John "Guantanamo" Yoo is on WaPo.com forum 1 PM ET Today

[BurtWorm]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/10/DI2006011001265.html

Friday, Jan. 13, at 1 p.m. ET
"The Powers of War and Peace"
The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11

John Yoo
Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law
Friday, January 13, 2006; 1:00 PM


"The Powers of War and Peace," by John Yoo (Courtesy University of Chicago Press)


Opponents of the the war in Iraq has often includes the argument that President Bush lacked the constitutional authority to wage the war. Legal scholar John Yoo wrote a secret memo to then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales which argued that the executive had the right to use military force preemptively against terrorists or nations that harbored them. In his new book, "The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11," Yoo outlines a defense of his position and examines constitutional history and the Framers' intent for presidential power. "The Powers of War and Peace" also looks at the role of Congress in the funding the use of military forces overseas.

John Yoo, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law and former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, will be online Friday, Jan. 13, at 1 p.m. ET to discuss his new book, "The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11."

Submit your questions and comments before or during today's discussion.


Here's mine:


Professor Yoo, James Madison takes issue with your view point:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . <There is also an> inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . ."

How do you respond to President Madison?

[kurth]

1. This fascist asshole is a MAJOR stain on a great institution

Too bad Berkeley can't fire his lying ass. He'd be crying and whining about racial discrimination on Rush Limbaugh and all the AM radio stations...

[BurtWorm]

2. kick

[Emit]

3. Burt

I've never participated in one of these. To follow the discussion, does one have to submit a question? Can I just follow along, and if so, how do I manage that, do you know? TX in advance.

[BurtWorm]

4. No participation required

You just keep hitting refresh. It can get boring if the subject, like Yoo, doesn't show up on time and (I predict) is spare with the questions he selects. In my experience, Bushists tend to be stingy with their time and responses. But since I did submit a question, I will be following this as the hour progresses (and multitasking, so I won't be bored).

[Emit]

5. OK, thanks. Gonna follow along.

I don't suppose he will want to address my question: "Mr. Yoo, why are you such a fascist pig?" So I won't be submitting it. :7

[BurtWorm]

8. Someone asked him a very interesting question about campaigns

and trustworthiness to wage war. He's actually more game to answer questions than the average Bushist.

[DBoon]

6. my question to Yoo

If you were to face a trial similar to those conducted in Nuremberg after WWII, would you allow yourself to be hung as a common criminal, or would you have someone smuggle in poison so you could cheat the executioner?

[BurtWorm]

7. I doubt we'll be seeing the answer to that one!

;)

[DBoon]

10. I think we should see the answer to that one

nt

[BurtWorm]

9. Yoo responds to Madison.

New York, N.Y.: Professor Yoo, James Madison takes issue with your view point:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . -There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . ."

How do you respond to President Madison?


John Yoo: It is not often I have the opportunity to have a conversation with President Madison.

Let me make one thing clear. I do not believe that it is a good thing for the United States to be at war. I would vastly prefer and wish that we were currently at peace. But the 9/11 attacks happened, and they did not happen because of our choice; we were attacked by surprise by a foreign enemy. We did not want the war that came on 9/11; it was thrust upon us.

I agree with Madison's view that war is terribly wasteful and can lead to bad outcomes. I also agree that it leads to the expansion of executive power in ways we would not want if we were purely at peace (although it is also true that since Madison spoke the power of the Presidency has greatly expanded over the regulation of the economy and society).

But the question is that if we are to have a war, terrible though it may be, who should decide whether to have it and how it should be fought. And there, I believe that the President was understood by the drafters of the Constitution to have that power, and that Congress would have the ultimate check through the power of the purse, without which no war could ever be successfully fought.

I would also respond to your point with another point from Madison (which is a favorite hobby among Madison scholars, who argue over whether Madison was consistent over his career or switched positions for political opportunity). During the Virginia convention called to ratify the Constitution, the most important of the conventions, Patrick Henry made much this argument, and further claimed that the Constitution should be voted down because it would create in the President a military dictator. Madison responded not by claiming that Congress's power to Declare War would prevent this. Instead, he relied on the power of funding: "the sword and purse are not to be given to the same member. Apply it to the British Government, which has been mentioned. The sword is in the hands of the British King. The purse is in the hands of the Parliament. It is so in America, as far as any analogy can exist."



<It seems crystyal clear to to me, Burt Worm, that Madison's "retort to himself" as Yoo characterizes it, is actually not at all inconsistent with the first quote (which comes from a private letter). Madison's point seems to me to be that dictatorial war-mongering would be *checked* by Congressional control of the purse. The president, in other words, would be at the mercy of ostensibly prudent financial managers. Of course Madison didn't foresee that his enemies descendents would one day own the federal government, thereby removing ALL checks on the dictatorship of the Executive.>