The Volokh Conspiracy

Stone, who has long been an opponent of the Administration on civil liberty matters, provides a hyperbolic review that seems as exaggerated to me as Yoo's beliefs seem to Stone.

Stone says, for example, referring to some point Yoo made:

"Did you know, for example, that Congress cannot constitutionally restrict the president's authority as commander-in-chief to spy on the American people -- but that it can constitutionally eliminate such surveillance 'by cutting off all funds for it'?"

Well, depending on how you interpret "spy on the American people," the statement is either true or false; Stone offers no explanation, except to suggest by his dismissive sweep that the proposition in no sense could be true and that whatever Yoo meant (we are not told in Stone's review) must be wrong.

Sadly, this kind of dismissiveness pervades Stone's review. It would be nice to have something to assess other than the usual broad liberal talking points. But maybe a book review doesn't lend itself to careful presentations.

Oh, come on. It's a book review. I think Stone is saying in a lot of instances "I disagree," not "I disagree and therefore I win the argument."

I usually disagree with Geoffrey Stone on just about everything, but I think it's a great review. He acknowledges that Yoo has put the arguments out there in support of the administration. The gist of it, I think, is at the end, where he says In his own way, Yoo has done Americans a great service. Not only has he offered useful insights into the reasoning of the Bush administration, but he has exposed that reasoning to the harsh light of day.

I don't think Stone purports to offer much of the "harshness" of the light of day, only to say that it should be. He cherry picks a few of what he considers to be Yoo's worst arguments here and there and dismisses them, and he gives Yoo some credit. "In some instances, Yoo mounts a persuasive defense of the administration's policies. His account of the Patriot Act, for example, convincingly demonstrates that it was not nearly as draconian as its critics charged and that perhaps ;the worst thing about it is its Orwellian name.'"

Back to work....

Comparing the Commander-in-Chief to a drug dealer is a bit much. Especially when the President is acting on behalf of national security and using his executive powers to do so.

Comparing the President to a licensed pharmacist who sells unprescribed morphine to a minor afflicted with a painful terminal illness might make sense if the argument is that the pharmacist has exceeded the power granted by his license.

But even then Yoo's exact point would be that the people can revoke the President's license by voting into office politicians who pledge to defund the President's policies.

What exactly is so perverse about that argument? And how is it less perverse than comparing the American President to Scarface? Especially since Professor Stone's op-ed is timed to affect the midterm elections held on November 7th and thus is an in-kind contribution to the Democratic Party?

Given the number of redundancies, incoherencies, and general poor structure of his Constitutional Law textbook, I'm not quite sure how much respect I'm willing to give Stone as reviewer of books. The review gives me the impression that he had some pre-formulated cheap-shots he wanted to level against the administration, and he cherry-picked the quotes from Yoo's work that would give him an excuse to deliver those shots.

Especially since Professor Stone's op-ed is timed to affect the midterm elections held on November 7th and thus is an in-kind contribution to the Democratic Party?

Huh? Should no op-eds be published in the days shortly preceding an election?

For the same reason that Baker &Co. won't release their plan for Iraq until after the election -- so as to spare the voters the agony of hearing the truth before they actually vote.