WSJ gives platform to war criminal

Mcjoan, who tracks issues of ongoing interest to me, posted today about John Yoo's disingenuous (dishonest? Yes, let's go with dishonest!) opinion piece in the WSJ defending FISA violations. That's defending illegal behavior, in case I'm being too subtle here.

She quotes extensively from Anonymous Liberal's "detailed and devastating take down of Yoo."

A sample from Anonymous Liberal:

In today's op-ed Yoo finally gets around to a subject that he didn't bother to mention in his original opinion, the relevance of the Youngstown case. In an almost childish bit of sophistry, Yoo asserts that "Youngstown correctly found that the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the exclusive power to make law concerning labor disputes. It does not, however, address the scope of the president's power involving military strategy or tactics in war." Needless to say, this is an interpretation of Youngstown shared by precisely no one. Youngstown explicitly involved a conflict between the president's power to direct the Korean War and Congress. In every case since then, the Supreme Court has applied the Youngstown framework to presidential claims of Article II authority. In the recent Hamdan case, the Court relied on Youngstown in striking down the Bush administration's military commissions. Suggesting that Youngstown was about a "labor dispute" is like suggesting that Marbury v. Madison was about a judicial appointment. It entirely misses the point of the case.

[Emphasis mine]

Indeed.

Yoo is an especially nasty piece of work. He makes the most noisome drengturd look and smell good.

Why, by every star in heaven, is this man not under indictment, if not behind bars?

--the BB