Court: Bush Torture Memo Author John Yoo Protected From Lawsuits

[cal04]

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/court_bush_torture_john_yoo_jose_padilla.php

An appeals court said Wednesday that John Yoo, the former Bush-era Justice Department official who authored the so-called “torture memos,” can’t be sued by a convicted terrorist.

Jose Padilla sued Yoo over memos he authored for DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel which were used as legal justification for U.S. officials to use harsh interrogation techniques that his legal team said amounted to torture, the Associated Press reports.

The suit was tossed out by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

John Yoo, Former Justice Department Lawyer, Protected From Torture Lawsuit, Rules Appeals Court
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/john-yoo-torture-bush-administration-jose-padilla_n_1471587.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

[11 Bravo]

1. This will not be popular, but I completely agree with the ruling.

When we begin to criminalize legal opinions with which we disagree, we start down a slippery slope. Yoo's opinion carried absolutely NO legal weight.
Now ... the criminal bastards who took that opinion and used it to trash the United States Constitution while committing a variety of war crimes ... well, that's an entirely different story!

[aquart]

2. You are correct. Nonetheless, I would like John Yoo to itch.

Permanently.

[pscot]

4. Even legal opinions ratonalizing criminal behavior?

We're signatory to treaties that have outlawed this kind of barbarism. Any lawyer who tells a client to ignore the tax code is likely to be in a world of hurt. How is torture exempt?

[struggle4progress]

5. In every civilized nation, persons enjoy the right not to be tortured -- and that is

not merely a conditional right but an absolute right. A number of persons (including Mr Yoo) combined in an elaborate conspiracy, over an extended period of time, to deprive various individuals (including Mr Padilla) of the right not to be tortured and of other such rights; the victims suffered materially in consequence; and under any coherent civil justice theory, the victims would have a right to seek redress.

Your misrepresentations notwithstanding, the action discussed here is civil, not criminal -- and it is certainly not predicated upon anyone's "disagreement" with Yoo: it can be based on the simple theory that Yoo advised others to engage in conduct that every competent practitioner knew was illegal under binding law

[11 Bravo]

6. Please point out my "misrepresentations". I stated that Yoo wrote an opinion.

I'm pretty sure that is an accurate reflection. I added that I disagree with his opinion, but don't believe he can be sued for issuing it. A court (which clearly lacks your legal acumen) agreed with me. (If disagree with them, can I sue?) There are many other legal scholars who agree with Yoo's opinion. (I disagree with all of them as well, but can we sue them?)
That was pretty much it.
Now, in your righteous wrath, secure in the knowledge that you are qualified to discern who is a "competent practioner" of the law, you accuse me of "misrepresentations" (plural).
Get over yourself. Yoo was an enabling asshole. I said as much. But he broke no law, and unless you can quote me something from the Canons of Ethics which criminalizes misinterpreting statute law, then your point is moot.
My credo has always been, when we start suing assholes for being assholes, duck!

[struggle4progress]

7. The case does not involve criminal prosecution of Yoo (though you indicate it does).

Nor (though you indicate otherwise) was Yoo sued because someone disagreed with his opinion: he was sued because he improperly combined with others to deprive the plaintiff of an absolute right

I already pointed out both of these misrepresentations upthread, but I here point them out again for you

[msanthrope]

13. But that's the problem the court noted---it wasn't an absolute right.

You and I agree as an ethical matter that the torture of persons in custody (any custody) is reprehensible.

But the 9th circuit correctly pointed out that Yoo, in 2001-2003, could and did reasonably conclude that given the available statutes and SCOTUS precedents, in particular in re Quirin the detention of Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant was proper. Further, the assumption that Yoo made--that the detention of Jose Padilla was not subject to the constitutional constraints of a 'routine' prisoner--was reasonable given the available rulings at the time. Also, the acts described were not necessarily defined as torture. (I am paraphrasing the court, not my opinion.)

In short, until Hamdi of 2004, Yoo's memos were within the scope of his job, and qualify him for immunity.

The second point the court notes, and I think it's pretty interesting, is that many of the acts alledged by Padilla may, or may not, be torture. They have not been defined as such by either law or precedent.


I think John Yoo is a disgrace. But I don't see the 9th allowing this prisoner lawsuit.

[unblock]

8. i disagree that there's actual immunity.

if it really is an honest, legitimate opinion that turns out to be wrong, then sure, a lawyer should not be liable for that.

but if it's something that any reasonable lawyer would or should know is actually illegal but they concoct an opinion claiming it to be legal, then they are knowingly engaging in a conspiracy to commit a crime. and they should have no immunity for that.

so i don't think it's actual immunity, simply a high standard.



the standards for disbarment, of course, need not be so high.

[msanthrope]

10. Agree, mainly because of forum shopping and the Constitutional principle against ex post facto

determinations.

She lost in the 4th, and lost badly. She retried in the 9th, thinking she would just pick a different court and a slightly different defendant. It did not work, and I think the 9th wasn't going to be a pony for a prisoner lawsuit.

As for Yoo, that he teaches law students is a disgrace. But he had a valid constitutional argument...sometimes, the disgusting go free.

[byeya]

3. He should be disbarred.

Apparently he can't, but I think he should be.
He shouldn't be teaching at Berkeley either, in my opinion, but there seems to be no opposition to his presense as a professor.

[msanthrope]

11. It's unlikely he has an active license to practice law....

most professors of law don't maintain it.

[lunatica]

12. I believe he's a visiting professor at the University of Chicago now.

I'm not sure but he hasn't been on the UC campus for awhile. Probably because the students hound him. At least that's what I heard. But quite frankly I don't much give a shit about what he's doing. He's a crud.

[lunatica]

9. Yeah but can he be protected from being a pariah?

I don't think so. Karmic adjustments have their ways of happening.