John Yoo

The loyalty test

John Yoo writes for The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2013 (registration required)

The mishandling of Mr. Tsarnaev’s interrogation is clear. If the Obama administration had held Mr. Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant, it could have continued its questioning so long as it kept the answers out of any future trial. But trapped by an ideology that sees terrorism as a law-enforcement problem, the administration limited questioning only to imminent dangers and crimes but not the suspect’s broader network and training.

Court rulings blur the line between a spy and a leaker

John Yoo re-quoted in The New York Times, August 2, 2013

“Manning’s defenders will say that Manning only leaked information to the 21st-century equivalent of a newspaper, and that he could not have known that Al Qaeda would read it,” Professor Yoo wrote in National Review Online. “But WikiLeaks is not The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, and it does not have First Amendment rights,” he added. “Manning communicated regularly with WikiLeaks’ founder and would have known about the group’s anarchic, anti-U.S. mission.”

The Manning verdict is a mistake

John Yoo writes for National Review Online, The Corner, July 30, 2013

The military judge has seriously erred in acquitting Bradley Manning of aiding the enemy, though his guilt on numerous, lesser charges should mean that he will spend the rest of his life in jail. Manning gave a treasure trove of classified intelligence to Wikileaks which has gravely damaged our national security by releasing the names of intelligence assets, disclosed U.S. tactics and operations, and revealed secret diplomatic negotiations.

Disabling democracy

John Yoo co-writes for The Wall Street Journal, From the City Journal, July 11, 2013

The media reaction to the Supreme Court’s two rulings on gay marriage last week focused largely on just one of them: the verdict striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Relatively little attention was paid to the other, a decision on California’s Proposition 8. But that decision could have greater consequences—not only in the Golden State, where it hobbles direct democracy, but in every other state that uses popular initiatives to overrule the governing class.

NSA activities shouldn’t be aired in public

John Yoo writes for USA Today, June 12, 2013

By combining telephone call records (but not the content of calls) and foreigners’ e-mails abroad — neither of which is protected by the Fourth Amendment — the NSA can at least create the data necessary to quickly identify and frustrate terrorist plans. Of course, the NSA should not receive a blank check. But it is unnecessary, and even harmful, to air its activities in public.

Boston—clash of the talking points

John Yoo quoted in Los Angeles Times, April 24, 2013

“Law enforcement alone means the nation lies vulnerable to attacks on soft targets and must expend enormous resources to catch the killers afterwards. A preemptive strategy based on intelligence and the use of force overseas seeks to prevent such attacks further from our shores.”

Banned by Moscow, and proud of it

John Yoo writes for The Wall Street Journal, April 18, 2013 (registration required)

Moscow announced its travel ban in response to American sanctions on 18 Russian officials involved in the 2009 death of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer in Moscow…. By placing American officials and others on a sanctions list, Vladimir Putin is replaying the old Soviet game of claiming a moral equivalence with the West.

Obama’s United Nations backdoor to gun control

John Yoo and John Bolton write for The Wall Street Journal, April 14, 2013

The attempt to advance gun control through the Arms Trade Treaty might surprise average Americans, but not liberals, who have been long frustrated by the Constitution’s limits on government. Gun-control statutes, like any others, have to survive both the House and the Senate, then win presidential approval. It is far easier to advance an agenda through treaties, unwritten international law, and even “norms” delivered by an amorphous “international community.”

Opinion: who defines marriage?

John Yoo interviewed on Wall Street Opinion Journal, March 25, 2013

“Some conservatives are afraid of the outcome and are hoping the Court might kick the case out. But the whole point of the initiative process is that … voters of California didn’t trust their elected officials to carry out their policies. So they used the initiative process to go around established government. As a federalism issue, that’s a matter of state law, that’s for Californians to decide; who under our Constitution is the best person or party to defend the law.”