Every American, regardless of political beliefs or party affiliation should be disgusted by the ugly campaign tactics being used by McCain and Palin. Whipping crowds at campaign stops into angry frenzies should have no place in the most important expression of our rights & freedom.

We need to take action before the hatred being generated at these events results in a national tragedy!

The only organization with the power to put a stop to this is the GOP. If the leadership of the GOP sees that current and future prospects of their party are being seriously damaged by McCain's tactics they will put a stop to it.

Please join me in contacting the leadership of the GOP and expressing your opinions about this issue. The main website for the GOP is:

http://www.rnc.org/

From the main page you can access e-mail addresses and telephone numbers for party leaders as well as links to the GOP organizations in every state.

PLEASE BE CIVIL!! We don't want to adopt their tactics when expressing our disagreement with them. Keeping their phone lines and e-mail boxes busy with respectful communications regarding the hateful campaign being conducted by McCain is the best way to get their attention.

Please pass this information on to everyone on your e-mail lists in order to spread the word.

For your convenience some of the main contact info follows:

Mike Duncan, RNC Chairman
Phone: 202-863-8700
Fax: 202-863-8820
Email: Chairman@gop.com

Jo Ann Davidson, Co-Chairman
Phone: 202-863-8545
Fax: 202-863-8631
Email: Info@gop.com

Campaign Operations
Voter Programs
Phone: 202-863-8600
Fax: 202-863-8808
Email: Political@gop.com

Donor Programs
Phone: 202-863-8720
Fax: 202-863-8690
Email: Finance@gop.com

Dear Dean Edley:

Thank you for publishing your explanation regarding the "Torture Memos" written by Professor Yoo and the decision not to take any action against him. Your assumption that your explanation would not be totally satisfying to everyone was very accurate, and I include myself among the dissatisfied for the following reasons.

Your memo seems to offer the memos produced by Professor Yoo the umbrella of "academic freedom." Since he was on leave from the university and an employee of the federal government at the time that he wrote them I don't believe his work can be defended as an academic exercise. He was working as and being paid as a legal counselor, and his memos were not destined for publication in a dusty, little read, legal publication. They were meant for the top echelons of our government and as such should have represented the highest and most accurate understanding and interpretation of our nation's and international laws.

For a moment let's give Professor Yoo the benefit of assuming that he really believed his own reasoning and conclusions; let's assume that the memos were not written simply to support the aims of his employers (clients?). Wouldn't a prudent lawyer have presented both sides of the argument so that his clients would have the benefit of making a truly informed decision? I would think that with such grave matters he would want his presentation to be fully informative. Why didn't he do that?

In part your memo states: "no argument about what he did or didn't facilitate, or about his special obligations as an attorney, makes his conduct morally equivalent to that of his nominal clients, Secretary Rumsfeld, et al., or comparable to the conduct of interrogators distant in time, rank and place." The Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the ABA, Client-Lawyer Relationship, Rule 1.2: Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer, Section (d) states: "A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law." What of Professor Yoo's responsibility under this rule? It is clear to me, at least, that the legal advice he presented in these memos was woefully inadequate under this rule. As to the moral equivalence of his role in justifying the actions that Rumsfeld, Cheney, etal, were clearly championing I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that Professor Yoo's culpability is less than that of the "deciders" or the "perpetrators" of these crimes. It is not credible that John Yoo wrote these memos without full knowledge that his conclusions were at the least debatable, and that the results of his tortured justifications would result in the use of torture by his masters. At Nuremberg didn't civilized society determine that the actions of Germany's government officials were as culpable as the prison guards who carried out the bruatality at Auschwitz? How is John Yoo not culpable?

I understand the complexity of academic tenure and know that you cannot easily dismiss Professor Yoo for his actions while he was employed by the federal government, but I also understand the culture and dynamics of universities and law schools. To wring your hands and hide behind the Academic Personnel Manual of the University of California  and claim that  the matter is really out of your hands is not very admirable.

Sincerely,