  Man- I didn't know law students could be so ignorant... I was just looking up the whole urlLink petition at Berkley about John Yoo's supposed urlLink advocation of war atrocities during a memo given to the department of defense - thinking that my more conservative-minded friends could possibly be wrong, that maybe there was something hinted there (after all, the media can't be ALL wrong, right?
Oi. ) Still- looking at the urlLink memo (which was, you'll note, specifically requested by the department of defense) It seems meant to be an unbiased account -note the last sentence of the very first paragraph! In addition, reading through what I can see of the memo (I couldn't get access to other sites that had it- is there any site gives the whole memo that I don't have to pay for? ), it looks to give a fair view to what would be considered a war crime and under what circumstances. It provides legal precedents, expounds on the language of the law and even discusses a trend of interpretation that doesn't fit the text well (see the discussion on the 3rd Phase of the interpretation of article 3). It also well as notes another memo being sent out to discuss the legal proceedings if the country were to keep prisoners of war in Guantanamo Bay (pg 2) So what made the students at Berkley so upset?
I mean, they ARE law students... shouldn't they be able to tell a document stating the facts in a law from a document favoring a specific action? Hmmm... maybe they just know something the rest of us can't see ;) (Or maybe it's because they come from a society that believes all this urlLink stuff ...) 
