Court rejects torture-related case against Bush lawyer

[douglas9]

(Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday ruled that John Yoo, a former legal counsel to the Bush administration, is immune from a lawsuit by an American citizen who said he had been tortured at a military jail in South Carolina.

Jose Padilla, who was convicted on terrorism charges in 2007, had accused Yoo of helping to formulate policies under which those designated as "enemy combatants" by the U.S. government were interrogated and detained.

The San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision which had allowed the suit to proceed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/02/us-security-yoo-idUSBRE8410ZM20120502?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

[mike_c]

1. war criminals not only walk free in the U.S...

...but the courts protect them from the people they've harmed.

[badtoworse]

2. Writing a legal opinion is a war crime?

[mike_c]

4. providing legal cover for war crimes is a war crime, yes....

I can't believe anyone who posts here would favor giving John Yoo a pass. HAVING an opinion is not a crime, but producing a document as part of one's official duties that provides cover for crimes is complicity in those subsequent crimes.

on edit-- originally posted outside this thread, by mistake.

[badtoworse]

5. Based on what? Is it your opinion or do you have any citations?

Two different appeals courts saw it differently.

[mike_c]

6. crimes against peace as defined by the Nuremburg Protocol.....

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-ilaw.htm

War crimes are divided into two broad categories. The first are called crimes against peace. Crimes against peace include the planning, preparation, or initiation of a war of aggression. In other words one country cannot make aggressive war against another country. Nor can a country settle a dispute by war; it must always, and in good faith, negotiate a settlement. The second category are what we can call crimes against humanity; I am including here crimes against civilians and soldiers. These are violations of the rules as to the means and manner by which war is to be conducted once begun. These include the following prohibitions: killing of civilians, indiscriminate bombing, the use of certain types of weapons, killing of defenseless soldiers, ill treatment of POWs and attacks on non-military targets.

Any violation of these two sets of laws is a war crime; if the violations are done on purpose, recklessly or knowingly, they are considered very serious and called grave breaches; Nazis and Japanese following World War II were hanged for such grave breaches.

First, I want to discuss crimes against peace and give you some sense of its application here. This prohibition is embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, the Nuremberg Charter, which is the law under which the Nazis were tried, and a treaty called the Kellogg-Briand pact. As the Nuremberg Charter defines,

Crimes against peace:
Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

[badtoworse]

7. I would assume then that Yoo's opinion dealt with the applicability of these conventions

Assuming Yoo was wrong in his analysis, I don't see where that is a crime. Has a court ruled on Yoo's analysis or Padilla's treatment?

[sudopod]

8. Ever seen Judgement at Nuremburg?

[badtoworse]

9. A very long time ago

I don't recall that there were convictions on the basis of a legal opinion. I don't see any comparison between Padilla's treatment and the murder of 12 million people.

[sudopod]

10. ...

that's pretty much what the whole movie was about, specifically, the case of a single elderly Jewish man.

[badtoworse]

11. I did a little checking to refresh my memory.

If I'm not mistaken, the defendant in the trial was a judge who actually sentenced Jews to the concentration camps. That is quite different than an attorney who gives an opinion as to whether certain actions are legal. The person who actually commits the alleged crimes bears the responsibility.

My opinion is unchanged.