Death by drone, and the sliding scale of presidential power

Daniel Farber and John Yoo cited in National Public Radio, It’s All Politics blog, February 8, 2013

In an interview, Farber said…. “Presidents, regardless of political party, or liberal versus conservative, they just don’t seem to have a lot of qualms about doing what they think is necessary for national security. So it doesn’t surprise me [that Obama has allowed Americans to be targeted in drone strikes overseas]. There have been very few exceptions.”

In his 2006 book, War by Other Means: An Insider’s Account of the War on Terror, Yoo argues that killings in the context of a war is what legitimizes the federal government’s actions: “When a nation goes to war, it seeks to defeat the enemy in order to prevent future harms on society inflicted by enemy attacks…. The military bombs a building when it estimates with varying degrees of certainty that enemy soldiers or munitions are there. It does not wait to attack until it has proof beyond a reasonable doubt or probably cause.”

How the Supreme Court could scuttle critical fair housing rule

john a. powell quoted in ProPublica, February 8, 2013

powell, who spells his name without capital letters, said this court has shown an eagerness to dismantle civil rights protections even when case law is well established…. “It is not waiting on controversy in the lower courts, which is the normal case. If it strikes down disparate impact that would be a huge change, but the Court is rewriting issues around civil rights and race.”

Department of Justice ‘white paper’ full of contradictions

Alexa Koenig writes for US News and World Report, Debate Club, February 6, 2013

President Obama has repeatedly confirmed that taking the lives of Americans—even those affiliated with terrorist organizations—is subject to constitutional due process protections. The recent white paper justifying drone strikes against U.S. citizens is therefore a troubling contradiction.

Worse than waterboarding

John Yoo quoted in San Francisco Chronicle, February 6, 2013

“What’s the greater deprivation of liberties?” asked UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo, who wrote some of the Bush Justice Department legal opinions that authorized CIA use of enhanced interrogation techniques―waterboarding or incinerating?

Will re-education through labor end soon?

Stanley Lubman writes for The Wall Street Journal, China RealTime Report, February 4, 2013

The arbitrary system of police detention … or re-education through labor, has fallen so far out of favor that one China police chief cited the virtues of dissent for patriotic purposes to make a case for ending it. Growing criticism of this decades-old practice is encouraging. But if official statements aren’t accompanied by meaningful legal reform, police will likely keep locking up minor offenders at will under various forms of house arrest.

Koenig applies legal expertise to safeguarding human rights

Alexa Koenig interviewed by Marin Independent Journal, February 3, 2013

“I found that for men who were placed in Guantanamo, far away from anyone else who understood their culture or spoke their language, it was sometimes as bad as if not worse than being in solitary confinement, because they were so isolated from any human interaction or understanding.”

Mindfulness in legal practice is going mainstream

Charles Halpern quoted in ABA Journal, February 1, 2013

“On orientation day for first-year students,” says Charles Halpern, director of the initiative, “where we were presenting the activities of the Berkeley initiative for the first time … a young woman came up to me and said she’d had to choose between Stanford and Berkeley—and she said she chose Berkeley because of this program.”

Portland attorney wins $25B terrorism judgment

Alexa Koenig quoted in Portland Press Herald, February 1, 2013

Alexa Koenig, executive director of the Human Rights Center at the University of California School of Law in Berkeley, said in an email: “While I’m skeptical as to whether the impact of such judgments could be measured in any meaningful way, certainly any tools that can be used to mitigate the threat of terrorism are laudable. At a minimum, such judgments send a strong symbolic message about the extent to which terrorist acts are condemned.”

Diminishing the presidency

John Yoo writes for Wall Street Journal, January 30, 2013

Every president should seek to leave the office stronger than when he found it. The Framers understood that the future’s challenges could not be anticipated, and so the executive’s powers should not be wasted for short-term political advantage. Mr. Obama holds the prospect of leaving a diminished presidency that will put his successors in a far worse position than the one he inherited.

Justifying IP—putting the horse before Descartes

Robert Merges writes for PrawfsBlawg, January 30, 2013

We do not know whether IP law is net social welfare positive. Yet many of us feel strongly that this body of law, this social and legal institution, has a place in a well-functioning society. Now, we can say the data are not all in yet, but we nevertheless should maintain our IP system on the hope that someday we will have adequate data to justify it.