View Full Version : Judge rules Padilla can sue over torture memos
Whoa, boy - here we go. :eek:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Judge rules Padilla can sue over torture memos
USA Today, 13 Jun 2009
A convicted terrorist can sue a former Bush administration lawyer for drafting the legal theories that led to his alleged torture, ruled a federal judge who said he was trying to balance a clash between war and the defense of personal freedoms.
The order by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of San Francisco is the first time a government lawyer has been held potentially liable for the abuse of detainees.
White refused to dismiss Jose Padilla's lawsuit against former senior Justice Department official John Yoo on Friday. Yoo wrote memos on interrogation, detention and presidential powers for the department's Office of Legal Counsel from 2001 to 2003.
Padilla, 38, is serving a 17-year sentence on terror charges. He claims he was tortured while being held nearly four years as a suspected terrorist.
White ruled Padilla may be able to prove that Yoo's memos "set in motion a series of events that resulted in the deprivation of Padilla's constitutional rights."
"Like any other government official, government lawyers are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their conduct," wrote White, a Bush appointee.
Yoo did not return telephone and e-mail messages Saturday.
White ruled that Yoo, now a University of California at Berkeley law professor, went beyond the normal role of an attorney when he helped write the Bush administration's detention and torture policies, then drafted legal opinions to justify those policies.
Yoo's recently released 2001 memo advised that the military could use "any means necessary" to hold terror suspects. A 2002 memo to then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales advised that treatment of suspected terrorists was torture only if it caused pain levels equivalent to "organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death." Yoo also advised that the president might have the constitutional power to allow torturing enemy combatants.
"The issues raised by this case embody that ... tension — between the requirements of war and the defense of the very freedoms that war seeks to protect," White wrote in his 42-page decision. "This lawsuit poses the question addressed by our founding fathers about how to strike the proper balance of fighting a war against terror, at home and abroad, and fighting a war using tactics of terror."
The ruling rejected the government's arguments that the courts are barred from examining top-level administration decisions in wartime, or that airing "allegations of unconstitutional treatment of an American citizen on American soil" would damage national security or foreign relations.
The Justice Department is representing Yoo and has argued for dismissing the lawsuit. The department has not said if it will appeal White's ruling. The department's on-duty spokesman, Dean Boyd, did not return a telephone message Saturday.
"It's a really a significant victory for accountability and our constitutional system of checks and balances," said Tahlia Townsend, an attorney with the Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic at Yale Law School who represented Padilla.
White ruled that "the treatment we allege does violate the Constitution and John Yoo should have known that," Townsend said Saturday. "This is the first time there's been this sort of ruling."
Padilla is an American citizen who was arrested in Chicago in 2002 and accused of conspiring with al-Qaeda to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb."
He was held in a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., for three years and eight months as an enemy combatant. Padilla's lawsuit alleges Yoo personally approved his time and treatment in the brig.
His lawsuit alleges he was illegally detained and was subjected to sleep deprivation, temperature extremes, painful stress positions, and extended periods of bright lights and total darkness. Padilla also alleges he endured threats that he would be killed, that his family would be harmed, and that he would be transferred to another country to be tortured.
He eventually was charged in an unrelated conspiracy to funnel money and supplies to Islamic extremist groups. Padilla was convicted in 2007 in Miami federal court, and is appealing.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-06-13-padilla-lawsuit_N.htm
greenberetTFS
06-13-2009, 18:09
Whoa, boy - here we go.
Richard's $.02
Richard,
This is absolutely incredible......:confused: WTF is going on in this country? :rolleyes: A terrorist can sue because he was interrogated for being a terrorist.........:mad: I very much love my country,but shit like this,I just don't know how it is going to hold itself together if this kind of justice prevails................
GB TFS :munchin
BigJimCalhoun
06-13-2009, 19:04
I read this today.
Of course I agree this is a poor decision by the judge, but I can see the political left in the country rallying behind Padilla and supporting him since many still suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
And the democrats wonder why regular citizens are buying as many guns as they can afford. :confused:
I thought only legal citizens had 'rights'?
embrace the chaos gentlemen... Its only going to get worse.
....."Like any other government official, government lawyers are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their conduct," wrote White, a Bush appointee."......
I find this statement interesting.
A judge is a government official but yet he would scream like a stuck pig if you tried to hold him responsible for the actions of a thug he paroled.
....."Like any other government official, government lawyers are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their conduct," wrote White, a Bush appointee."......
IMO - if this thing goes through and Yoo is convicted for giving his opinion, just try and get an 'honest' opinion from anyone about anything in the future - hell of a way to get people in an organization to come forth with their ideas and opinions to be able to avoid the 'tar baby' of group think. :(
Richard's $.02 :munchin
longrange1947
06-14-2009, 06:49
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of San Francisco
Pelosi idiot.
He would probably sue over choking on his favorite granola bar. Never take responsibility for not chewing it properly in the first place.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of San FranciscoWe're in the RED! How else are we going too generate $$$$ for the state? :D
"Only in the USofA can you be convicted of terrorism and sue for NOT being treated a certain way!":rolleyes:
Stay safe.
I thought only legal citizens had 'rights'?
