Justice interrogation memo: Constitution not in play

[sabra]

Source: Chicago Trib

The Justice Department late Tuesday released a declassified 2003 memorandum long sought by congressional Democrats and other administration critics that outlines the government's legal justification for harsh interrogation techniques used by the military against captured enemy combatant outside the United States.

The memo, written by John Yoo, then a key architect of legal policy in the wake of 9/11, dismisses several legal impediments to the use of extreme techniques.

Yoo was long a proponent of an aggressive approach in the war against terrorism and a believer in the executive branch authority. But the memo was withdrawn as formal government policy less than a year after it was written.

In the March 14, 2003 memo, Yoo says the Constitution was not in play because the Fifth Amendment (which provides for due process of law) and the Eighth Amendment (which prevents the government from using cruel and usual punishment) does "not extend to alien enemy combatants held abroad.":

...

"If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network," Yoo wrote. "In that case, we believe that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions."



Read more: http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/justice_dept_releases_interrog.html

[Beetwasher]

1. "the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack"

Where is that in the constitution again? :shrug:

[John Gauger]

8. It isn't.

It's a smokescreen. The unitary executive types like to say that the President's job to protect the American people because they think that that is the strongest argument in terms of us letting them break the law. The President's job is not to defend the nation - it is to faithfully execute the laws of the nation. Far from meaning that they may break the law to save American lives, it means just the opposite: the President must sit by and let Americans come to harm if it is necessitated by faithfully executing the laws.

[bdamomma]

37. what total BS, with all this stuff about them "protecting the American people"

total BS, they are supposed to protect the Constitution, but apparently it is nothing but a god damn piece of paper to them. These thugs are treasonous and are domestic enemies, doesn't anyone in congress get that yet?

[jonnyra]

14. Exactly beetwasher

The fascists use this line everytime they want to break another law...its the presidents constitutional responsibility to protect the nation. BULLSHIT BULLSHIT! Where is that written? Its not. No where does the constitution even hint at such a thing. The president executes the laws...not people and his/her number one priority is to PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.Not pull some fuck in from a university to figure out how to get around it.

Ok so now we have the document that says what everybody already knew it said. Let me guess...another subpoena to be ignored? Another hearing where the criminals lie with impunity while republicans run cover for them? Yeah...that'll help.

[Xipe Totec]

2. We have to destroy the constitution in order to save it nt

[SpiralHawk]

3. I'd bet a sack of doughnuts that Yoo is a CHICKENHAWK republicon

The republicon chickenhawk "leaders" are the worst: all into hate and fear and torture, and sending someone else's (our) sons and daughters in uniform off to fight for republicon crony war profits, while they stay home and engage in their hateful, amoral, unChristian, anti-American, anti-Constitution evil torture shit.

[JDPriestly]

34. Meet Yoo

John Choon Yoo (born 1967) is an American professor of Law at the Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley, known for his work from 2001 to 2003 in the United States Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel,<1> assisting the Attorney General in his function as legal advisor to President Bush and all the executive branch agencies.

He contributed to the PATRIOT Act and wrote memos in which he advocated the possible legality of torture and that enemy combatants could be denied protection under the Geneva Conventions.<2> Yoo has also worked as a visiting scholar at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute since 2003.

. . . .
As an infant, Yoo emigrated with his parents from South Korea to the United States. He grew up in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and graduated with a B.A., summa cum laude in American history from Harvard University in 1989 and Yale Law School in 1992. Yoo clerked for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman. From 1995 to 1996 he was general counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is currently a Professor of Law at Boalt Hall School of Law in Berkeley, California. Professor Yoo is an active member of the The Federalist Society and is one of the most influential members of the Federalist Society in Northern California.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

This man actually teaches Constitutional Law to future lawyers in California. Does he have a criminal mind? I wonder.

[barbtries]

45. i can't believe it's berkeley

a university i always associated with liberalism

[SpiralHawk]

55. AH, A Clarence Thomas butt kisser

How charming. And they both appear to be republicon homelander chickenhawks.

A Shameful par-for-the-hypocritical-course for republicon homelanders.

[Usrename]

61. Yes, meet Yoo.

In the December debate with Cassel, Yoo was asked:

Cassel: "If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?"

Yoo: "No treaty."

Cassel: "Also no law by Congress? That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo ."

Yoo: "I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that."

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0728,hentoff,77169,6.html

When will he get his Medal of Freedom?

[MadMaddie]

4. This document basically says that Yoo and this adminstration

violated the Constitution, they willingly broke the law

Doesn't seem like rocket science to me.

This administration and everyone connected to it are the Mafia as far as I am concerned. They live by their own rules and no one elses, not even that "damned piece of paper", that * so lovingly refers to as the Constitution interferes with their crimes.

They have damaged this country and we will see the results for years to come.

[JMcDaniel]

5. Shell Game

We should all know by now that these guys simply play a shell game with the truth and the Constitution.

[pscot]

6. Mr. Yoo should have his citizenship taken away

and be deported. There must be some 3rd world despot who would find his legal opinions of enormous value.

[Judi Lynn]

12. Bush should send him to his death squad loving Colombian puppet, Álvaro Uribe. n/t

[bdamomma]

38. Yoo belongs to the Federalist Society, anymore to be said.

[spindrifter]

7. It boggles the mind that people are

paying tuition to take classes in constitutional law from him. I'm not sure if he isactually teaching now, or simply writing and making public appearances, but the following course list is from his Boalt Hall webpage:

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/

Classes

International Civil Litigation
International Law
Constitutional Law
Foreign Relations Law
Civil Procedure
International Trade
Separation of Powers Law

[rox63]

51. He taught classes on Separation of Powers?

He doesn't even believe in Separation of Powers. :banghead:

[momster]

56. John Yoo's Classes

Where every day is opposite day!

[Supersedeas]

59. yep, may all his students are members of the Federalist society as well

[JDPriestly]

66. Actually, usually the basic course in Constitutional Law is a requirement

for first (or second for evening students) law students. At my law school, we could not choose which professor we wanted. We were assigned to a first year class, and all of the students in that first year class had the same Constitutional Law professor. Must be torture to have to sit through the classes of Mr. Loo.

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. C'mon, only 1 rec? this should be on the greatest page by now!!! n/t

[ShockediSay]

10. McCain made big noise about how we should not torture

but then voted in a way to enable Bush's worst.

Mr straight talk is a 2 faced hypocrite.

[lligrd]

11. K&R

[BumRushDaShow]

13. K&R

Anyone who has seen Yoo on a discussion panel (CSPAN aired one last year - I believe it was a discussion with Q&A preceding a mock trial), will see how arrogant and cocky this guy is. Makes me wonder if people like him have some real mental illness that skews their moral center.

[Senator]

15. "Somebody Said We Could Torture People"

You wouldn't accept that from a six-year-old, would you?

Yet we have an entire DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy -- including Dems -- complicitly nodding along.

Impeachment remains our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

----

[AlbertCat]

32. Impeachment

Did ya see this?

[bdamomma]

40. actions speak louder than words.

and apparently how much longer is Pelosi and the House are not listening to the American people, whatever we feel or speak out about is on the back burner. When is enough enough????

[Gonnuts]

42. I see it ...

and I don't believe it.

But I will be the first person to apologize to NP if indeed it come to pass. But as for now I already have enough knives in my back from this #@^$#&! piece of lying $*#^ to believe anything she says until its a done deal.

I'll believe it when I see it.

[barbtries]

46. is this for real?

is it? is it? - did nancy pelosi just put impeachment back on the table or am i hallucinating?

[Raksha]

63. I wondered if it was real too!

I swear, my first thought was that it was a cut-and-paste job--wishful thinking on somebody's part.

Is it for real? Did Pelosi really issue this announcement?

[Amonester]

47. hope you had "fun"

but sorry, not funny.

[Senator]

52. I think that "expired" today

Someone's wacky April Fool jest.

But here's something really insane.

--

[MiniMe]

16. Who could have foreseen that we would have to release this memo

[DUlover2909]

17. Oh now, be nice. They're doing the best they can.

Running a country is alot harder than they were told it would be and all the laws are so hard to understand. With all the little writing and big long words only a dictionary could understand. All those nerdy, scholarship types that understand that junk were never allowed in Skull and Bones at Yale so how are the Shrubbies supposed to know what is allowed and what a President is actually expected to do? Presidents just kiss babies and get elected and do whatever they want right?

[SammyWinstonJack]

31. Actually running a dictatorship is easier than they thought it would be. Piece of cake, in fact.

This would be easier if it were a dictatorship, so long as I'm the DICKtator, hehehe. GW bu$h 12/18/00.

[bdamomma]

43. and also remember this snide arrogant comment.

You're with us or against us???? That was meant for all of us, aren't they in for a rude awakening........oops, I'm dreaming again.

[rateyes]

18. But, Yoo, did you stop to remember that treaties are

part of the supreme law of the land? Dumbass war criminal.

[RamboLiberal]

19. Memo: Laws Didn't Apply to Interrogators

Source: Washington Post

The Justice Department sent a legal memorandum to the Pentagon in 2003 asserting that federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes did not apply to military interrogators who questioned al-Qaeda captives because the president's ultimate authority as commander in chief overrode such statutes.

The 81-page memo, which was declassified and released publicly yesterday, argues that poking, slapping or shoving detainees would not give rise to criminal liability. The document also appears to defend the use of mind-altering drugs that do not produce "an extreme effect" calculated to "cause a profound disruption of the senses or personality."

