In the infamous torture memos of , Yoo and Bybee, authorised “enhanced interrogation” techniques (EITs), acts previously recognised by. The Responsibility of the Faculty of the University at California at Berkeley in the Matter of the Torture Memo of Professor John Yoo A weblog. Former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo wrote in the New York Times op-ed that he had “grave concerns about Mr. Trump’s uses of.
|Published (Last):||22 April 2008|
|PDF File Size:||10.92 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.35 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
This section concludes by emphasizing the potential value of the information he could provide, as well as his likely strong ability to resist standard interrogation techniques.
In searching for a reference to the term in other U. Retrieved 1 March Torgure Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The New York Times.
Padilla’s attorney used this information in the lawsuit, saying that Yoo caused Padilla’s damages by authorizing his alleged torture by his memoranda. In Jack Goldsmiththen head of the OLC, advised agencies not jkhn rely on these memos and withdrew them as authorized legal opinions.
Retrieved October 19, And in pushing the envelope, OLC took shortcuts in its opinion-writing procedures. Law and Judgement Inside the Bush Administration.
I could not imagine any federal court in America agreeing that the entire CIA program could be conducted and it would not violate the American Constitution.
Accessed September 4, The President, like all officers of the Government, is not above the law. However, in Augustthe Justice Department announced that those who had exceeded approved “techniques” might face prosecution. Retrieved 17 April But, later that year, an opinion was issued by his successor at the OLC, that changed the very narrow definition of torture from the original legal opinions of the Bush administration on this topic.
In addition, on March 14,Yoo wrote a legal opinion memo in response to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, in which he concluded that torture not allowed by federal law could be used by interrogators in overseas areas. Jack Goldsmiththen head of the Office of Legal Counselhad already withdrawn the Yoo memos and advised agencies not to rely on them.
Retrieved May 6, The acts of torture that John Yoo and other Bush administration officials so proudly defend are nothing less than war crimes that, in the absence of accountability, continue to undermine the United States’ claim to respect the rule of law.
For the torture manuals, see U. That year, the CIA destroyed the videotapes of the interrogations. This page was last edited on 1 Decemberat He noted, “[w]hile we have identified various disagreements with the August Memorandum, we have reviewed this Office’s prior opinions addressing issues involving treatment of detainees and do not believe that any of their conclusions would be different under the standards set forth in this memorandum.
Convention Against Torture and 18 U. Reflecting afterward on the Torture Memos as a cautionary tale, Goldsmith wrote in his memoir:.
W hether torture helped lead to the killing of Osama bin Laden or not, the beating of John Yoo’s tell-tale heart has compelled him to speak. Gonzales, Counsel to the President Re: The Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility concluded in a page report dated July 29,that Yoo committed “intentional professional misconduct” when he “knowingly failed to provide a thorough, objective, and candid interpretation of the law”, and it recommended a referral to the Pennsylvania Bar for disciplinary action.
InAlberto Gonzales testified before Congress that the CIA sought the opinion after having captured Abu Zubaydah inwho was then believed to be a significant al-Qaeda figure who could provide important information to U. The memo closes this section reminding the reader of the refusal of the U.
After summarizing the law, it analyses the elements of the offense of torture inflicting severe pain or sufferingtoture the specific or criminal intent required by the statute for the offense. They were repudiated by President Barack Obama on January 22,shortly after he took office. The memo discusses the Convention Against Torture which the memo calls the “Torture Convention” and concludes that the convention makes a distinction between torture and “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment”, and that therefore torture is “only the most extreme acts”, which the memo concludes, together with the ratifying reservations of the United States, confirms the interpretation of torture found in part one.
Navy general counsel Alberto Mora campaigned internally against what he saw as the “catastrophically poor legal reasoning” and dangerous extremism of Yoo’s opinions. Retrieved March 28, iohn Lawyers within the Department of Defense worked internally to circumvent those policies and instead mandate non-coercive interrogation standards, but were not successful.
After he left the Department of Justice, it was revealed that Yoo had written legal opinions, including co-writing the Torture Memo of August 1,that narrowly defined torture and American habeas corpus obligations.
The memorandum states that, on the basis of the conclusions reached in part one, “there was little difference between these two understandings and Part three summarizes various techniques within the case law to outline the kind of conduct that the courts have previously found to be torture. Retrieved 18 January In it Goldsmith had claimed that the legal analysis in Yoo’s torture memoranda was incorrect and that there was widespread opposition to the memoranda among some lawyers in the Justice Department.
John Yoo in Bush AdministrationYoo criticized certain views on the separation of powers doctrine as allegedly being historically inaccurate and problematic for the global war on terrorism. As Deputy Assistant U. General Mukasey, just following orders is no defense! It discusses the language of the torture statute 18 U.
The letter explains section ‘s definition of “severe mental pain or suffering”, and reminds the reader of the need for “prolonged mental harm”. In the infamous torture memos ofYoo and Bybee, authorised “enhanced interrogation” techniques EITsacts previously recognised by the US as torture — and the same torture methods used on US soldiers to obtain false confessions during the Korean war.
Zelikow alleged that Bush administration officials not only ignored his memos on the subject, but attempted to destroy them. The memo said only prolonged mental harm or serious physical injury, such as organ failure, violated the Geneva Convention’s ban on torture.
Retrieved 22 December Retrieved August 9, Bradbury authored an additional memo dated Julyseeking to reconcile the interrogation techniques torturf new legal developments, including Hamdan v. American foreign relations; the Constitution’s separation of powers and federalism; and international law.