Well, according to all the information out there, Padilla is a US citizen. Shame we can't excommunicate him for his actions, huh? :lifter Actually, aiding and abetting the enemy during war should be punishable by death.
Unfortunately, due to so much pressure by civil rights groups, this idiot, who was designated an enemy combatant, received a trial in a civilian court. IMO, I don't think the average citizen fully understands the full definition of terrorism and a terrorist. I don't think the burden of this type of trial should be placed on the citizens, it should have been tried by a military tribunal.
Is it safe to assume that his suit against Yoo will be a civil lawsuit? If that is the case, the burden of proof would be on Padilla.
Roguish Lawyer
06-14-2009, 11:27
Pelosi idiot.
He would probably sue over choking on his favorite granola bar. Never take responsibility for not chewing it properly in the first place.
Appointed by George W. Bush. Partner at big national law firm, prosecutor before that.
http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2973
http://www.law.com/regionals/ca/stories/020726c.shtml
Well, according to all the information out there, Padilla is a US citizen. Shame we can't excommunicate him for his actions, huh? :lifter Actually, aiding and abetting the enemy during war should be punishable by death.
Unfortunately, due to so much pressure by civil rights groups, this idiot, who was designated an enemy combatant, received a trial in a civilian court. IMO, I don't think the average citizen fully understands the full definition of terrorism and a terrorist. I don't think the burden of this type of trial should be placed on the citizens, it should have been tried by a military tribunal.
Is it safe to assume that his suit against Yoo will be a civil lawsuit? If that is the case, the burden of proof would be on Padilla.
"Saoirse,"
Thanks for the explanation. I guess I mistaken recalled reading somewhere that he had renounced his citizenship. I did a bit of searching and found these.
Detention of American Citizens as Enemy Combatants (http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31724.pdf)
Wartime detention of enemy combatants: what if there were a war and no one could be detained without an attorney?
Publication: Denver Journal of International Law and Policy
Publication Date: 22-MAR-06 Author: Hemingway, Thomas L. COPYRIGHT 2006 University of Denver (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-16144529_ITM)
Aiding the Enemy Acts (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Aiding+the+Enemy+Acts)
Apparently this opens up a whole can of legal worms and here is a memo explaining the 'DOJ's' train of thought on this. SOURCE (http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memodetentionuscitizens06272002.pdf)
I'm going to do some more research but thought some of you may be interested in taking a look at the info provided.
ACE,
Thanks for the links. Started skimming them each and found some really interesting reading.
Watching the news today, Fox News had a couple segments on mirandizing combatants/insurgents/terrorists upon capture. The liberalizaton of our justice system at work, thank you Barry and Friends.
Combatant or Criminal? Reading of Miranda Rights to Detainees Draws Criticism
Critics warn that reading Miranda rights to terrorist suspects could impede intelligence operations and suggests the administration is treating the "War on Terror" too much like a criminal matter.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/11/combatant-criminal-reading-miranda-rights-detainees-draws-criticism/
Detainees in U.S. Courts Raises Questions Over Due Process
The contentious debate over bringing terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay prison to the U.S. to be tried in federal courts raises thorny questions about the rights afforded to them, including bail hearings, plea negotiations, jury selections -- and what would happen if they were acquitted.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/12/detainees-courts-raises-questions-process/
monsterhunter
06-14-2009, 18:52
embrace the chaos gentlemen... Its only going to get worse.
I'm afraid I have to agree with this. The thought is disheartening at best, but the reality behind it is becoming impossible to deny. Each terrible decision is followed by another, and is usually worse. I'm glad my father doesn’t have to see this, but I fear for my children. Let the stockpile continue.:(
embrace the chaos gentlemen... Its only going to get worse.
Words to remember.
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero – "seize the day and place no trust in tomorrow"
"Everyone,"
I'm a bit curious, could the government turn around and charge 'Padilla,and other USC's classified as combatants' with treason thus closing the door on their ability twist the legal grey area around for other miscreatants to use for their perverted purposes? It seems to me in my ignorance that it would be mitigating the existing suits and potential for further murkiness of the 'domestic enforcement vs war law' paradigm.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2381
§ 2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Section 3 - Treason Note
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
United States
To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
However, Congress has, at times, passed statutes creating related offenses which undermine the government or the national security, such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the 1917 Espionage Act, which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.
The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." The requirement of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British Treason Act 1695 (Since 1945, however, this has been abolished in British law and treason cases are now subject to the same rules of evidence and procedure as a murder trial—The US requirement still stands barring an amendment).
In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions. Several men were convicted of treason in connection with the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion but were pardoned by President George Washington. One of American history's most notorious traitors, in which his name is considered synonymous with the definition of traitor, is Benedict Arnold. The most famous treason trial, that of Aaron Burr in 1807 (See Burr conspiracy), resulted in acquittal. Politically motivated attempts to convict opponents of the Jeffersonian Embargo Acts and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 all failed. Most states have provisions in their constitutions or statutes similar to those in the U.S. Constitution. There have been only two successful prosecutions for treason on the state level, that of Thomas Dorr in Rhode Island and that of John Brown in Virginia.
