-The Wall Street Journal, October 3, 2011 by John Yoo
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204226204576603114226847494.html

The Yemeni-American cleric killed by a U.S. drone strike on Friday was linked to the attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight over Detroit in 2009, the shooting spree at Fort Hood in Texas that killed 13 that same year, and the near-miss car bombing of Times Square in 2010. Yet, from the howls on the left, you would never know that President Barack Obama had won another victory in the war on terror.

-San Francisco Chronicle, October 11, 2011 by Debra J. Saunders
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2011/10/10/EDQO1LFNHL.DTL

The Obama White House has failed to make its own snuff memo public. The Times story is based on a leak. That Times story must have felt like deja vu all over again to UC Berkeley law Professor John Yoo…. “I’m glad they’re hypocrites,” Yoo told me.

San Francisco Chronicle, September 22, 2011 by Debra J. Saunders
http://blog.sfgate.com/djsaunders/2011/09/22/judge-vaughn-walkers-personal-prop/

UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo believes that proponents of cameras in courtrooms might want to consider alternate scenarios: “Would people think that we should allow the televising of testimony by victims in rape trials?  I would think not. Or should we allow Southern courts during the Civil Rights protest era to publish the lists of all NAACP members? The Supreme Court said that the risk of retaliation outweighed the right to publicize everything in all cases.”

-The Wall Street Journal, September 6, 2011 by John Yoo
http://www.aei.org/article/104085

Individual freedom emerged from the decade stronger than before. The government did not censor the media, sabotage political opposition or mobilize the economy. No dictatorship arose…. Meanwhile, new technologies and social networking have created an expanding space for political activity and organization unlike anything in our history.

-The New York Times, September 7, 2011 by Adam Liptak
www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/us/sept-11-reckoning/civil.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=Berkeley&st=nyt

“If you look at it historically,” said Professor Yoo, “you might say, ‘I can’t believe we’re at war,’ when you see how much speech is going on. Civil liberties are far more protected than what we’ve seen in past wars.”

-National Law Journal, September 9, 2011 by Karen Sloan
http://bit.ly/qLqUOP

Yoo said that despite the concerns for civil liberties, political speech and organizing have proliferated. “I think civil liberties have grown in the last 10 years, primarily because the government has stayed out of the way,” he said.

-Legal Week, September 15, 2011 by Tony Mauro
http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/analysis/2108918/impact-affecting-legal-market

“I do not think that the rule of law suffered because of 9/11, though the phrase means different things to different people.” The University of California, Berkeley School of Law professor adds: “We were confronted by a wholly new kind of enemy and our legal system over time responded by adapting wartime principles to it.”

San Francisco Chronicle, September 2, 2011 by Joe Garofoli
http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-09-02/news/30104442_1_government-contract-liberals-president-obama

UC Berkeley law Professor John Yoo, writing recently in a legal journal published by the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said the order “opens the door for retaliation against those not supporting the administration politically.”

-San Francisco Chronicle Politics Blog (Video), August 27, 2011 by Joe Garofoli
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=96286

“I think with Libya, I for one want to give President Obama the credit for involving us in the war, using American air assets to help push Gaddafi out of office and overthrow the regime…. I wish he’d just done it faster and harder because I think he could have ended the war quicker and given the United States a lot more influence in post-war reconstruction.”

-San Francisco Chronicle, August 28, 2011 by Joe Garofoli and Carla Marinucci
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/27/MNI11KSJL0.DTL&type=politics

In San Francisco at the Young Republicans gathering, UC Berkeley law Professor Yoo … was the target of two dozen demonstrators. Inside, Yoo shrugged them off…. “Any Republican that can survive in the Bay Area or Berkeley and even California … are going to be the few, the proud—but they are going to be the best warriors for the conservative movement,” he said

The Associated Press, August 22, 2011 by Justin Pritchard
http://bit.ly/pIaLGa

“What strikes me about the period after 9/11 is, I think we’ve had an amazing flourishing of information and speech,” said John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who as a Department of Justice attorney helped develop the Bush administration’s program of aggressive interrogation techniques. Yoo also conceded, “You’re going to see individual programs where bureaucrats muck things up and make sometimes silly decisions. It’s inherent in bureaucracy.”

-Inside Higher Ed, June 21, 2011 by Kevin Kiley
http://bit.ly/lWKsG7

John Yoo … argued in a blog post that these law schools are simply trying to protect the value of the degree by making it more scarce. “Education is a product in the market, like any other,” he wrote. “The producers (law schools) sell a service (a legal education) at a price (tuition) to consumers (students). If there is an oversupply of the product, or the demand falls, then the price should drop and eventually the quantity will fall until the market clears.”

-The Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2011 by Patrick G. Lee
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/06/21/the-slightly-shrinking-legal-academy/?KEYWORDS=Berkeley

Given the shrinking demand for law school education – or, as Yoo would put it, a high-priced product in oversupply – it only makes sense that the “quantity will fall until the market clears,” Yoo concludes.

-The Wall Street Journal, June 17, 2011 by John Yoo
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304186404576389474268093278.html

By accusing President Barack Obama of violating the War Powers Resolution, House Republicans are abandoning their party’s longstanding position that the Constitution allows the executive to use force abroad, subject to Congress’s control over funding. Sadly, they’ve fallen victim to the siren song of short-term political gain.

-The Heritage Foundation Pt I, June 20, 2011 by John Yoo and James C. Ho
http://bit.ly/llpRFl

Much of the debate over the power to initiate hostilities focuses on understanding the meaning of the words, “declare War.” Supporters of presidential authority contend that the Founders were well aware of the long British practice of undeclared wars. They assert that the Constitution likewise does not require formal war declarations for the President to authorize hostilities as a matter of domestic constitutional power.

-The Heritage Foundation Pt II, June 20, 2011 by John Yoo and James C. Ho
http://bit.ly/m9dGgr

Few constitutional issues have been so consistently and heatedly debated by legal scholars and politicians in recent years as the distribution of war powers between Congress and the President. As a matter of history and policy, it is generally accepted that the executive takes the lead in the actual conduct of war.

National Review, May 27, 2011 by John Yoo
http://bit.ly/la34D0

Our most critical need in that war is intelligence. But policies put into place by the Obama administration during the last two years have retarded and even reversed the progress made since 9/11. Obama’s policies on detention, interrogation, and the trial of terrorists are driving us to kill rather than capture high-value al-Qaeda leaders. While bin Laden’s death was a victory, we lost an even greater intelligence opportunity.