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.”.

Author: Ararr Zulunos
Country: Central African Republic
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: History
Published (Last): 15 May 2010
Pages: 378
PDF File Size: 19.8 Mb
ePub File Size: 12.13 Mb
ISBN: 502-1-61356-844-2
Downloads: 30863
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Gushura

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Part one, in which the text and history of the U. Former assistant attorney general Yoo not only wants to conceal the evidence of the torture that he authorised; he wants us to believe that his torture policy was useful in fighting terrorism.

Kaleck acted on behalf of 11 alleged victims of torture and other human rights abuses, as well as about 30 human rights activists and organizations. He later said he was “astonished” by the “deeply flawed” and “sloppily reasoned” legal analysis in the memos.

John Yoo – Wikipedia

He may not have a law degree or wield political power, but he has “personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people” during his stint as a Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape SERE School instructor. It also concludes that “actions taken as part of the interrogation Secretary of State Colin Powell strongly opposed what he saw as an invalidation of the Geneva Conventions[16] while U.

Retrieved October 24, Webarchive template wayback links CS1 maint: Show 25 25 50 All.

Gonzales, Counsel to the President Re: Retrieved July 4, How could OLC have written opinions that, when revealed to the world weeks after the Abu Ghraib scandal tortur, made it seem as though the administration was giving official sanction to torture, and brought such dishonor on too United States, the Bush administration, the Department of Justice, and the CIA? Jeffrey May 10, He noted, “[w]hile we have identified various disagreements with the August Memorandum, we have reviewed this Office’s prior opinions addressing issues involving treatment of detainees and do not believe that any of their conclusions would be different under the standards set forth in this memorandum.


This section provides legal analysis of the U. Reflecting afterward on the Torture Memos as a cautionary tale, Goldsmith wrote in his memoir:. The article concludes that, “even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent”.

Order by newest oldest recommendations. Since the initial revelation torturre these documents, other communications related to the use of torture to coerce or intimidate detainees during the Bush administration have been divulged. He resigned he said, for several reasons but the main one was that, as a result of withdrawing the Torture Memos, “important people inside the administration had come to question my Yoo’s writings and areas of interest have fallen into three broad areas: UC Berkeley School of Law.

Moreover, their “good faith” defence against criminal liability for torture rested on two presumptions, that interrogators would not exceed the severe physical and severe and prolonged mental pain thresholds for torture as defined by Yoo and Bybee, and, even if they did, that it would not constitute torture unless these physical and psychological harms were the precise objectives of the interrogators.

Retrieved March 19, The statement to the contrary from the August 1,memorandum, quoted above, has been withdrawn and superseded, along with the entirety of the memorandum, and in any event I do not find that statement persuasive. Retrieved March 28, It states specifically that the nation was “in the middle of a war in which the nation [had] already suffered a direct attack”, and joh limiting interrogations would encroach on the president’s ability to prevent future attacks.

Near the end of the Bush administration, Bradbury signed two memoranda for the files, explaining that during his tenure, OLC had determined that certain legal propositions previously stated in ten OLC opinions issued between and concerning executive power in the War on Terror no longer reflected the views of OLC.

Torture Memos – Wikipedia

Archived from the original PDF on February 8, A professor at the University of Chicago Law School before government service, he had previously been legal adviser to William Haynesthe General Counsel of the Department of Defense. The New York Times Magazine.

In wartime, the gravity shifts to the executive branch. Yoo was yol head of OLC for several months. Retrieved August 9, United States Department of Justice. New York City, New York: Bush is a ‘King George’ bent on an “imperial presidency”. Retrieved 5 January That statutory subsection, 8 U. Or, as another memo says in a footnote, trture office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations.


In the second section, the memo admits difficulty in finding any clear definition for the “severe pain or suffering” required by the torture statute which is also required by the UN Convention. Archived from the original PDF on November 6, Sawyera seminal case on the yop of the Executive in times of war.

A memo on torture to John Yoo

On April 13,the Russian Federation banned Yoo and several others from entering the country because of alleged human rights violations. Jus in belloUniversal jurisdictionand War crimes. It failed to promote any language regarding torture to be only “extremely cruel” behavior resulting in “excruciating and agonizing” pain, and instead, filed a reservation that quoted the text of the U.

Garden City, New York: Constitutional Law in this area was strained and indefensible. After summarizing the law, it analyses the elements of the offense of torture inflicting severe pain or sufferingand the specific or criminal intent required by the statute for the offense.

David Luban, a law professor at Georgetown Law School, testified before Congress on May 13,stating that the memos were “an ethical train wreck” and had been drafted to “reverse engineer” a defense for illegal actions already committed. The August 1,memo has been widely criticized, including within the Bush administration. SinceYoo has also been a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institutea conservative think tank in Washington. Two days after taking office on January 20, President Barack Obama by Executive Order, released January 22,rescinded all the previous OLC guidance about “detention or the interrogation of detained individuals” and directed that no government agency may rely on any of the OLC opinions on that topic between and Law professor, former official in the United States Department of Justice.