Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:55, 7 March 2008

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

rel to christopher yoo?

Does anyone know whether John Yoo is the brother of law professor Christopher Yoo, who also has advanced the theory of the unitary executive?

NPOV - See Also

There is no relation that merits having Carl Schmitt in the 'See also' other than implying a comparison between John Yoo, a modern American legal professor and jurist, to Nazis. That is a opinion one is entitled to, but it does not belong in the wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmidtr1 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 2006 June 10

Carl Schmitt was a German jurist, political theorist, and professor of law with similar opinions as John Yoo. Two peas in a pod. The link is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.192.246 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 2007 April 21

sounds like you are playing the "Hitler Card" - that is, The Nazis accepted idea I. Therefore, I must be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.226.76 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 2007 May 7

actually, its more like, idea "I" is wrong, AND the Nazis accepted the idea. That should be worthy of noting.

I removed some see alsos that are already linked in the article per GTL. Thanks, --Tom 14:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Korean name

What is his Korean first name? Badagnani 02:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Unitary Executive Theory does not equal "Yoo Doctrine", other issues

The section discussing the so-called "Yoo Doctrine" is extremely problematic. This is partially because it suggests that Yoo himself is somehow exceptionally in his beliefs in the separation of powers; yet the belief for a firm separation required in Constitutional law is not unique to Mr. Yoo (see for example Justice Scalia's dissent in Morrison v. Olson. The term "Yoo Doctrine" is indeed apparent a negative term intended to deride Mr. Yoo and his opinions and certainly does not belong in an encyclopedia as an an objective fact.

Also there is little explaining why Mr. Yoo has reached the legal conclusions he has. The entry states that he has opinions X, and that various people object to them, and does only a cursory job of explaining his understanding of the Constitution and the law considering the amount of writing that he has done (which is rather extensive).JimServo (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It would also appear from a Google search of the term "Yoo Doctrine" that the term is almost exclusively used on left-wing websites. That being the case, it is probably not appropriate for Misplaced Pages unless prefaced by something along the order of "liberal critics of Yoo have coined the phrase 'the Yoo Doctrine' to describe. . ."Jvward (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

New Talk Entry January 17, 2008: However it is "named," whether it be the "Yoo Doctrine" or "the Torture Memoranda" (the latter being the common named applied to his work), Yoo's opinions on the so-called unitary executive have been explictly rejected by the Supreme Court in the Hamdi opinion and Yoo's opinions on torture law were (1) rejected/challenged almost immediately by large numbers of lawyers in the Justice Department and in the various military judge advocate corps, and (2) withdrawn by Goldsmith (the new head of the Office of Legal Counsel after Bybee, Yoo's boss, was confirmed as an appellate court judge -- see below for additional information) because they were wrong. The most elegant elucidation of the contemporaneous firestorm of legal opposition to the Torture Memoranda I have seen is in a law review-type essay by Hatfield at Lewis and Clark obtainable in pdf form here: http://www.lclark.edu/org/lclr/objects/LCB10_3_Hatfield.pdf If anything, the Misplaced Pages entries on Yoo pose the problem of being too reserved. Yoo is directly responsible for the creation of a population of Americans who believe that a U.S. citizen can properly/Constitutionally be held indefinitely in the continental U.S., tortured, denied habeas corpus relief, convicted on evidence without the ability to confront the source of the evidence, etc., etc. These are extraordinarily dangerous beliefs. And, as one sees in the Hatfield essay, some of the most relevant citations are to Nazi war crimes cases against Nazi lawyers responsible for authorizing torture and imprisonment. The problem of silence and politesse regarding Yoo is best illustrated by the fact that because the Torture Memoranda written by Yoo were hidden by a veil of secrecy, Judge Bybee of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the person who ultimately signed the memos, was nominated and appointed to his lifetime position on the bench without being questioned in Senate hearings about the Torture Memoranda. Thus, the Senate's Constitutional role was evicerated and the faith in the judiciary severely eroded. (Who could argue against the proposition that Bybee must forever recuse himself from any consideration of any case involving torture claims, habeas corpus, etc., etc.?) The absence of outrage over this sequence of events is the remarkable thing. Indeed, one could argue that so far the Misplaced Pages entries on Yoo fail to adequately expose the error and criminality of his activities (cf. Hatfield, above). Waltbenjbro (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect sir, it is not the job of an encyclopedia to "expose the error and criminality" of individuals when that error is far from obvious. Mr. Yoo's positions are subject to debate, and he has not been convicted of any crime. His is held in respect by mainstream American conservative publications such as Commentary. In essence, apparently he is a criminal for putting forward his honest opinions as to his beliefs on constitutional law. That may be wrong, sir, but it is not criminal.

