FYI
Folks, we’re getting deluged with comment spam today, so don’t be surprised if you see some. As I delete it I’m trying to be extra careful not to delete any legit comments, but be aware that that’s a possibility.
Leave a Reply
Commenting is closed for this article.
I’m installing a CAPTCHA system which should slow the comment spam. Sorry about this, folks.
— Matt Frost · Feb 23, 12:11 PM · #
Blar, did you read the paragraph you just quoted? It’s not my criticism, it’s that of the Justice Department’s own ethics watchdogs — the BUSH Justice Department’s, no less. Apparently they studied the memos of Yoo and his colleagues and have written a report, not yet released publicly but likely to be soon, that examines the legal “reasoning” in them and concludes it was trumped-up to justify the policies the Administration wanted (as opposed to seriously interpreting the Constitution, which is what the taxpayers were paying Yoo et. al. to do). That’s not ad hominem at all — it’s a criticism of the memos, not the man.
It’s also not ad hominem to infer bad faith FROM EVIDENCE (like, say, the shoddiness of the memos, and their inconsistency with settled principles of law) as opposed to merely imputing it to someone for no reason. Such inferences are made in investigations, hearings and trials every single day. Or do you think that if, say, an accused burglar simply claims that he fell into the window of the house by accident, then accidentally grabbed the gold lampstand in order to steady himself and forgot he’d stuffed it into his bag on the way out, then we have to believe him? Do you think we have no basis, ever, for concluding that someone acted in bad faith? Or do you just believe that Republican officials are incapable by definition of acting in bad faith, regardless of what the evidence indicates? If so, then it’s YOU who’s arguing ad hominem, not the Justice Department’s investigators.
— Jefferson · Feb 24, 02:06 AM · #
So, to finish the point — when you say, “If you think John Yoo is using legal voodoo to misinterpret the Constitution, explain to me why his interpretation is wrong, instead of just questioning the man’s character,” well, that’s apparently what his own colleagues have done in that report. That’s what the Justice Dept.‘s Office of Professional Responsibility is there for. My comment merely incorporates its conclusions by reference — but you’ll get your detailed explanation soon, it sounds like, when that report is made public. (And if you got your news somewhere other than FOX, maybe you would already have known about all this.)
— Jefferson · Feb 24, 02:13 AM · #
Hmm … looks like a couple of comments ended up in the wrong thread.
— John · Feb 24, 02:18 AM · #