(Untitled)

[baronlarf]

Blogosphere goes off on UMN Law School about the Delahunty decision.  
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016073.php
http://volokh.com/posts/1164816455.shtml
http://volokh.com/1164810164.shtml
http://jointstrikeweasel.blogspot.com/2006/11/petition-on-professor-hiring.html

Comments

[musicpsych]

My point about "diverse viewpoints" was just that there seem to be a lot of left-leaning students and faculty in the institution - at least, a significant enough number to sign the petition and get the attention of the Dean. Even if Delahunty is in the minority, that doesn't mean his opinion isn't valid. He might be able to offer a different perspective/interpretation than the students would normally get.

Also, I'm not sure if I should go here, but I will. I wonder how much of this is part of the political climate and the backlash against all things Bush. If he had written similar memo drafts for a Democrat, would they still be up in arms about his appointment? Because he wrote this memo for his client, does that mean he should be blacklisted for the rest of his life?

I also wonder how many people signed the petition out of outrage at the results of the memo, without even reading the memo itself. Sure, what happened sucks from a human rights standpoint, but is there language in the Geneva Convention or WCA that specifically speaks against it?

[baronlarf]

Musicpsych makes a good point about what is causing the outrage: the memo itself, or the results for which it is blamed. I can't speak for why every person who signed the memo did so. But while the source of the outrage may indeed be the results, and/or anti-Bush sentiment, the anti-Delahunty crowd are indeed couching their arguments in the text of the memo itself.

The argument out there as I understand it is that Delahunty was unethical simply because he failed in his duties as an attorney under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct by
1) Not giving a balanced view of the law as it stands, and/or
2) Simply giving a client advise on how to break the law without getting caught

I thinks that these arguments fail for a couple of reasons. First, the law as it stood in 2002 was very murky. This was before the Supreme Court appeared to rule in Hamdan that the Geneva Conventions applied to enemy combatants. There was plenty of room for an attorney to legitimately argue that the Convention did not apply. Did he go too far by not representing the other side? I'm not sure; I haven't read the memo or its context. My understanding was that Yoo & Delahunty took one position, another attorney took the position that it did apply, and the final memo representing the Bush administration's view did not come out for a while later.

Second, the comparison between a mob lawyer and Yoo/Delahunty doesn't really make sense. The mob's trying to line their pockets by committing crimes. The president is trying to protect civilians in a new and different war. Again, I haven't read the memo yet, but it seems to me that Yoo/Delahunty are giving their honest opinion of the law as it stands, not how to get around the law as it stands.