(OT) As to Bybee, the fact that a judged is not questioned is not unusual because of Senate negotiations. I think that if there was a strong feeling in the opposition of the Senate's role being diminished then it can be placed on the appropriate page as an opinion. JimServo (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Smear?

See this. utcursch | talk 07:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This biography of a living person has significant WP:NPOV and WP:SYN problems. Jas public (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No matter how obvious it may seem I would encourage contributors to offer specific instances of the perceived lapses from WP:NPOV that trigger their concern. Nothing is obvious.

Regarding the note from the PowerLine blog... just because Powerline is a blog from the extreme doesn't mean we shouldn't consider any valid points it makes, here in our talk page discussion.

Was Padilla tortured? Actual proof of torture remains unconfirmed, I believe.

However, haven't his attorneys stated that his mental health was so damaged by the conditions of his interrogations and incarceration that his mind had snapped? that he was unable to participate in his own defense? that he did not seem aware of what was going on during his trial? If I am not mistaken his attorney's account is verifiable. The standard the wikipedia aims for is "verifiability, not truth".

This article should not be smearing Yoo. Powerline complains that a passage from the wikipedia was editorializing. I'll agree, that passage could do with a bit of improvement. But it doesn't seem to be nearly as bad as Powerline pretends. Powerline is just an opinion blog, so there is nothing wrong with it editorializing. Powerline's characterization of Padilla's lawsuit as "frivolous" is editorializing. Misplaced Pages contributors should discount this characterization, and rely on informed opinions on this case from more authoritative sources.

I doubt whether either the Consortium News Powerline criticizes the article for using, or Powerline itself, would make the cut to be considered a reliable source.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Section deleted

I deleted the section "War crimes accusations" because it had only one external link and no inline citations, as per Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. The lawsuits are of encyclopedic interest, but should only be written citing reliable sources. Andjam (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing sourced info is a bit silly, especially a wellknown fact as this. Nomen Nescio 19:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The external link doesn't even link to a valid page. Even if it weren't an invalid page, by itself it wouldn't satisfy reliable sources, especially for a biography of a living person. Misplaced Pages:BLP#Well_known_public_figures gives court-related documents as a specific example of something to avoid using as a primary source about individuals unless a secondary source has already cited them. Andjam (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've listed this article at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#John Yoo. Andjam (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Will add RS so your objedction will be moot. Nomen Nescio 11:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Restored the sourced material and trust no valid argument exists to continue deleting it. Nomen Nescio 16:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Do the inline citations include the nazi comparisons? (Please try to use a reliable source rather than an activist outlet to support such a claim) Andjam (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of After Downing Street article

Can an article that mocks Asian accents from a web site that features 9/11 truthers be considered a reliable source? Or is this only intending to illustrate an example of anti-Yoo sentiment? Andjam (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nazi comparisons (again)

Please stop it with the Nazi comparisons in a living person's biography without citing a sufficiently reliable source. Someone who has appeared in antiwar.com, which also features a certain stormfront-lover, doesn't seem awfully reliable. Andjam (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop removing sourced material as you were told before by others. Nowhere does it say Nazi. Clearly your POV is not suuuuperior to material that adheres to WP:V and WP:RS. Nomen Nescio 13:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles