Padilla Case Against Yoo Dismissed


There is nothing remotely surprising about the news that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Jose Padilla against former Bush lawyer John Yoo over the illegal detention and torture that Yoo provided legal cover for.

A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday ruled that John Yoo, a former legal counsel to the Bush administration, is immune from a lawsuit by an American citizen convicted on terrorism charges who said he was tortured at a military jail in South Carolina.

Jose Padilla, who was sentenced to 17 years in prison in 2007, had accused Yoo of helping to formulate policies under which those designated as “enemy combatants” by the U.S. government were interrogated and detained.

The San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision which had allowed the suit to proceed.

The appeals court found it was unclear at the time of Yoo’s tenure that designated enemy combatants were entitled to the same constitutional protections as other accused criminals. It was also not clearly established at the time that Padilla’s treatment amounted to torture, the court ruled.

The courts had already dismissed cases filed against Rumsfeld and others for the same thing. Welcome to America, where the rule of law is only a comforting myth, where torture is a violation of multiple statutes and treaties but no one is ever held accountable for having ordered it or carried it out, thus negating all of those laws completely.

Comments

  1. anandine says

    Every group has its national myth. Jews have the old testament. Christians have the new testament. Americans have the constitution.

  2. says

    The appeals court found it was unclear at the time of Yoo’s tenure that designated enemy combatants were entitled to the same constitutional protections as other accused criminals. It was also not clearly established at the time that Padilla’s treatment amounted to torture, the court ruled.

    I’d like to know why it was allegedly unclear.

    But now I seem to recall that the category of “enemy combatant” was manufactured back then specifically to confuse everyone and gum up the legal process.

  3. Brony says

    Yep, I’m still not voting for president at all. I just can’t associate myself with the “choice” presented to me.

  4. gingerbaker says

    “Yep, I’m still not voting for president at all. I just can’t associate myself with the “choice” presented to me.”

    That’ll show ‘em, by golly!

  5. unbound says

    “…it was unclear…enemy combatants were entitled to the same constitutional protections as other accused criminals”

    So unclear that all non-partisans agreed that it was illegal. Oh wait…

  6. Brony says

    @gingerbaker

    That’ll show ‘em, by golly!

    Refusing to vote for a torture enabler, a police state enabler, and someone who qualifies for investigation under the UN Torture Convention on Torture is not unreasonable. I’m tired of being used. Given what we thought Obama was, and what we know he is now, I’m wondering what we will see after the election. I refuse to be morally responsible for that. Not until there is a strategy in place for specifically getting the democrats to condemn and change what Obama has done. I am not obligated to be a tool.

    Apologies if I read in too much, this has been on my mind a lot.

  7. cjtotalbro says

    All that is true, but if the election is as close as it may well be, and Romney wins you- and everyone like you – will (or should) feel like huge idiots..

    Romney will be worse and the possibility of a Republican selecting more supreme court justices right now should be enough for you to pull your head out of your ass.

    Im not voting for Obama, I am voting against Romney.

  8. Brony says

    All that is true, but if the election is as close as it may well be, and Romney wins you- and everyone like you – will (or should) feel like huge idiots..

    Not necessarily. It depends on the issue. Gay marriage has likely reached critical mass because too many people know gay people and more and more young people think that religion/republicans are not worth associating with on that issue.
    The war on women has had an impact that will keep driving women (and people with empathy who know women) out of the party as long as people like us keep pointing out embarrassing things like that recent vote on the the VAWA. Republicans are getting recalled in places, that is at least somewhat independent of democrats.

    My point is that the things we don’t like about the Republicans are already in the public consciousness and I have no problem getting back in the trenches. Can you say the same about what Obama’s Justice department is doing? It’s barely on the radar of the “media”. I am not convinced that a Romney presidency will be as damaging to the country long-term. Did you honestly think you would be expecting to be voting for someone who is legally a torturer? What is next, chemical weapons on drones? That last might be hyperbole (maybe), but a SOPA used to harass OWS protestors is more realistic.

    Get some standards because no one has outlined a way to force the Democrats on a better path.

    Romney will be worse and the possibility of a Republican selecting more supreme court justices right now should be enough for you to pull your head out of your ass.

    I am no longer even convinced that Obama’s Supreme Court appointments will be good for liberty. If you give me more than emotion I might entertain something like an argument.

    Im not voting for Obama, I am voting against Romney.

    That is a big part of why we have the problem we have now. It’s a constant downward spiral of quality.

  9. says

    Brony “Get some standards because no one has outlined a way to force the Democrats on a better path.”
    Isn’t that what primaries are for? (Now, I’m not saying that Obama should be primaried, lest a repeat of Carter v Kennedy occur, but to get better Democrats running you have to, not surprisingly, get better Democrats running)

    “I am no longer even convinced that Obama’s Supreme Court appointments will be good for liberty. If you give me more than emotion I might entertain something like an argument.”
    Bork is on Romney’s team. Bork.(*1)

    “That is a big part of why we have the problem we have now. It’s a constant downward spiral of quality.”
    If the elected reflect the electorate, what does that say about Americans?(*2)

    *1. Bork.
    *2. Zing!

  10. cjtotalbro says

    As the above commenter said: Robert Bork. Conservatives already essentially have a majority on the supreme court, to hand them a solid majority on the basis of “I dont think Obama’s choices are perfect” is irresponsible.

    What is frustrating about people like you is that you refuse to accept that in the real world we have to play the hand we are dealt.

  11. says

    Wasn’t clear that it was torture? wtf?

    If it is NOT clear that something ISN’T torture, we shouldn’t do it. Sorry for the triple negative, but that’s the only way to make to point. It is not okay to go ahead with something and see whether it was really all that bad. People can die that way, and in no other situation do we then not hold the people making decisions responsible.

Leave a Reply