SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
John Yoo, Bush's Torture Lawyer, Given Immunity
Man who wrote memos 'authorizing' torture will not face lawsuit from victim after judges rule
May 03, 2012
John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who penned legal memos that provided cover for President George W. Bush's torture program, can't be sued by one of the victims of that program, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Jose Padilla, an American citizen arrested in 2002 and declared an "enemy combatant," may not hold professor John Yoo liable for "gross physical and psychological abuse" that Padilla said he suffered during more than three years of military detention, according to the Los Angeles Times.
"We cannot say that any reasonable official in 2001-03 would have known that the specific interrogation techniques allegedly employed against Padilla, however appalling, necessarily amounted to torture," said Judge Raymond Fisher in the 3-0 ruling.
* * *
San Francisco Chronicle: John Yoo torture suit tossed out
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stopped short of endorsing Yoo's conduct as a lawyer in the Justice Department, where he wrote memos approving most of the practices allegedly used against plaintiff Jose Padilla in a Navy brig - sleep deprivation, stress positions, isolation, and extremes of temperature, light and darkness.
Padilla also said his interrogators threatened to kill him, and he claimed Yoo had personally authorized his treatment.
At least some of Padilla's treatment may well constitute torture under current standards, the appeals court said. But when Yoo worked for the department in 2001-03, the three-judge panel said, courts had not yet decided that those practices were torture, or that so-called enemy combatants like Padilla had the same constitutional rights as other inmates.
* * *
Los Angeles Times: Treatment was 'clearly unconstitutional' says lawyer
Ben Wizner, who represents Padilla in another federal lawsuit against other Bush administration officials, called the ruling "quite wrong" and "disappointing."
He said the court missed an opportunity to declare "once and for all" that the methods used against Padilla were "clearly unconstitutional."
"Even if they were to give John Yoo a free pass, they missed an opportunity to make sure that nothing like this would ever happen again," Wizner said.
The 9th Circuit's ruling said the U.S. Supreme Court did not declare until 2004 that citizens held as enemy combatants have constitutional rights.
Even now, the 9th Circuit said, "it remains murky whether an enemy combatant detainee may be subjected to conditions of confinement and methods of interrogation that would be unconstitutional if applied in the ordinary prison and criminal settings."
* * *
Christian Science Monitor: 'Torture memos' author can't be sued
The Ninth Circuit panel stressed that it was "beyond debate" in 2001-03 that it was unconstitutional for the government to torture an American citizen. But the court said it was not "clearly established at that time that the treatment Padilla alleges he was subjected to amounted to torture."
The 2002 "torture memo" set broadly permissive standards giving significant leeway to interrogators. It says a subject would have to experience pain equivalent to organ failure to prove torture.
The memo also set broadly permissive standards for the infliction of mental harm.
"The development of a mental disorder such as post-traumatic stress disorder, which can last months or even years, or even chronic depression, which can last a considerable period of time if untreated, might satisfy the prolonged harm requirement" to prove torture, the memo says.
Three mental-health experts who examined Padilla have said his mental condition exceeded that standard. His detention and interrogation left him with severe mental disabilities, they say, from which he may never recover.
# # #
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who penned legal memos that provided cover for President George W. Bush's torture program, can't be sued by one of the victims of that program, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Jose Padilla, an American citizen arrested in 2002 and declared an "enemy combatant," may not hold professor John Yoo liable for "gross physical and psychological abuse" that Padilla said he suffered during more than three years of military detention, according to the Los Angeles Times.
"We cannot say that any reasonable official in 2001-03 would have known that the specific interrogation techniques allegedly employed against Padilla, however appalling, necessarily amounted to torture," said Judge Raymond Fisher in the 3-0 ruling.
* * *
San Francisco Chronicle: John Yoo torture suit tossed out
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stopped short of endorsing Yoo's conduct as a lawyer in the Justice Department, where he wrote memos approving most of the practices allegedly used against plaintiff Jose Padilla in a Navy brig - sleep deprivation, stress positions, isolation, and extremes of temperature, light and darkness.
Padilla also said his interrogators threatened to kill him, and he claimed Yoo had personally authorized his treatment.
At least some of Padilla's treatment may well constitute torture under current standards, the appeals court said. But when Yoo worked for the department in 2001-03, the three-judge panel said, courts had not yet decided that those practices were torture, or that so-called enemy combatants like Padilla had the same constitutional rights as other inmates.
* * *
Los Angeles Times: Treatment was 'clearly unconstitutional' says lawyer
Ben Wizner, who represents Padilla in another federal lawsuit against other Bush administration officials, called the ruling "quite wrong" and "disappointing."
