Guantanamo/Detainees
Judge Allows Lawsuit Claiming John Yoo’s Legal Memos Led to Torture
Posted Jun 15, 2009 6:03 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A federal judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit claiming legal memos written by former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo led to the torture of a convicted terrorist.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of San Francisco allowed most of the claims against Yoo, saying even enemy combatants retain constitutional protections, Bloomberg News reports. “Like any other government official, government lawyers are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their conduct,” he wrote.
Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, wrote the memos approving harsh interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects when he was deputy attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.
Yoo is being sued by Jose Padilla, held for three years as an enemy combatant before being prosecuted and convicted for plotting terrorist acts. Padilla and his mother are seeking $1 in damages and a declaration that his treatment was unconstitutional, the New York Times says. The ruling is the first to hold that a government lawyer may be liable for detainee abuse, the Associated Press reports.
One of Padilla’s lawyers, Tahlia Townsend, told the Times that White’s ruling is “a significant victory for American values, government accountability and our system of checks and balances.” She said the decision “announced that fundamental protections against abuse apply to all individuals detained by the government.”
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Jun 15, 2009 6:14 AM CST
Unfortunately, it will all end up on the taxpayers’ ticket, as the defendant continues to slip any and all personal consequences.
Flag this comment
J.D.
Jun 15, 2009 8:29 AM CST
Aren’t lawyers supposed to come up with opinions aimed towards a specific end? He did his job, and some are going to disagree with his analysis, but that’s not worthy of lawsuit.
I guess any victim of a botched abortion can sue any lawyer who has ever written a brief on the legality of the procedure? Afterall, abortion’s not in the constitution.
I guess anyone who has been denied a position in college because of affirmative action can sue any group who has ever written on the program’s worth?
And let’s be clear here: This lawyer is being sued by a post-American, radical left-wing, Yale group on behalf of the shoe-bomber Padilla. Probably aided by the terrorist-sponsoring National Lawyer’s Guild.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Jun 15, 2009 8:50 AM CST
It would be wrong to assume that lawyers rendering opinions are always expected to engage in advocacy for a pre-determined position. Such is never the function of “objective” legal opinions, and even “reasoned” opinions normally contain caveats disclosing that they are selecting among several possible rationales, and might not be sustained. Both types of opinions differ from “advocacy” documents such as legal briefs. Part of the issue here is that Yoo appears to have provided an “advocacy” opinion, designed to justify pre-determined conclusions.
Also, Yoo is being sude by Padilla, not a “post-American” group (whatever that means, if anything), and Padilla was not a “shoe-bomber.” Such wild and baseless statements detract from clarity, and demonstrate absence of knowledge of the subject matter to which they are addressed.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Jun 15, 2009 8:52 AM CST
Ooops, I mean “sued.” My fawnix got the better of me.
Flag this comment
DR
Jun 15, 2009 10:18 AM CST
You’re right, B. McLeod, Padilla was not a “shoe bomber.” Richard Reid held that coveted position and is now serving a life sentence (or several) in prison.
Flag this comment
J.D.
Jun 15, 2009 12:23 PM CST
Meanwhile, the targets of the harsh interrogation are claiming that Gitmo is much nicer than China. I guess China should now be closed down. I haven’t found an ACLU press release on the subject yet.
Oh, and my bad, Padilla didn’t want to blow up a passenger jet with a shoe; he wanted to build a dirty bomb and engage in various other forms of jihad.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Jun 15, 2009 2:20 PM CST
There was never any proof on the “dirty bomb” story, and the charge had to be dismissed. The conviction for for conspiracy to support jihad outside the United States (officially cool while the Soviets were in Afghanistan, but now a vile crime).
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.