Why is Obama's DOJ defending John Yoo, the author of the torture memos?

[IndianaGreen]

Just came up on Rachel Maddow that DOJ is defending Yoo against the lawsuit filed by Padilla, the American citizen that was tortured. Bad enough that Obama's DOJ defends DOMA, and equates same sex relations to pedophilia in one of the footnotes, now we have DOJ defending the puke that wrote the torture memos.

Accused Terrorist Jose Padilla Sues Law Professor John Yoo

Published 1, January 6, 2008

In a curious lawsuit, accused terrorist Jose Padilla has sued Law Professor John Yoo. Yoo is the supposedly one of the authors of several memos supporting President Bush’s enemy combatant policy and has been linked to the abuse that resulted from that policy. Yoo and Georgetown Professor Viet Dinh have been criticized for their roles in creating these abuses that include a formal torture program and the denial of basic constitutional rights.

Jose Padilla’s case remains one of the most disturbing in U.S. history. After President Bush stripped him of his constitutional rights and held him without charge, he was subjected to cruel conditions and denied access to the courts and counsel. Neither Democrats nor Republicans did a thing in Congress despite an outcry from the nation’s lawyers and civil libertarians. All of the politicians running today on civil liberties were strangely silent for years as this abuse occurred in full knowledge of the public. Every effort to get judicial relief was block by cynical legal moves by the Justice Department to move Padilla or his case. The Supreme Court ultimately adopted the most technical of technicalities to avoid ruling on his case: the caption on this case was wrong because it failed to name the right government official. Of course, since the government was hiding Padilla and moving him around like a Where’s Waldo exercise, it was hard to name the right official at the time of original filing.

Ultimately, the Justice Department charged Padilla on crimes entirely unrelated to the original alleged crime: planning a possible nuclear attack on a major city. That was the sensational allegation trumped by John Ashcroft at an infamous press conference — forcing the White House to later retract Ashcroft’s statements.

Padilla is a U.S. citizen arrested in the U.S. He was however, denied the most basic constitutional rights for years and, according to his lawyers, remains mentally disturbed from his harsh treatment by the government. He was held without criminal charge for 3½ years at a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C.

Yoo was deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel and provided much of the justification for these infamous policies as did Viet Dinh. The lawsuit was brought by Padilla and his mother, Estela Lebron, and asks only $1 in damages. It is clearly meant to secure a moral judgment against Yoo. Padilla attorney Jonathan Freiman, a professor at Yale Law School, filed the action. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/01/06/accused-terrorist-jose-padilla-sues-law-professor-john-yoo/

[uponit7771]

1. Legally the DOJ operates seperate of the president, the white house isn't defending

...Yoo the DOJ legally has a responsibility to.

I don't like it but we already had a president who couldn't care less about the law I'm glad Obama isn't doing the same.

[IndianaGreen]

2. Sure, except that Obama ignores the law when it comes prosecuting torturers and war criminals

Very white of him to give a pass to Bush Administration criminals while using the jackboot of government to smash LGBTs fundamental rights of equality.

[uponit7771]

3. I agree with Obama's position on leaving prosecution door open for those who ordered the torture...

...and I've not seen Obama smash the rights of anyone.

I gave Bush 1 year I'm willing to give Obama 2 before my blood preassure boils to the point of wanting to impeach him by implying he's covering for war criminals.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Obama doesn't deserve even two minutes on torture! He needs to do right!

Newly Released Detainee Statements Provide More Evidence Of CIA Torture Program (6/15/2009)

CIA Continues To Suppress Information From Detainee Tribunals With Heavy Redactions

NEW YORK – The CIA today released still-highly redacted documents in which Guantánamo Bay prisoners describe abuse and torture they suffered in CIA custody. The documents were released as part of an American Civil Liberties Union Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking uncensored transcripts from Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) that determine if prisoners held by the Defense Department at Guantánamo qualify as "enemy combatants." In previously released versions of the documents, the CIA had removed virtually all references to the abuse of prisoners in their custody; the documents released today are still heavily blacked out but include some new information.

"The documents released today provide further evidence of brutal torture and abuse in the CIA's interrogation program and demonstrate beyond doubt that this information has been suppressed solely to avoid embarrassment and growing demands for accountability," said Ben Wizner, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project and lead attorney on the FOIA lawsuit. "There is no legitimate basis for the Obama administration's continued refusal to disclose allegations of detainee abuse, and we will return to court to seek the full release of these documents."

