Legal Commentary

Washington Post Opines John Yoo Should Have Immunity

By Jeralyn

Yesterday, in criticizing the Washington Post, I jokingly asked whether, like the Weekly Standard, it too would merge with the Washington Times, owned by billionaire conservative Phil Anschutz.

Today, WaPo has an editorial criticizing the court's decision to allow the Jose Padilla civil case against John Yoo to proceed.

Mr. Yoo provided legal opinions on what he believed the law allowed the executive to do, but he did not make the final policy decisions. Allowing Mr. Padilla's case to proceed could have a chilling effect on the ability of government lawyers to give candid, good-faith advice for fear of being held personally liable.

On Monday, the paper called for passage of a law that would allow D.C. to create "public "safety zones" deemed off-limits to individuals identified as members of gangs." Violators would face up to 120 days in jail. The editorial found no civil liberties problems with the bill.

There's no editorial this week on the Supreme Court decision rejecting an inmate's right to DNA testing to prove innocence (unlike the NY Times which ran a great one.)

Sad, just sad. It really used to be a good paper.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on June 20, 2009 (boomark / email).