Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Why Padilla Should Bother You ...
By Steve Vladeck
Wednesday, May 2, 2012 at 7:44 PM
... the centerpiece of the panels conclusion that Yoo is entitled to qualified immunity is its conclusion that it wasnt clearly established between 2001 and 2003 whether the conduct Padilla alleges was in fact torture, or was instead merely CIDTcruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. If it was the former, the panel agrees that Yoo would not be entitled to qualified immunity because the underlying conduct shocks the conscience. The implication is that if it was the latter, then Yoo would be entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clear between 2001 and 2003 that conduct that merely amounted to CIDT also shocks the conscience
The problems with this analysis are two-fold:
First, the panel never actually explains why it wasnt clear between 2001 and 2003 that CIDT shocks the conscience. Indeed, the evidence they marshal only goes to confirming the proposition that it was clear that torture shocks the conscience. If, contra the panel, it was also clear that CIDT did, as well, then it wouldnt matter whether Padilla was tortured or was instead only subjected to CIDT. To me, this is the whole ballgameand the panel totally leaps from the conclusion that it wasnt clearly torture to the conclusion that it therefore did not clearly shock<> the conscience. Theres a step (or three) missing in there ...
Second, even if the panel could have mustered support for the argument that it wasnt clear between 2001 and 2003 that CIDT shocks the conscience, everything would then rise and falls on the torture/CIDT distinctionand whether it was clear from 2001-03 on which side of the line the alleged mistreatment of Padilla fell. And heres what the panel has to say on this (essential) point:
We assume without deciding that Padillas alleged treatment rose to the level of torture. That it was torture was not, however, beyond debate in 2001-03. There was at that time considerable debate, both in and out of government, over the definition of torture as applied to specific interrogation techniques. In light of that debate, as well as the judicial decisions discussed above, we cannot say that any reasonable official in 2001-03 would have known that the specific interrogation techniques allegedly employed against Padilla, however appalling, necessarily amounted to torture. Thus, although we hold that the unconstitutionality of torturing an American citizen was beyond debate in 2001-03, it was not clearly established at that time that the treatment Padilla alleges he was subjected to amounted to torture
The problems with this analysis are two-fold:
First, the panel never actually explains why it wasnt clear between 2001 and 2003 that CIDT shocks the conscience. Indeed, the evidence they marshal only goes to confirming the proposition that it was clear that torture shocks the conscience. If, contra the panel, it was also clear that CIDT did, as well, then it wouldnt matter whether Padilla was tortured or was instead only subjected to CIDT. To me, this is the whole ballgameand the panel totally leaps from the conclusion that it wasnt clearly torture to the conclusion that it therefore did not clearly shock<> the conscience. Theres a step (or three) missing in there ...
Second, even if the panel could have mustered support for the argument that it wasnt clear between 2001 and 2003 that CIDT shocks the conscience, everything would then rise and falls on the torture/CIDT distinctionand whether it was clear from 2001-03 on which side of the line the alleged mistreatment of Padilla fell. And heres what the panel has to say on this (essential) point:
We assume without deciding that Padillas alleged treatment rose to the level of torture. That it was torture was not, however, beyond debate in 2001-03. There was at that time considerable debate, both in and out of government, over the definition of torture as applied to specific interrogation techniques. In light of that debate, as well as the judicial decisions discussed above, we cannot say that any reasonable official in 2001-03 would have known that the specific interrogation techniques allegedly employed against Padilla, however appalling, necessarily amounted to torture. Thus, although we hold that the unconstitutionality of torturing an American citizen was beyond debate in 2001-03, it was not clearly established at that time that the treatment Padilla alleges he was subjected to amounted to torture
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/05/why-padilla-should-bother-you-if-not-yoo/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1271 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (11)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why Padilla Should Bother You ... (Original Post)
struggle4progress
May 2012
OP
grasswire
(50,130 posts)1. sickening
K&R
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)2. I figure Yoo should enjoy a taste of what Padilla had for dinner
and then write his next fucking brief about whatever he wants.
Fuck Yoo. He needs to be kicked in the junk every day for about a week.
Festivito
(13,452 posts)3. They think they're just smart enough, but their mothers are embarrassed. /nt