<snip>

"The Obama administration should make good on its commitment to transparency, stop suppressing information about torture and abuse and hold accountable the officials who put unlawful policies in place."

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/39868prs20090615.html

[uponit7771]

6. If Obama came out and said he will prosecute those would ordered torture would you be

...satisfied?

Thx in advance for your response

[IndianaGreen]

9. I would prefer Obama honors an arrest warrant from International Crimes Court

Nothing like extraditing to The Hague the many war criminals and human rights abusers of the Bush Administration, including Bush and Cheney.

As to your specific question, the answer is Yes.

[waiting for hope]

10. There is a statue of limitations

on this:

Conyers Calls For Extending Statute of Limitations on Torture

Extend Statute of Limitations On Cheney/Bush Crimes

If they wait too long, it may be too late.

[chicago legal pro]

13. The DOJ is not independent of the President.

It is part of the Executive branch and every employee there works for the President. The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President and can be removed by him at any time for any reason.

[Captain Hilts]

5. It was work he performed for the govt. I think this is a new law as a result of all the

middle and lower level folks that went broke defending themselves from Kenneth Starr.

[uponit7771]

8. Also, the government has a fiduciary responsibility to defend Yoo even though the

...position sucks IF he directive was given to him by an upper power.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Not if Yoo gets indicted

There should be a federal grandjury already impaneled.

The trial judge ruled that Yoo is responsible for criminal actions that occurred as a result of his memo. Yoo is being ordered to testify.

[Thrill]

7. ummmm. Probably to keep the Government from being sued.

[IndianaGreen]

12. Padilla v. Yoo - Judge denies motion to dismiss "torture memos" case

June 13, 2009

Padilla v. Yoo - Judge denies motion to dismiss "torture memos" case

Federal Judge Jeffery White in San Francisco has substantially denied the motion to dismiss the civil complaint filed by Jose Padilla against John Yoo, formerly of the DOJ, now on leave from UC-Berkeley (Boalt Hall).

In a 42 page opinion (download here), Judge White begins rather grandly:

(War) will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.

The Federalist No. 8, at 44 (Alexander Hamilton) (E.H. Scott ed., 1898).

The issues raised by this case embody that same tension – between the requirements of war and the defense of the very freedoms that war seeks to protect.


However, the judge soon provides a detailed recitation of the allegations of the complaint and then engages in a closely reasoned opinion relying on United States Supreme Court precedent as well as numerous Ninth Circuit cases. Judge White acknowledges the separation of powers issues in this Bivens complaint, and interestingly has this comment about Yoo's argument for absention:

Yoo also advocates that this Court should abstain from adjudication because the Court should leave review of his legal memoranda and the conduct which followed to the coordinate branches of government based on substantive areas of law raised by the memoranda. The Court notes the irony of this position: essentially, the allegations of the complaint are that Yoo drafted legal cover to shield review of the conduct of federal officials who allegedly deprived Padilla of his constitutional rights. Now, Yoo argues that the very drafting itself should be shielded from judicial review. Padilla’s allegations here are that the creation of such legal cover was itself an unconstitutional exercise of power. Thus, the question posed by the present motion is whether an alternative branch of government, under the circumstances, should be tasked with prescribing the scope of relief available to Padilla.


Order at 22.

Judge White also denies Yoo's claim of qualified immunity, including the claim that there is insufficient causation (linking the memos to the actions against Padilla).

The Judge's Order denies the motion to dismiss "as to all claims with the exception of the claim for violation of Padilla’s rights under the Fifth Amendment against compelled self-incrimination." The Judge granted Yoo's motion because "there is no allegation in the complaint before this Court that Padilla was ever made to be a witness against himself or that his statements were admitted as testimony against him in his criminal case," and thus "he has not stated a claim for violation of the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Order at 37. Padilla has leave to amend this allegation by July 10. Yoo has twenty days to file his responsive pleading.

This is an opinion worth reading, just as this case will be worth watching as it proceeds.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2009/06/padilla-v-yoo-judge-denies-motion-to-dismiss-torture-memos-case.html