Yoo. Who? ... Lawyers at War - No uniforms, no guns, but some great ideas

If you wanted to look at the sort of legal mind that might identify attaching diplomatic status to "rendered" prisoners, you might usefully examine the career of John Yoo.Famously the author of the "Torture memos" which provided such a unique view of obligations of signatories to the Geneva Conventions on Torture. Newsweek recalls an interesting memo on Presidential power as well.

University of California, Berkeley
Boalt Hall School of Law
890 Simon Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720
Phone: (510) 643-5089
Fax: (510) 642-3728
E-Mail: yoo@law.berkeley.edu

John Yoo is a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), where he has taught since 1993. From 2001-03, he served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice (A Gonzalez), where he worked on issues involving foreign affairs, national security, and the separation of powers. He served as general gounsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee from 1995-96, where he advised on constitutional issues and judicial nominations.See Common Dreams

He has written a great deal - here is a flavour ....

Abstract: Virginia Journal of Law The Status of Terrorists , 44 Va. J. Int'l L. 207 (2003).

"This paper identifies and analyzes two legal questions raised by the war against the al Qaeda terrorist organization. First, did the September 11, 2001 attacks initiate a war, or "international armed conflict," or was it only an act punishable under criminal law? Second, what legal rules govern the status and treatment of members of al Qaeda and the Taliban militia that harbored and supported them in Afghanistan? We argue that the United States is currently engaged in a state of armed conflict with al Qaeda, a multinational terrorist organization whose leadership declared war on the United States as early as 1996, and the Taliban militia, which harbors and supports that organization. This state of armed conflict justifies the use of military force by the United States to subdue and defeat the enemy, separate and apart from any ordinary law enforcement objectives that may also justify coercive government action against members of al Qaeda and the Taliban militia. To give legal recognition to the current armed conflict is not to confer upon members of al Qaeda or the Taliban militia the privileged status of lawful combatants. Neither group complies with the four traditional conditions of lawful combat long established under the laws of war and recognized by the Geneva Conventions. Members of al Qaeda and the Taliban militia have chosen to fight in blatant disregard for the laws of armed conflict and are, accordingly, unlawful combatants not entitled to the legal status of prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions."

Go on the Offensive against Terror

By John Yoo Posted: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 ARTICLES Los Angeles Times Publication Date: July 13, 2005
Reprinted by American Enterprise Institute

"Most directly, the U.S. should destroy the hubs of the network. Only a coordinated, simultaneous attack on several major hubs will leave a network in isolated and relatively harmless pieces.

Can we do this? In wartime, the military may legally kill members of the enemy's armed forces. If we are at war, the U.S. can carry out selective attacks on Al Qaeda's senior members, such as the 2002 Predator missile strike in Yemen. If we're not at war, we may have to rethink the 1970s-era presidential order banning assassination."

Condoleezza Rice. Statement Dec 6th Andrews Air Force Base..

"Because this war on terrorism challenges traditional norms and precedents of previous conflicts, our citizens have been discussing and debating the proper legal standards that should apply."

'Nuff sed

Recent blogs on same topic here