its toes in national policy.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Aiding and abetting torture is not at all the same as, for example, creating more greenhouse gases. One is a debatable public policy and the other is a heinous, immoral, unacceptable crime that shits in the face of all that is human and all that this country stands for.
It is left as an exercise for the student to determine which is which.
Well after WWII, the US and Russia chose to pursue war crimes against those (Nazis) who provided a legal justification for the abuses - not just the people who actually abused.
So this isn't completely whacko. Assuming that the US Gov't might act on it is though.
ahem, Godwin.
Eh, whatev. I'm sure it makes them feel good but it means absolutely nuthin' until Justice gets involved. If Berkeley is so powerful, let them lobby Pelosi. Oops, she's conflicted out of this case!
What the hell is going on in that photo? I get Barbie is bondaged up but what's attacking her? A...jellyfish?
I have been BOYCOTTING Berkeley for years bunch of loons , Go CANES!
A legal opinion is a statement of interpreted fact: "As I read these laws, this course of action of be legally permitted under this condition." What you do with the opinion is what matters. So for example Bush could have taken Yoo's memo and said "look at this, there is a loophole in the law, let's get laws passed to fix it" instead he said "hey, let's use the loophole to torture people." Bush is the criminal. Yoo is someone of questionable morals, but that's perfectly legal. The 1st Amendment only works if you realize that it applies even when you don't like the other guy's opinion... otherwise what's the point?
PS: Berkeley really should quit wasting time passing meaningless resolutions and focus more on things the City needs. There has been a lot of crime this year including murders and the budget is in serious trouble. Regardless of what you think of Yoo and his opinion, this resolution accomplishes nothing at all because both the DoJ and UCB will ignore it and are not under jurisdiction of the City government. How much staff time is being devoted to preparing the resolution, holding the meeting, and other administrative stuff... how much does that cost the city... what other more useful things could the money have been spent on?
This is the reason why I will never submit to economic/family pressures to move from SF to Berkeley, and why I'm rethinking my thoughts on getting a Masters there. SF is sanely liberal, Berkeley is over the top.
What do you guys like better? Berktards or Libtards?