After the American Civil War, no person involved with the Confederate States of America was tried for treason, though a number of leading Confederates (including Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee) were indicted. Those who had been indicted received a blanket amnesty issued by President Andrew Johnson as he left office in 1869. The Cold War saw frequent associations between treason and support for (or insufficient hostility toward) Communist-backed causes. The most memorable of these came from Senator Joseph McCarthy, who characterized the Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman administrations as "twenty years of treason." McCarthy also investigated various government agencies for Soviet spy rings; however, he acted as a political fact-finder rather than criminal prosecutor. The Cold War period saw few prosecutions for treason.
On October 11, 2006, a federal grand jury issued the first indictment for treason against the United States since 1952, charging Adam Yahiye Gadahn for videos in which he spoke supportively of al-Qaeda.[6]
"Everyone,"
I'm a bit curious, could the government turn around and charge 'Padilla,and other USC's classified as combatants' with treason thus closing the door on their ability twist the legal grey area around for other miscreatants to use for their perverted purposes? It seems to me in my ignorance that it would be mitigating the existing suits and potential for further murkiness of the 'domestic enforcement vs war law' paradigm.
IMHO...under this regime, I doubt it. They aren't combatants to this Circus of Stars, they are misunderstood. :mad: However, I do like the idea. Treason should be punishable by death! Unfortunately, the path our gov't is travelling is becoming more and more littered with civilian court legalise; mirandizing, constitutional rights for detainees. This war is being treated less of a war and thus, I believe it is highly unlikely our government would charge treason. My question is, why is our US Constitution and Judicial law being used for these people, especially if they are NOT US citizens? (I have been researching it and cannot find anything that fully explains it, can somebody throw me a bone here?)
"Saoirse,"
I agree with your assessment and I understand why this is such a sticky issue for the jurists and all of us to be concerned with. I don't know anyone who wants to enable the government to easily infringe on their constitutional rights, or arbitrarily imprison citizens.
That being said I highly doubt that the LEO's as well as our warriors who fight and sacrifice to keep us safe take their dealings in these matters lightly. I would think if anything it would be the opposite which leads most reasonable thoughtful folks to the conclusion that if 'terrorist supporting scumbag' who was aiding, abetting, fighting, etc.. against the US than they more than likely belong on the receiving end of whatever harm and or legal consequences come their way.
One of the things that I haven't seen mentioned all that much in my research of this is the fact that by concentrating on 'criminal law,' instead the 'law of war' we are essentially miring ourselves in a quagmire of legal limbo and conflicting decisions. These decisions are ones which will only be used to further restrict the ROE and to hamper the QP's, warriors, and everyone who work to keep the general public safe by effectively tying their hands by adding the concerns of what some judge 5-10 years later will think and rule on their actions taken in the intensity and fog of action and combat. The resultant handicapping will hurt the effectiveness of their efforts and could have undesirable unintended consequences down the road. These issues coupled with the high recidivism and return to combatant activities that has been reported about by the media and the DOD, makes it (in my opinion) an even less desirable choice to make in this conflict.
I haven't had the benefit of the training and unique education most of the QP's here have. But, it would all seem to add up to a larger hindrance which can inhibit their ability to deal effectively with the asymmetric terrorist threat. This can hardly be a good thing. I would hope that the NSC-NCA would have the opposite desire and goal of relaxing the constraints on the QP's and our warriors and let them go about doing what they do best. That's neutralizing the threat and working to disrupt and irradicate the root causes of the terrorists 'radicalization'.
I think that there are two innately different schools of thought in this situation. The first seems to be that we can't trust anyone to do the right thing and thus large diverse groups of professionals need to spend all their time checking each other and making sure they did the right thing and that it fits with everyone else's agenda correctly. It seems to dove tail nicely with 'apologist', and 'victim mentality that is becoming more prevalent in our culture.
The second is that we have a system in place coupled with checks and balances and that system should be allowed to work and do what it was designed to do. This 'school' seems to believe in the need to trust those folks who have been vetted and are doing their best to do their duty.
Just my $.00000000022
Guys - it IS getting worse. In Iraq - we endure "warrant-based" targeting. Think about that for a moment - you must go get a warrant before you can target/roll a sh*thead UNLESS you see them doing the act in front of you.
There are occasions where we are extraterritorially applying the constitution to non-US citizens (reading terrorists their "rights") in Afghanistan.
The Army field manual applies to ALL interrogations: no shouting, yelling or making the sh*thead uncomfortable in any manner.
There is a school of thought coming to a head regarding everyone who had almost anything to do with interrogations in the last eight years as "war criminals".
Let THAT one sink in for a moment....NOT the terrorists, but the troops FIGHTING the terrorists.
"Curious George" and the current crop of a**clowns in the legislature shall surely be our downfall.
Guys - it IS getting worse. In Iraq - we endure "warrant-based" targeting. Think about that for a moment - you must go get a warrant before you can target/roll a sh*thead UNLESS you see them doing the act in front of you.Nothing like the "American" justice system in a AO where the judges are corrupt as all hell!:D
How do you say: POLICE! FREEZE! in Arabic...:eek:
Stay safe.