Let me be clear.

I am not saying: “Yoo seems to be a nice guy, thus it’s great he teaches here at Berkeley.”

I am saying: “Yoo was a professional offering a researched, predictive memo about the law. Regardless of how we feel about the memo’s conclusions, I believe Mr. Yoo deserves his position as a professor of law on the merits.”

The range of political and legal discourse that *should* be allowed in institutions of higher education is open for debate, and I’m guessing we come down differently on the issue.

BIALYSTOCK: Really, I never dreamed …

LIEBKIND (flies into an indignant rage): That’s because you were taken in by that verdampter Allied propaganda. Such filthy lies. But nobody said a bad vord about Winston Churchill, did they? Oh no, Vin Vit Vinnie! (he gestures V for victory) Churchill, vit his cigars and his brandy and his rotten paintings. Couldn’t even say Nazi. He would say Narzis, Narzis. Ve vere not Narzies, ve vere Nazis. But let me tell this, and you’re getting it straight from the horse, Hitler vas better looking than Churchill, he vas a better dresser than Churchill, had more hair, told funnier jokes, and could dance the pants off Churchill!

I am student at Berkeley Law and I believe your campaign is unfounded.

Demonizing a legal professional for producing a predictive memo is, to borrow words from the New York Times, the stuff of “some authoritarian regime and has no place in the […] United States.”

Let me begin by saying that I am confident we share many values. I am distressed by validation of torture. I am ashamed and outraged by many actions of my government. I mourn the war in Iraq.

I do not know if you have legal training, so please understand the following explanation is not intended to be condescending.

A legal memo is a predictive, not persuasive, document. In other words, a legal memo should be an even-handed evaluation of the law in its current state.

The memo to which you refer was written John Yoo as a lawyer for the Justice Department. Mr. Yoo was asked to answer the following question: “What are the legal standards governing military interrogations of alien unlawful combatants held outside the United States?” Yoo researched the question, and offered predictive conclusions about the state of the law. Your elected leaders then made decisions. Has Yoo thus “caused” the government’s course of action in this matter?

Consider this imaginary parallel:

A client asks you the following: “Is riding my bike without a helmet legal?” You research and write a memo concluding that, according to current law, it is probably legal to ride without a helmet. Have you then “caused” or “advocated” that your client “should” act unsafely?

I suggest that your outrage is better directed towards your elected leaders. I suggest you strive to reform a system of legal authority that avails itself to morally-troubling interpretations. I also suggest that criminalizing Yoo for writing a predictive memo in his professional capacity as an attorney is dangerously wrongheaded.

Your call for Yoo’s expulsion does not reflect the value of the “freedom of expression and dialogue” that you praise above. Furthermore, labeling a man you have never met and misunderstand a “sociopath,” you betray your call for “civility and respect.”

In fact, Yoo is an exceedingly gifted, intelligent, and friendly professor. I believe he is an asset to the legal education here at Berkeley.

Kind Regards,
Aaron