General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDean of UC Irvine Law School: "Prosecute John Yoo'
Yoo was co-author of the infamous torture memo of 2002, when he was Deputy Assistant US Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Bush Justice Department. In the memo he declared thatin the words of Jane Mayer in her book The Dark Sidecruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of detainees could be authorized, with few restrictions.
Yoos memo directly led to the torture policy that resulted, Chemerinsky said in an interview, citing Mayers evidence. Thats being part of a conspiracy to violate a federal statute. Someone isnt excused from criminal liability just because they work for the federal government.
The Federal Torture Act defines torture broadly, as an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering
upon another person within his custody or physical control. The penalty for violating the Torture Act is imprisonment for not more than 20 years.
Most important for the case of John Yoo, the Federal Torture Act specifically includes conspiracy, stating that a person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties
as the penalties prescribed for the offense. That means Yoo could be sentenced to up to twenty years in prison if found guilty.
I think he should be, Chemerinsky said. All who planned, all who implemented, all who carried out the torture should be criminally prosecuted. How else do we as a society express our outrage? How else do we deter it in the futureexcept by criminal prosecutions?
Chemerinsky, an authority on constitutional law who has argued cases before the Supreme Court, is the founding dean of the law school at UC Irvine, a sister campus of Berkeley in the University of California System. He is the author of hundreds of law review articles and eight books, including most recently The Case Against the Supreme Court.
Yoo defended his work on torture in an op-ed published by the New York Daily News. In 2002, he wrote, I believed that the federal law prohibiting torture allowed the CIA to use interrogation methods that did not cause injuryincluding, in extraordinary cases, waterboardingbecause of the grave threat to the nations security in the months after the 9/11 attacks. He added that he was swayed by the fact that he believed the CIA would use the technique only on top Al Qaeda leaders thought to have actionable information on pending plots. He said the Senate report was wrong in its conclusion that torture was ineffective in exposing plots, citing CIA head John Brennans statements to that effect.
But, Chemerinsky said, theres nothing in the federal torture law that provides an exception for pending plots.
For a law school dean to call for the criminal prosecution of a law professor at another campus of the same university is unprecedented. When demands were raised in 2008 that Berkely fire Yoo, the dean of the law school at Berkeley at the time, Christopher Edley Jr., said that, while he agreed that Yoo offered bad ideas and even worse advice during his government service, he believed that advocating bad ideas was protected by academic freedom, and such advocacy would not warrant dismissal from Berkeley. The only ground for dismissal, he said, was specified in the official university policy: Commission of a criminal act which has led to conviction in a court of law and which clearly demonstrates unfitness to continue as a member of the faculty.
Chemerinskys argument is that Yoo has committed a criminal actconspiracy to tortureand that he should be put on trial for it.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/192809/prosecute-john-yoo-says-law-school-dean-erwin-chemerinsky#
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I highly recommend his book "The Conservative Assault on the Consttution."
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)to the prosecution of these criminals
We need someone of his stature and expertise to get the ball rolling.
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)ANYONE in power for torture unless we lose a war and are compelled to submit to war crimes trials in the same way the Nazis were.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)demand the U.S. surrender officials of the Bush-Cheney Junta to face justice or face invasion and occupation.
But I don't think the rest of the world is that serious about enforcing international law. And, because the rest of the world merely pays lip service to the idea that the U.S. is subject to international law, people like Bush and Cheney can openly gloat and taunt those of us whose taxes pay their pensions. And we cannot do anything about it.
All well and good to have a U.N. Convention Against Torture -- hell, we signed and ratified it -- but it seems a bit hollow without a robust enforcement mechanism to compel the adherence of its signatories.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)with the U.S., there is pretty much ZERO chance of them enforcing treaties, and even then the possibility is remote that the U.S. would care. If Sweden did it, we would simply force Ikea to sell Freedom Meatballs.
There is U.S./Israeli established precedent to kidnap, sorry, I mean "extraordinarily render", criminals from other countries, but that would be regarded as an act of war by the U.S. (and would also be a massive act of hypocrisy for us to object).
Torture is now the law of the land and will be used with greater and greater frequency against not just "enemy combatants" but American citizens as well (Hell, Cheney said so). Law enforcement has gotten token punishment for torturing confessions out of suspects in the past, so expect even such mild rebukes to disappear as grand juries, perfectly willing to excuse murder, will excuse torture as well as long as it is done to the "right" people.
This ends in either rebellion or all out war with another nation(s). Actually, was is inevitable since it is always profitable to the money class. This is the path we have chosen.
ancianita
(35,954 posts)these criminals to an international court, then? It's not just the logistics.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)and legal authority can give us real legal rebuttals talking points to the ignorant and uniformed.
So I think it should go viral.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I have just completely lost faith in humanity at this point. A rogue asteroid is now humanity's best hope. Maybe the dolphins will run the place better.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)instigated by those outside of humanity that brings a revolutionary paradigm shift of world consciousness and higher vibration of awareness
Or at least a ride out of here on the newly planned galactic highway
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)It will only take me a few seconds to grab my towel.
catchnrelease
(1,944 posts)calimary
(81,139 posts)Makes this Anteater PROUD!
I just called Feinstein's and Boxer's L.A. offices and said what I wanted to tell my Senators could be boiled down to one word: PROSECUTE. (And I added details so there would be NO misunderstanding my message).
You can, too! I suggest local/regional offices for either House or Senate, since we're facing the holiday break.
Here's how you find 'em:
https://www.congress.gov/members
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I am just so depressed by the whole issue at this point that I actually feel ill.
stone space
(6,498 posts)napkinz
(17,199 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I can't believe that. Our law enforceable by our courts includes the Constitution, the laws and our treaties with other countries. The job of the executive and therefore of the president is to execute or implement those laws including our treaties.
Article VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi
Article III, section 2
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii#section1
Article II, section 3
he (the president) shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section3
The writ of habeas corpus -- the right of a prisoner to ask a court to ascertain why the prisoner is being held -- can be suspended under certain conditions:
Article I, section 9
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
Conservatives argue that these rules apply only within the US I believe. But that is utter nonsense. They apply to limit our government. Treaties are intended, are entered into to limit our government and another or other governments in activities outside the US. The point of a limitation in a treaty is that it will limit the conduct of the country entering into the treaty in one or more international relationships or activities.
I can't believe that Woo really believed that the president does not have to comply with a treaty that is still in effect.
If I were the dean of a school or president of a law school, I would be embarrassed to have John Yoo on my faculty. We all make mistakes. We all mis-speak. But these statements are just embarrassing.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)I wish we had more Chemerinskys.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You are an attorney and Dean of a Law School, surely you understand that academic freedom does not attach retro-actively.
FSogol
(45,456 posts)dhill926
(16,317 posts)easychoice
(1,043 posts)He is a cockroach...
http://www.nndb.com/people/327/000049180/
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I think we really should push Obama to nominate him. He is well qualified, and I think would take excellent and proper judicial decisions if on the court. Just what we need for the next generation there. Might be hard to get him through a Republican Senate, but you might as well start there and not with a "centrist" judge in the way that Obama often gives in to start with instead of playing a tough negotiator like he ought to.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)malaise
(268,726 posts)starting with the war criminal of a Dick
Solly Mack
(90,758 posts)MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)How I wish that were true. That's a nice statement, but reality has proved entirely different. In the last 20 years or so, I feel like we've seen far more people in Washington, from politicians and federal employees all the way to the POTUS, refuse to testify or flat out lie when being investigated, than the # of people we've seen actually face real consequences for their actions.
napkinz
(17,199 posts)nt