Although the existence of the memo has long been known, its contents have not been previously disclosed.

Nine months after it was issued, Justice Department officials told the Defense Department to stop relying on it. But its reasoning provided the legal foundation for the Defense Department's use of aggressive interrogation practices at a crucial time, as captives poured into military jails from Afghanistan and U.S. forces prepared to invade Iraq.

Sent to the Pentagon's general counsel on March 14, 2003, by John C. Yoo, then a deputy in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the memo provides an expansive argument for nearly unfettered presidential power in a time of war. It contends that numerous laws and treaties forbidding torture or cruel treatment should not apply to U.S. interrogations in foreign lands because of the president's inherent wartime powers.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102213.html?hpid=topnews

---

John Yoo along with Bush and Cheney and many others in this misadministration should be brought up on war criminal charges!

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

20. Shorter version:

"When the president breaks the law it isn't a crime"

[truthisfreedom]

21. The chimperor has long treated his office as license for one non-stop signing statement.

Next stop: The Hague.

[angrycarpenter]

22. You know what Cheney says

[AlphaCentauri]

23. we are a nation of laws

to be applied to some not to all
:eyes:

[jimshoes]

24. Wow this Yoo character is a real

piece of work. Did he graduate from the Dr. Mengele School of Atrocities?

[seafan]

25. AP: Pentagon Releases Memo on Harsh Tactics

Pentagon Releases Memo on Harsh Tactics

By LARA JAKES JORDAN – 1 hour ago
April 1, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon on Tuesday made public a now-defunct legal memo that approved the use of harsh interrogation techniques against terror suspects, saying that President Bush's wartime authority trumps any international ban on torture.
The Justice Department memo, dated March 14, 2003, outlines legal justification for military interrogators to use harsh tactics against al-Qaida and Taliban detainees overseas — so long as they did not specifically intend to torture their captors.
Even so, the memo noted, the president's wartime power as commander in chief would not be limited by the U.N. treaties against torture.

"Our previous opinions make clear that customary international law is not federal law and that the president is free to override it at his discretion," said the memo written by John Yoo, who was then deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel.
The memo also offered a defense in case any interrogator was charged with violating U.S. or international laws.
"Finally, even if the criminal prohibitions outlined above applied, and an interrogation method might violate those prohibitions, necessity or self-defense could provide justifications for any criminal liability," the memo concluded.
The memo was rescinded in December 2003, a mere nine months after Yoo sent it to the Pentagon's top lawyer, William J. Haynes. Though its existence has been known for years, its release Tuesday marked the first time its contents in full have been made public.

.....

Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's national security project, said Yoo's legal reasoning puts "literally no limit at all to the kinds of interrogation methods that the president can authorize."
"The whole point of the memo is obviously to nullify every possible legal restraint on the president's wartime authority," Jaffer said. "The memo was meant to allow torture, and that's exactly what it did."
The 81-page legal analysis largely centers on whether interrogators can be held responsible for torture if torture is not the intent of the questioning. And it defines torture as the intended sum of a variety of acts, which could include acid scalding, severe mental pain and suffering, threat of imminent death and physical pain resulting in impaired body functions, organ failure or death.

.....

The memo concludes that foreign enemy combatants held overseas do not have defendants' rights or protections from cruel and unusual punishment that U.S. citizens have under the Constitution. It also says that Congress "cannot interfere with the president's exercise of his authority as commander in chief to control the conduct of operations during a war."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said the memo "reflects the expansive view of executive power that has been the hallmark of this administration." He called for its release four months ago.

.....

It is time to impeach, try, convict and prosecute this administration for war crimes.

[DavidDvorkin]

26. The Nueremberg trials were good for Germany in the long run

And we need war crimes trials for these bastards for the sake of America.

But it won't happen.

[FREEWILL56]

27. So all bush has to do is say some American citizen(s) are al qaeda

and all bets are off for American citizens. I see this as not only allowing more torture, but further erosion of our rights.

[Trillo]

35. Good to know that Yoo never graduated from elementary school.

"poking, slapping or shoving" is okay so long as you're the top dog.(?)

How can anyone get through college followed by law school, if one hasn't graduated from elementary school? Isn't there a law against such subversion of the educational systems the rest of us must follow?

[atal]

28. And Bush will get away with it

Absolutely nothing is going to happen to hold those responsible for justifying torture and violating the Constitution.

The Memo has taken 5 years to appear and in a year from now, it'll be forgotten!

[IsItJustMe]

29. So we basically have a dictatorship now, right?

[merh]

30. He should be indicted and tried under the federal statute

making it a crime to torture. That statute was on the books long before his disgusting memo.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340A
§ 2340A. Torture

a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

[Solly Mack]

33. There's still time....

Indict them all for war crimes

[Gonnuts]

36. Somethings missing

There must be a part of the soul/brain missing from people of Woo's ilk that makes them loose sight that humans don't cease to be so because you cross a boarder, or because you ignore a piece of paper, or because you do or don't wear a uniform, or because of the color of your skin, humans cease to be humans when they treat other humane-beings as they themselves wish to be treated.

