John Yoo's Torture Opinions Are Not Just "Opinions"

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

• Share
• Print View
• Comments

In some of the responses to a post I wrote about John Yoo and his torture-enabling opinions, some readers raised the issue of "free speech" and "academic opinions" or the like -- comparing holding Yoo criminally liable for these opinions to suppressing and punishing, say, the opinions of a controversial college professor.

Sorry, that is a grossly errant load of mush, and I say that though I ain't no legal scholar.

Mr. Yoo supplied his war-crime enabling opinions in his role as a government lawyer. The Nuremberg Trials established the precedent that a lawyer does not get to enable war crimes and plead "it's just an opinion." That kind of opinion is an act -- an act of enabling war crimes.

Scott Horton at nocomment puts it with characteristic cogent clarity:

"They (the torture memo drafters) also missed the established precedent I have cited repeatedly here, namely United States v. Altstoetter, under the rule of which the conduct of the torture lawyers is a criminal act not shielded by any notions of government immunity." (my bold)

If you care to share your concern about Mr. Yoo and his opinions, you can try sharing them (politely) at a Berkeley event in which he's participating Monday April 14.

Horton, by the way, is hanging up his blogging hat as of today. His immensely authoritative, informed and wide-ranging mind will be missed. Typically, his last regular post is an Andrew Marvell poem, with his own exegesis of it. "(A) green thought in a green shade," to quote the poet.

Appreciations to Uber.com, where this piece is cross-posted on my blog Brain Flakes

Also at Smirkingchimp.com.

Comments

[realpolitic]

When one reads his memo and the wide latitude permitted in inflicting pain, one wonders if Yoo is a sociopath. These are much more than opinions and are a recommended course of action. Yoo defines the legal parameters for Bush by saying Bush has no parameters and anything is within his authority. Berkeley University has legitimized Yoo's views by hiring him. Georgetown did the same for Doug Feith. School children should be taught how these men tried to turn a system of rule by law into one of men.

[Sceptic42]

Besides, the Supreme Court just ruled in Garcetti v. Ceballos that statements made by government officials pursuant to their employment duties are not protected under the First Amendment.

[CCverve]

Here are the number of times, according to NEXIS, that various topics have been mentioned in the media over the past thirty days:

"Yoo and torture" - 102

"Mukasey and 9/11" -- 73

"Yoo and Fourth Amendment" -- 16

"Obama and bowling" -- 1,043

"Obama and Wright" -- More than 3,000 (too many to be counted)

"Obama and patriotism" - 1,607

"Clinton and Lewinsky" -- 1,079

Meanwhile back at the ranch....

[outnow]

Mr. Yoo's tortured legal reasoning was the enabling opinion of counsel for purposes of committing war crimes. What does that make him?

[TexasDem0]

The irony is how these people who advocate torture call themselves Christians.

[Titonwan]

History is full of zealots. The "rapture" is what a lot of McCain's minister boy preaches. The neoconservatives are out of their minds and out of control. The money contributed to private PAC websites dedicated to Republican victory is enormous. When rich people see there's a chance to donate, they'll donate, with all the accompanying tax breaks. This has to stop with Sen. Barack Obama as the next President. We haven't seen any battles yet.

[hopeless277]

Executive Order XXXMVII

No member of the Republican party of the United States of America shall be bound by U.S. or international law. Retroactive immunity is hereby granted to all current, past and future members of the Republican party of the United States from U.S. and international laws.

Signed,

George W. Bush
President of the United States of America

[burnt]

Although I agree with most of the sentiment about the abuses of power and violations of international agreements relating to torture, I also believe that there needs to be more focus on the inception of the covert policy. By the time CheneyOilCo got their meaty little hands around "extraordinary rendition", escalated and expanded the practice, the CIA had been practicing torture by proxy for 5 years. Presidential directive "PDD 39" was devised and signed by Bill Clinton in 1995... allowing circumvention of the US ratified United Nations Convention Against Torture.

As Senator Hillary Clinton so vocally and "convincingly" assures the American electorate that those same years are the basis of her vast and superior "experience", I would have to assume that she was also involved with the decision. It might behoove an enterprising reporter/blogger to ask the Clinton Campaign about her current position on snatch and torture flights... rendition to foreign countries (or US bases on foreign soil) for "interrogation" and elimination of any semblance of due process... and ask if she supported the decision in 1995.

alienated in Seattle

[LeftRight]

And if I'd known about that, I would have considered Billy Clinton to be evil a lot sooner! The fact of the matter is that it's illegal, AND morally wrong for the US government to torture, or to send people to a location where it can be reasonably assumed that they will be tortured. The fact that this person issued a legal opinion does not give it the force of law. The same goes for when a president (ANY president) issues an executive order. They are trying to overcome treaties, which have the force of Constitutional law, and the only way to overcome that is to change the treaty, or to change the Constitution!