In the infamous torture memos of , Yoo and Bybee, authorised “enhanced interrogation” techniques (EITs), acts previously recognised by. 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. John Yoo defends his work crafting the legal justification for harsh CIA interrogation techniques and slams the Senate “Torture Report.”.
|Published (Last):||14 June 2014|
|PDF File Size:||15.7 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.59 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
On June 26,Yoo and David Addingtonformer counsel and chief of staff to Vice-President Dick Cheneytestified before the House Judiciary Committee in what became a contentious hearing on detainee treatment, interrogation methods, and the extent of executive branch authority.
How we’ve erased the totrure lines around torture and replaced them with nothing”. John Yoo in Views Read Edit View history.
Yoo writes that, in his opinion, “[t]he United States’ campaign against al Qaeda is an attack on a non-state terrorist organization, not a civilian population. Archived from the original on March 30, White June 12, Intwo days after taking office, President Barack Obama in Executive Order repudiated and revoked all legal guidance on interrogation authored by Yoo and his successors in the Office of Legal Counsel between September 11,and January 20, Where Have All the Liberals Gone?
Yoo concludes the letter by stating, “It is possible that an ICC official would ignore the clear limitations imposed by the Rome Statute, or at least disagree with the President’s interpretation of [the Geneva Convention].
John Yoo – Wikipedia
Following accounts of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq, tortkre of the memos was leaked to the press in June Platitudes won’t guarantee world peace”. In some cases, Tortyre condition of “specific intent” to commit acts of torture is clear from declassified interrogation logs, which reveal systematic and prolonged efforts to induce psychological states of debility, dependence and dread, euphemistically referred to as ”ego down”, ”futility” and ”fear up harsh.
Memorandum to Counsel to the President Since the initial revelation of these documents, other communications related to the use of torture to coerce or intimidate detainees during the Bush administration have been divulged.
Retrieved 19 April 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.
White allowed the suit to proceed, rejecting all but one of Yoo’s immunity claims. Zelikow alleged that Bush administration officials not only ignored his memos on the subject, but attempted to destroy them. The memo examines the ratification history, and cites U.
Department of JusticeOffice of Legal Counsel. In foreign relations, Yoo has argued that the original understanding of the Constitution gives the President the authority to use armed force abroad without congressional authorization, subject to Congress’s power of the purse; that treaties do not generally have domestic legal force without implementing legislation; and that courts are functionally ill-suited to intervene in foreign policy disputes between the President and Congress.
After examining the definition provided in various dictionaries, it concludes that “pain” is synonymous with “suffering” “it is difficult to conceive of such suffering that would not involve severe physical pain”and, selecting among the many definitions, the memo proposes that severe pain must be difficult to endure some definitions quoted in the memo define severe pain as “inflicting discomfort”.
To his critics, Mr.
Debate Over the CWC: The memorandum states that, on the basis of the conclusions reached in part one, “there was little difference between these two understandings and After Goldsmith was forced to resign because of his objections, Attorney General Ashcroft issued a one paragraph opinion re-authorizing the use of torture. Margolis’s decision not to refer Yoo mrmos the bar for discipline was criticized by numerous commentators.
Archived from the original on June 23, In an opinion piece in the WSJhe criticized the Clinton administration for misusing the privilege to protect the personal, rather than official, activities of the President, such as in the Monica Lewinsky affair.
During the debate, Cassel asked Yoo. Kaleck acted tortuure behalf of 11 alleged victims of torture and other human rights abuses, as well as about 30 human rights activists and organizations.
A memo on torture to John Yoo
In a book and a law review article, Yoo defended President Bush’s terrorist surveillance program, arguing that “the TSP represents a valid exercise of the President’s Commander-in-Chief authority to gather intelligence during wartime”.
He was at work on the problem when the scandal and the leak of the memo precipitated the final decision. Try it and you’ll see. He said it undermined “democratic accountability and respect for the law”.
He says that the President, and not the Congress or courts, has sole authority to interpret international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions “because treaty interpretation is a key feature of the conduct of foreign affairs”. After summarizing the law, it analyses the elements of the offense of memps inflicting severe pain or sufferingand the specific or criminal intent required jogn the statute for the offense.
Jeffrey February 28, Unfortunately, he fails to mention any of the negative consequences of the policies.
A memo on torture to John Yoo | Vincent Iacopino | Opinion | The Guardian
Order by newest oldest recommendations. 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. Fear explains why OLC pushed the envelope. It discusses the language of the torture statute 18 U. Yoo also authored the October 23, memo asserting that the President had sufficient power to allow the NSA to monitor the communications of US citizens on US soil without a warrant known as the warrantless wiretap program because the Fourth Amendment does not apply.
Retrieved March 29,