Shaming and Shunning
One of the ways in which the Amish maintain social order is through the practice of shunning those individuals who refuse to meet community standards of behavior. In 1997, the New York Times did an interesting piece on the role of public shaming, stating
Even those skeptical of the penalties, whose effectiveness has never been studied, concede that they have value in cohesive communities. Bar organizations publish lists of lawyers who have been sanctioned, because peers consider publicity a humiliating deterrent. Some Native American tribes and the Amish use a form of shaming known as shunning.
I am writing about this because I am outraged by UCal Berkeley Law Professor John Yoo’s Torture Memos, which were just released in full.
John Yoo’s Memorandum, as intended, directly led to — caused — a whole series of war crimes at both Guantanamo and in Iraq. The reason such a relatively low-level DOJ official was able to issue such influential and extraordinary opinions was because he was working directly with, and at the behest of, the two most important legal officials in the administration: George Bush’s White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, and Dick Cheney’s counsel (and current Chief of Staff) David Addington. Together, they deliberately created and authorized a regime of torture and other brutal interrogation methods that are, by all measures, very serious war crimes.
If writing memoranda authorizing torture — actions which then directly lead to the systematic commission of torture — doesn’t make one a war criminal in the U.S., what does?
Greenwald has much more and I encourage you to read it in full.
In the memos Yoo argued that the President even has the right to torture children: the logic is profoundly disturbed and violates pretty much any definition of civility and accountability. The results of Yoo’s memos include war crimes committed at home and abroad, the repeal of habeas corpus, the indefinite detention of foreigners (and possible ramifications for Americans) and the violation of numerous US laws regarding torture, wiretapping, and Congressional oversight. These acts have thoroughly shamed our country, destroyed our reputation, and have put Americans at risk. Thanks to Yoo and his friends, the United States is hated and despised.
Since Yoo has shamed us, I think it is only proper that Yoo be shamed in return. So I have started writing letters, and I hope others here will do the same.
This is the faculty listing at Boalt Hall School of Law, UCal Berkeley’s law school. As you will see, every single one of these professors and deans has an email address and a phone number.
I think you can see what I’m getting at.
Here is a copy of one of my letters to his colleagues/employers, in this case the Assistant Dean for Student Services, Victoria Ortiz. I have also written to the Dean, Christopher Edley, but believe my letter to Oritz is the stronger composition.
I will be writing several of these letters over the course of the week. I hope to make John Yoo’s continued presence at Boalt Hall radioactive, to the point where his colleagues won’t speak to him and students won’t sign up for his classes. I would like the School to begin losing money and enrollments as a result of Yoo’s continued employment.
Dear Ms. Ortiz:
Please pardon this communication from a stranger, but after reading the text of John Yoo’s memos, which gave the Bush Administration broad (and most likely illegal) authority to torture detainees at Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq, I was so shocked and dismayed by what I read, I felt it was proper to get in touch with Mr. Yoo’s colleagues at Boalt Hall.
As I am sure you have read, Mr. Yoo, acting as a government official, argues that the Bush Administration has the power to torture children. His memos, recently unearthed by the Washington Post, led directly to war crimes at home and abroad, staining our national reputation. Although many of his memos were ultimately rescinded, the underlying theory has led to violations of many US laws, including those surrounding the treatment of prisoners, wiretapping and surveillance, habeas corpus rights, and numerous Congressional oversight requirements.
I have already suggested to my son, who is approaching college age and is interested in law, that he consider any other institution than Berkeley until John Yoo is gone from your faculty. I will be suggesting the same to my friends and family with college-age children. However, I was wondering what you think of these revelations personally: are you comfortable being associated with a war criminal like John Yoo, who advocates for the torture of children and the violation of international law? Does John Yoo bring honor to your field and to your institution? Is John Yoo the kind of person you would want instructing your children? Does John Yoo live up to your stated principles of “honesty and integrity”, “affirm[ing] the dignity of all individuals and striv[ing] to uphold a just community”, “freedom of expression and dialogue”, and “civility and respect”?
As a concerned parent, I would be interested in hearing your views on Berkeley’s seemingly lawless law professor, John Yoo.
Sincerely,
Brendan Skwire
I hope others will follow this model. Maybe Yoo will never end up in the Hague, but his public reputation at home can be destroyed and discredited with enough work.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
“…my son, who is approaching college age…”
i guess that is technically true. he’s also approaching retirement age
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
the way I see it, if John Yoo can ignore decades of precedent to sidestep laws against torture, I can sidestep 14 years and say my kid is approaching college age.
And yes, technically, he IS approaching retirement age. SO are the two of us!
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
And you might want to include this in your letters:
Exchange from a 12/1/05 debate in Chicago between Professor John Yoo, a chief architect of the Unitary Executive theory, and Professor Doug Cassel, international human rights scholar.
Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
rwor.org/a/028/john-yoo.html audio online at revcom.us
April 4th, 2008 at 3:46 am
There was another report today (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/yoo_warrant_schmarrant.php) about Yoo authoring yet another memo – this time he essentially says the 4th Amendment does not apply to domestic military operations (read wiretapping/surveillance). His memo on tortue is repugnant to say the least, but giving the go-ahead to suspend the 4th Amendment is right up there in terms of disgusting behavior that has no place at Berkeley or any other school — save for Regents or some place like that!