He said the court missed an opportunity to declare "once and for all" that the methods used against Padilla were "clearly unconstitutional."
"Even if they were to give John Yoo a free pass, they missed an opportunity to make sure that nothing like this would ever happen again," Wizner said.
The 9th Circuit's ruling said the U.S. Supreme Court did not declare until 2004 that citizens held as enemy combatants have constitutional rights.
Even now, the 9th Circuit said, "it remains murky whether an enemy combatant detainee may be subjected to conditions of confinement and methods of interrogation that would be unconstitutional if applied in the ordinary prison and criminal settings."
* * *
Christian Science Monitor: 'Torture memos' author can't be sued
The Ninth Circuit panel stressed that it was "beyond debate" in 2001-03 that it was unconstitutional for the government to torture an American citizen. But the court said it was not "clearly established at that time that the treatment Padilla alleges he was subjected to amounted to torture."
The 2002 "torture memo" set broadly permissive standards giving significant leeway to interrogators. It says a subject would have to experience pain equivalent to organ failure to prove torture.
The memo also set broadly permissive standards for the infliction of mental harm.
"The development of a mental disorder such as post-traumatic stress disorder, which can last months or even years, or even chronic depression, which can last a considerable period of time if untreated, might satisfy the prolonged harm requirement" to prove torture, the memo says.
Three mental-health experts who examined Padilla have said his mental condition exceeded that standard. His detention and interrogation left him with severe mental disabilities, they say, from which he may never recover.
# # #
John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who penned legal memos that provided cover for President George W. Bush's torture program, can't be sued by one of the victims of that program, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Jose Padilla, an American citizen arrested in 2002 and declared an "enemy combatant," may not hold professor John Yoo liable for "gross physical and psychological abuse" that Padilla said he suffered during more than three years of military detention, according to the Los Angeles Times.
"We cannot say that any reasonable official in 2001-03 would have known that the specific interrogation techniques allegedly employed against Padilla, however appalling, necessarily amounted to torture," said Judge Raymond Fisher in the 3-0 ruling.
* * *
San Francisco Chronicle: John Yoo torture suit tossed out
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stopped short of endorsing Yoo's conduct as a lawyer in the Justice Department, where he wrote memos approving most of the practices allegedly used against plaintiff Jose Padilla in a Navy brig - sleep deprivation, stress positions, isolation, and extremes of temperature, light and darkness.
Padilla also said his interrogators threatened to kill him, and he claimed Yoo had personally authorized his treatment.
At least some of Padilla's treatment may well constitute torture under current standards, the appeals court said. But when Yoo worked for the department in 2001-03, the three-judge panel said, courts had not yet decided that those practices were torture, or that so-called enemy combatants like Padilla had the same constitutional rights as other inmates.
* * *
Los Angeles Times: Treatment was 'clearly unconstitutional' says lawyer
Ben Wizner, who represents Padilla in another federal lawsuit against other Bush administration officials, called the ruling "quite wrong" and "disappointing."
He said the court missed an opportunity to declare "once and for all" that the methods used against Padilla were "clearly unconstitutional."
"Even if they were to give John Yoo a free pass, they missed an opportunity to make sure that nothing like this would ever happen again," Wizner said.
The 9th Circuit's ruling said the U.S. Supreme Court did not declare until 2004 that citizens held as enemy combatants have constitutional rights.
Even now, the 9th Circuit said, "it remains murky whether an enemy combatant detainee may be subjected to conditions of confinement and methods of interrogation that would be unconstitutional if applied in the ordinary prison and criminal settings."
* * *
Christian Science Monitor: 'Torture memos' author can't be sued
The Ninth Circuit panel stressed that it was "beyond debate" in 2001-03 that it was unconstitutional for the government to torture an American citizen. But the court said it was not "clearly established at that time that the treatment Padilla alleges he was subjected to amounted to torture."
The 2002 "torture memo" set broadly permissive standards giving significant leeway to interrogators. It says a subject would have to experience pain equivalent to organ failure to prove torture.
The memo also set broadly permissive standards for the infliction of mental harm.
"The development of a mental disorder such as post-traumatic stress disorder, which can last months or even years, or even chronic depression, which can last a considerable period of time if untreated, might satisfy the prolonged harm requirement" to prove torture, the memo says.
Three mental-health experts who examined Padilla have said his mental condition exceeded that standard. His detention and interrogation left him with severe mental disabilities, they say, from which he may never recover.
# # #
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.