John Yoo's Evasive Military Maneuvers

Will President Obama use the Pentagon to avoid constitutional limits?

Justice Department memos released last week paint a picture of a post-9/11 America where the military censors, searches, and seizes people at will. Explaining why he sought to rationalize something akin to martial law, John Yoo, the memos' main author, says he was asked "unprecedented questions under the most severe time pressures" during a period when many people feared more terrorist attacks were in the offing.

Yet civil liberties do not mean much if they are abandoned whenever the government thinks it has a good reason to violate them. It is precisely in times of crisis, when politicians are most tempted to take legal shortcuts and the public is most inclined to go along, that constitutional protections are most needed. Although Attorney General Eric Holder claims to understand this, his embrace of Yoo-like rhetoric and reasoning suggests his differences with the former Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) lawyer may be a matter more of circumstance than of principle.

In a March 7 Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, Yoo, now a Berkeley law professor, says the recently released memos, which were written in 2001 and 2002, were part of an effort "to plan for worst-case scenarios." But his argument that the military could pursue terrorists domestically without regard to the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures did not hinge on additional attacks, let alone a situation resembling invasion or open warfare. It was an invitation to reclassify all terrorism-related law enforcement activities as matters of national security and hand them over to the Pentagon, thereby avoiding inconvenient constitutional constraints.

In an October 2001 memo, Yoo and OLC lawyer Robert Delahunty suggested that if the military does something, even something that looks like police work, it is ipso facto a military operation, not a criminal investigation. "Our forces," they said, "must be free to 'seize' enemy personnel or 'search' enemy quarters, papers and messages without having to show 'probable cause' to a neutral magistrate, and even without having to demonstrate that their actions were constitutionally 'reasonable.'"

As Yoo sees it, if the Defense Department searches Americans' homes, reads their mail, or listens to their phone calls, it is not carrying out an investigation; it is waging the War on Terror. "If the government's heightened interest in self-defense justifies the use of deadly force," Yoo wrote in a September 2001 memo, "then it certainly would also justify warrantless searches."

Likewise, according to Yoo, the military must be free to indefinitely detain anyone suspected of involvement with terrorism, including U.S. citizens arrested on U.S. soil, and neither Congress nor the courts have any business imposing limits on such detentions or dictating how the prisoners should be treated. In a gratuitous and therefore revealing aside, Yoo and Delahunty suggested that censorship aimed at defeating terrorism would be legal too, since "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully."

The Obama administration is not likely to go as far as Yoo did in asserting the president's unilateral, unconstrained authority to fight terrorism. The courts have rejected key aspects of Yoo's position, and the OLC itself renounced some of his more alarming claims (rather belatedly—just five days before George W. Bush left office).

Yet Attorney General Holder has endorsed Yoo's view that the U.S. is engaged in a never-ending, omnipresent War on Terror that justifies extraordinary measures such as preventive detention. He also has continued the Bush administration's efforts to suppress lawsuits related to rendition and warrantless wiretapping on state secrecy grounds.

The day he released the OLC memos, Holder said viewing the fight against terrorism as "a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties" is "misguided." I'm not sure about that. There is a tradeoff here, but it is better understood as a tradeoff between the dangers of terrorism and the dangers of tyranny. The Obama administration should be judged by how well it strikes that balance.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist.

© Copyright 2009 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • TofuSushi||

    Please stop being such an alarmist. President Obama is the right person for those powers, Bush was the wrong person.

  • Taktix®||

    Fuck that guy!

    No seriously, FUCK THAT GUY!!!

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    I did a bit of "legal analysis" on Mr. Yoo's self-serving Wall Street Journal column here.

  • ||

    John Woo is so much cooler than John Yoo. There, I said it.

  • ||

    A dictatorship in the name of some vauge, omnipresent war on terror. Mr. Yoo, Stalin would have been proud. And with such reasoned enlightenment, I am sure that a tenure as a professor at some distinguished law school is all but secured. So get out there and fuck up some more minds.

  • ||

    Yoo Schmoo. I don't need John Yoo to tell me that the government will behave anyway it wants when it feels the need and will deal with the fallout/problems after the fact, always argueing that the actions are necessary.

  • Geoff Nathan||

    There is a tradeoff here, but it is better understood as a tradeoff between the dangers of terrorism and the dangers of tyranny.

    Perhaps better rephrased as:

    There is a tradeoff here, but it is better understood as a tradeoff between the dangers of external terrorism and internal terrrorism. After all, as Bruce Schneier repeated notes, constitutional protections are security devices too--against our own side.

  • ||

    As another poster said a few days ago, an America which embraced Mr. Yoo's memos would be an America which already sterilized him and put him to work in a strip mine in occupied Canada or occupied Mexico.

  • Taktix®||

    As another poster said a few days ago, an America which embraced Mr. Yoo's memos would be an America which already sterilized him and put him to work in a strip mine in occupied Canada or occupied Mexico.

    Or a railroad project.

    *ducks*

  • Paul||

    Yet civil liberties do not mean much if they are abandoned whenever the government thinks it has a good reason to violate them. It is precisely in times of crisis, when politicians are most tempted to take legal shortcuts and the public is most inclined to go along, that constitutional protections are most needed.



    Come on now, it's not like we're talking about essential liberties, here.

  • Craig||

    Shouldn't John Yoo be in a federal prison by now? When do the war crimes trials start?

  • ||

    "And with such reasoned enlightenment, I am sure that a tenure as a professor at some distinguished law school is all but secured. So get out there and fuck up some more minds."

    Ahem, Yoo is listed as "Professor of Law" on the Berkeley Law (formerly Boalt Hall) website at http://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/faculty/facultyList.php

    This article says that he got tenure in 1999, just before taking leave to serve in the GW Bush administration:

    http://www.law.berkeley.edu/news/2008/edley041008.html

    Is Boalt prestigious enough for you?

    To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "I tremble for my alma mater when I consider that God is just."

  • Scarpe Nike||

    is good

  • changqin||

    good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement