Berkeley law professor cannot be sued over Bush-era torture memos

[shawn703]

Source: Silicon Valley Mercury News

UC-Berkeley law professor John Yoo cannot be sued by a convicted terrorist for helping to craft the Bush administration's torture and detention policies in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

In a unanimous three-judge decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals barred terrorist Jose Padilla's lawsuit against Yoo that claimed the law professor should be held responsible for his torture while held in military detention.

The decision overturned San Francisco U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, who allowed the case to proceed.

The 9th Circuit found that Padilla was not entitled to the same constitutional protections as an ordinary prisoner at the time of his confinement because he was a "suspected terrorist designated an enemy combatant." Padilla is serving a 17-year prison sentence on terrorism-related charges.



Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20530948/berkeley-law-professor-cannot-be-sued-over-bush?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com

[Dont call me Shirley]

1. He deserves the same treatment he coined, KARMA!

[Odin2005]

2. Fuck Yoo!!!

I just love saying that.

[Solly Mack]

3. Ain't that America.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Damn Patriot Act! 'Enemy combatant' so has zero rights.

[24601]

11. There are lawful combatants and unlawful combatants. If you treat unlawful combatants the same

as lawful combatants, what is the incentive to adhere to the rules that apply to lawful combatants?

[Nihil]

14. You are a disgrace to your chosen username.

Valjean was a defender of the weak & the innocent against the casual
tyranny of the corrupt state. You seem to have reversed this.

With regard to the question in your post:

> If you treat unlawful combatants the same as lawful combatants,
> what is the incentive to adhere to the rules that apply to lawful combatants?

You have obviously forgotten that the whole designation of "unlawful combatant"
was used as a CYA to allow the so-called "lawful combatants" to kidnap, assault,
torture and illegally imprison civilians.

Mind you, given the behaviour of the "lawful combatants" in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Yemen, Pakistan, Sudan and the rest, there's precious little that would be ruled
off-limits to a combatant of whichever artificial label anyway ...

[24601]

16. You are of course entitled to your misguided opinion. Just how would you enforce adherence to

the laws of war. When our soldiers deviate, they face trial.

When is the last time "weak & innocent" Al Qaeda terrorists punished one of their members for terrorism?

Lawful combatants should get Courts Martial. Decide that you don't need meet that criteria and a Tribunal is the appropriate forum.

Nuremberg was a tribunal where the members decided not only guilt but also the nature of the charges.

[JackRiddler]

18. "The laws of war," that's a hoot.

So are you saying that the United States government, perpetrator of unprovoked wars of aggression and genocide in Vietnam and Iraq - the two worst such international crimes since the Nuremberg trials you cite - is supposed to be a legitimate authority for enforcing the "laws of war"? By assigning people to its own newly invented category ("unlawful combatant&quot that cannot actually be found in international law?

[24601]

24. Go ahead and split hairs on the terminology used. It is, however, used in US law as defined by

the Supreme Court, back in WWII, the 1942 case ex parte Quirin,

1942 Quirin case

The term unlawful combatant has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals and case law. The term "unlawful combatants" was first used in US municipal law in a 1942 United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed):

"By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful."

Belligerant or combatant - the substance is the same.

[Arctic Dave]

19. Soldiers do go to trial but receive simple slaps on the wrist.

When an Al Queda militant steps out of line they find the head removed from the body.

Yoo is a sickening piece of garbage, I am saddened you would jump to save the honor which he has none of.

[24601]

21. So life in prison is your idea of a slap on the wrist?

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Soldier-Sentenced-to-Life-in-Prison-for-Afghan-Atrocities-133719403.html

[Arctic Dave]

26. What are the ratios of those to crimes committed?

One, maybe two out of all of them. I believe the term most used is "token justice".

You surely would agree there have been more then a couple of bodies of AQ found it intact. Seems punishment is swift and final with them.

[24601]

27. Interesting that you bring up ratios. So what is the ratio of US military personnel to those who

committed war crimes?

[Arctic Dave]

29. Could be a very large number if Iraq is

classified as one. Not to mention all the extrajudicial killings we have come to embrace.

[24601]

31. You completely dodged it the question because the facts don't back up your agenda,

Per the VA, 1.5 Million Americans served in Iraq since 2003.

Of that number, how many are charged with war crimes?

What is the ratio?

[Arctic Dave]

32. I don't have an exact number but maybe you can help find them.

Do you think the DoD kept records of killings, abuse in detention facilities, abuse of civilians? I would assume all the brass involved with Falluja would qualify.

If I had to guess, I would say an easy 10%.


I am sure they were just following orders though.

[Justice wanted]

5. We must look FORWARD not backwards about these events.

[OrwellwasRight]

7. Yes, let us refuse to learn from the past!

Keep offenders of the constitution immune, I always say! That's the best way to build trust in the government! Huzzah!

[Roland99]

6. How convenient for the judges.

[truebrit71]

8. No fucking shit...

...

[sudopod]

9. For all those who say this can't happen to American citizens:

"...The 9th Circuit found that Padilla was not entitled to the same constitutional protections as an ordinary prisoner at the time of his confinement because he was a "suspected terrorist designated an enemy

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)

José Padilla (born October 18, 1970), also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah, is a United States citizen convicted of aiding terrorists.

[coalition_unwilling]

10. Yoo should be on criminal trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, under

the same logic used to try Nazi and Japanese war criminals.

Instead, let's give him blanket civil and criminal immunity.

I shudder for what this country has become.

[24601]

12. The most liberal Circuit of Court of Appeals in the country disagrees with you. If you can't

convince even the 9th circuit, the argument has no legal merit.

[coalition_unwilling]

13. I was not asked to convince the 9th circuit. I only wish I had been

afforded the opportunity to so convince.

Listen to yourself: you seem to support a decision that says Padilla's nebulous status somehow renders his torture while in US custody 'legal.'

I hope Padilla's attorneys appeal the 9th Circuit ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. We'll see what it has to say about whether 'enemy combatants' can be tortured with impunity while in U.S. custody.

[Jefferson23]

25. snip*

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer noted that he supported Bybee's confirmation specifically because the judge's conservative views would help to moderate "the most liberal court in the country.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Mar-14-Fri-2003/news/20886323.html

snip* Last week, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district-court decision allowing a suit against torture-memo author John Yoo to go forward. The suit had been brought on behalf of José Padilla by his mother, who argued that Padilla was tortured while in U.S. custody as a result of Yoo’s advice—a claim that seems pretty much unassailable, and that had to be accepted as true for purposes of the preliminary rulings. In a decision that has left international-law scholars dumbstruck, the Ninth Circuit granted Yoo immunity, concluding that the law surrounding torture was so muddled when he dispensed his advice that he should be given the benefit of the doubt. The best authority the judges could muster for this outlandish perspective was a European Court of Human Rights decision from 1978, which found that a series of grim techniques used by Britain against Irish internees was not torture—rather it was “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”

Hovering in the background of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion is a troubling fact: John Yoo had a co-author when he crafted his torture memoranda, Jay Bybee. And Bybee is now a judge on the Ninth Circuit. Had the court handed down any other ruling, it would have been exposing one of its own.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2012/05/hbc-90008612

[24601]

17. It's highly offensive and inaccurate to even remotely equate an opinion on interrogation

to the Holocaust. You should know better.

[coalition_unwilling]

20. It wasn't an 'opinion on interrogation.' It was an opinion on TORTURE. Before

you get all sanctimonious and holier-than-thou, you might want to check out the following:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/alstoetter.htm

Or not, as the case may be.

[24601]

22. At least you admit it was an opinion - yet still equate it to genocide?

[boppers]

28. Judges equal legal flunkies issuing opinions?

Yoo did not sentence anyone. This is basically a PR stunt because Yoo has been made a darling of the anti-war movement.

[LanternWaste]

35. I guess this is one of those times when condoning torture isn't condoning torture.

I guess this is one of those times when condoning torture isn't condoning torture.

[24601]

36. It's a fundamental disagreement on where the threshold for torture rests. And yet some

insist that since Yoo disagrees with your view, he should be persecuted.

[blkmusclmachine]

15. 1984,

New World Order, etc.

[Jefferson23]

23. THAT is disgusting, period. n/t

[cstanleytech]

30. I hate to say it but in this case it might have been the correct decision.

While Yoo imo should be disbarred the one to sue should be Bush since he as president ordered it done and in the end is the one ultimately responsible.

[DeSwiss]

33. REVOLUTION - K&R n/t

[Volaris]

34. I'm sure this idea has been put forward before...

Isn't this why we SHOULD be trying fools like Padilla in Civilian Courts as regular criminals, rather then what we ARE doing with them? And shouldn't the idea that they get to have some new and weird status as "unlawful" enemy combatants (because they were captured shooting at Marines, but NOT part of a National Enemy Army) rather than just the designation "common criminal terrorist asshole" raise the question of WHY are the Professional Soldiers, Airmen and Navy personnel that we trained to destroy enemy tank brigades, air forces and navies being used as beat cops in what, is essentially, Global-level POLICE WORK? THIS is the underlying root of the problem, as I happen to see it.

Just my 2 cents, feel free to tell me that my idea isn't worth a tenth of a nickel.

[Doctor_J]

37. Letting Reagan, Bush, Bush appoint judges is going to haunt the US

for several decades. They are completely corrupt, partisan, and fascist.