It seems so fundamental that to know if you take rights away from just one you takes rights away from all, yet, somehow there are seems to be a large amount of people in power, educated, accomplished, that for whatever reason can't grasp this simple concept. I have no idea what causes this flaw in humans but whatever it is will lead to our own destruction. The irony of course is that we're supposedly "spreading democracy" at the same time we're denying it.

I hope I live long enough to see Woo in a docket being tried for crimes against humanity. Maybe then it will dawn on him how wrong he is.

[Raksha]

64. There is indeed something missing...

Re There must be a part of the soul/brain missing from people of Woo's ilk that makes them loose sight that humans don't cease to be so because you cross a boarder, or because you ignore a piece of paper, or because you do or don't wear a uniform, or because of the color of your skin, humans cease to be humans when they treat other humane-beings as they themselves wish to be treated.

It's called a conscience, and people who don't have one are known as psychopaths.

[nealmhughes]

39. He's on "Converstations with History" on LinkTV right this moment.

Talking about the "excitement" of being a conservative, and now how traumatized he was being in DC on 911: he couldn't find an open restaurant.

Now he is saying how the president doesn't need Congress to wage war.

Ick. Yuck. Puke. Revolting.

"Structural advantages of the Executive Branch" now. . . I think that means "pesky Congress totally unnecessary except for rubberstamping budgets."

[Iggo]

41. The Constitution is ALWAYS in play.

These are representatives of the United States Of America, for fuck's sake!

(On a side note, there was a man named Simon Wiesenthal who hunted down people who thought the rules didn't apply to them. Here's hoping we have our share of Simon Wiesenthals living today.)

[grahamhgreen]

44. If we torture the wrong person and they turn out to be completely innocent, what should be the punis

..punishment?

[paparush]

48. Bush** took an oath to Preserve, Protect, and Defend THE CONSTITUTION.

NOT the homeland.
NOT to protect America from terror.
NOT to keep me "safe".

OH..my brain..my brain hurts.

[The Backlash Cometh]

49. So, is Yoo's name in the trash now?

Can we hold him accountable?

[pinkpops]

67. He should be disbarred for starters

[MCMetal]

50. No John Spoo

"If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network," Yoo wrote. "In that case, we believe that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions."



It simply does not work like that . In any given case , a law enforcement/
government defendant's concern would be taken into account , based upon his/her concern in any specific scenario ; but that does not remove that it is still an improper and illegal act they have committed , regardless of whom you may stupidly claim "supports" their action(s) .

Especially when considering you're attempting to argue a point of referrence that simply does not exist ; the president's SWORN OATH OF DUTY is to protect the Constitution and execute the laws of the land , not protect America and/or its citizens.

BTW

Isn't that argument laughable on its face to begin with ? An uncoordinated , chickenshit , spoiled AWOL military moron claiming he can "protect" the entire American population and the whole country ?

That stupid fuck couldn't protect a bicycle from the rain with a circus tent and airplane hangar at his disposal...........

[NoodleyAppendage]

53. Ah, the old "ends justify the means" argument. Hitler would be proud of the Chimp Administration.

The biggest crime of this century is found in the fact that Chimp and his criminal gang are still running around free of leg irons.

j

[NinetySix]

54. We hold these truths to be self evident:

That all men are created equal;
That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.

<rapid Simpson's-esque voice-over>
may not extend to alien enemy combatants held abroad.

[LiberalFighter]

57. Laws don't apply to the military?

Then we need to eliminate all the laws on the books that provide for the armed services. They would then have to be disbanded and all funding would have to cease. Return all the National Guard units back to their state. Stop paying for military pensions.

I'm not advocating the above just that the President does not have the right to avoid certain laws because he doesn't like them. And it's either all laws apply to the military or none. If none, then we are going to get rid of the military.

[fshrink]

58. The question logically follows

of whether or not there are limits to what one can argue to justify an action. Apparently nothing.

[yodermon]

60. Fuck Yoo. n/t

[FatDave]

62. History is not going to look kindly on this administration

There used to be some debate as to whether W would go down in history as the worst ever. I don't think there's any doubt anymore. These have to be the darkest times America has ever lived through. Bad as former presidents may have been, none ever deemed they could torture with impunity. These fuckers must all face war crimes charges if the United States is ever to be forgiven.

[Iggo]

65. And they're not going to look kindly...

....on us good Germans...er, I mean good Americans.

[wingedearth]

68. I wish the pundits focus on these kinds of issues

Nothing in our newspapers today is as important as this news of Republican threats to our civil liberties.
If only pundits stopped pitting candidate vs. candidate, we would have a better country.