JOHN YOO TORTURE MEMO PDF
In the infamous torture memos of , Yoo and Bybee, authorised “enhanced interrogation” techniques (EITs), acts previously recognised by. The Responsibility of the Faculty of the University at California at Berkeley in the Matter of the Torture Memo of Professor John Yoo A weblog. 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.
|Genre:||Health and Food|
|Published (Last):||21 February 2011|
|PDF File Size:||8.19 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.59 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
John Yoo – Wikipedia
The reason why torture is universally prohibited in international and domestic law the world over, however, is not because iohn is ineffective or counterproductive though it is. Archived from the original on March 30, For more than 20 years, I have been documenting medical evidence of torture and testifying as a medical expert in courts of law. The New York Times Magazine. Cheney said he was not concerned that the torture program ensnared victims of mistaken identity, and said he had no regrets.
Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.
Rumsfeldas well as intervening legislation such as the Military Commissions Act of and the December Detainee Treatment Act. HaynesGeneral Counsel of the Department of Defense. otrture
Part six of the memo is titled “Defenses” and concludes that “under the current circumstances, necessity or self-defense may justify interrogation methods that might violate Section A. Most actions that fall under the international definition did not fall within this new definition advocated by the U.
The August 1,memo has been widely criticized, including within the Bush administration. That, after all, is the teaching of United States v. The memo provided legal authorization and OLC approval for a more limited set of actions for use when interrogating high-value detainees. The memorandum states that, on the basis of the conclusions reached in part one, “there was little difference between these two understandings and Two days after taking office on January 20, President Barack Obama by Executive Order, released January 22,rescinded all the previous OLC guidance about “detention or the interrogation of detained individuals” and directed that no government agency may rely on any of the OLC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 But, later that year, an opinion was issued by his successor at the OLC, that changed the very narrow definition of torture from the original legal opinions of the Bush administration on this topic.
Without further discussion, the fact summary concludes that the “high level of threat [the reader] believe[s] now exists” is why advice regarding further techniques is being sought. It concludes that none of these methods, individually or simultaneously would be considered torture according to law. For starters, the US invasion of Iraq was justified, in part, on the basis of the false confession of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi who, under pain of torture, confessed to knowledge of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
It states that the purpose of these methods will be to “convince Zubaydah that the only way he can influence his surrounding environment is through cooperation”.
InAlberto Gonzales testified before Congress that the CIA tprture the opinion after having captured Abu Zubaydah inwho was then believed to be a significant al-Qaeda figure who could provide important information to U.
Memorandum to Counsel to the President Archived copy as title All tortufe needing factual verification Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from May CS1 maint: John Yoo, case No. Bush is a ‘King George’ bent on an “imperial presidency”.
The memo further argues that even if the ICC were to claim jurisdiction, “interrogation of an al Qaeda operative yio not constitute a crime under the Rome Statute”, since it would not involve the “widespread and systematic attack directed against any civilian population” and would not be considered a war crime.
A memo on torture to John Yoo | Vincent Iacopino | Opinion | The Guardian
Inquiry Suggests no Charges”. The final paragraph of his entry asks that “Congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle Law professor, former official in the United States Department of Justice.
Archived from the original on Retrieved October 24, Retrieved April 21, In addition, he provided a legal opinion backing the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. Archived from the original on 21 January In a book and a law review article, Yoo defended President Bush’s terrorist surveillance program, arguing that “the TSP represents a valid exercise of the President’s Commander-in-Chief authority meml gather intelligence during wartime”.
Bradbury authored an additional memo dated Julyseeking to reconcile the interrogation techniques with new legal developments, including Hamdan v. The acts of torture that John Yoo and other Bush administration officials so proudly defend are nothing less than war crimes that, in the absence of accountability, continue to undermine the United States’ claim to respect the rule of law.
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. White Jonh 12,