Lawyer: Yoo not liable for prisoner's torture (of Jose Padilla)

[alp227]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

(06-14) 17:25 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A lawyer for former Justice Department attorney John Yoo asked a federal appeals court Monday to dismiss a prisoner's torture suit against him, arguing that a government attorney shouldn't be penalized for giving honest legal advice.

A "midlevel" Justice Department lawyer who "advises policymakers on matters of national security" isn't legally responsible for the consequences of those policies, attorney Miguel Estrada told the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Allowing the suit to proceed against Yoo, who is now a UC Berkeley law professor, would "open the floodgates to politically motivated lawsuits," Estrada said.

Jonathan Freiman, lawyer for plaintiff Jose Padilla, countered that Yoo was seeking a "perfect circle of deniability" for government perpetrators of torture and other illegal conduct.

Padilla, a U.S. citizen serving a 17-year sentence for conspiring to aid Islamic extremist groups, claims Yoo was responsible as both a policymaker and a lawyer for his brutal treatment in a Navy brig.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/14/BAM71DV157.DTL

[aquart]

1. Dear God, please let this suit go forward.

[jtrockville]

2. "open the floodgates to politically motivated lawsuits"

On the other hand, not prosecuting Yoo opens the floodgates to an absolutely lawless society.

[unblock]

3. no, failing to prosecute shrub & the big dick would do that.

failing to prosecute yoo merely opens the floodgates to to a society where lawyers can freely commit whatever type of malpractice they or their clients find profitable.

[jtrockville]

28. Right. Legitimized for-profit malpractice vs "political" prosecution.

If what you're doing is proper, "political" prosecution won't go very far.
On the other hand... this "for-profit malpractice" thing seems quite troubling.

[lunasun]

4. A lawyer isn't legally responsible for the consequences of those policies..........

"A perfect circle of deniability" for government perpetrators of torture and other illegal conduct.

Our country has honor and they took it away
and none of them gonna pay
They hide behind lawyers
and we aint'getting nothing from them either!

[digidigido]

5. They mean a medieval lawyer who advises policy makers

[Chef Eric]

6. How the hell is a torture suit "politically motivated"??!! This is ri-god-damn-diculous. nt

[boppers]

7. Prosecuting lawyers for the arguments they make would totally change the profession.

I'm not sure that's a bad thing, though...

Automakers suing ambulance chasing lawyers over car defects....
Pharma suing the lawyers of parents with ill children....
Monsanto suing the lawyers of people concerned about organic crops...

Hey, what could possibly go wrong?

[sabrina 1]

9. Lawyers who argue for torture should be disbarred.

To begin with, then they should be prosecuted. Thank the gods that Spain is apparently pursuing our torturers now that they waited to see if the U.S. would do it themselves. Obviously as Obama has said, we do not prosecute war criminals here, we 'look forward'.

Your analogy makes zero sense. You are demanding that lawyers be above the law. Should we excuse a lawyer who uses his legal skills to advise someone how to rob a bank and get away with it? Especially if he knows the client is planning on doing it. How to commit the perfect murder and get away with it? If he knows that the client is planning on doing it?

So, knowing that Bush/Cheney intended to break the law, you think Yoo was acting legally when he told them they could break the law and get away with it?

Can we not hang on to even a few principles, such as expecting lawyers to NOT use their skills to facilitate criminals in their crimes?

I have a feeling Yoo would not have fared well at Nuremberg.

[boppers]

31. Making an argument is above being prosecuted for that argument.

"Should we excuse a lawyer who uses his legal skills to advise someone how to rob a bank and get away with it? Especially if he knows the client is planning on doing it. How to commit the perfect murder and get away with it? If he knows that the client is planning on doing it?"

Yes. That's how it works. We prosecute the people who actually commit crimes, not those who make arguments we don't find palatable.

"So, knowing that Bush/Cheney intended to break the law, you think Yoo was acting legally when he told them they could break the law and get away with it?"

That's an interesting characterization. Bush/Cheney weren't trying to break the law, they were trying to figure out what kinds of torture were legal. That's why they went to the lawyers.

[No Elephants]

22. Lawyers render opinions saying building deadly autos does not violate any law or duty?

Maybe they render opinions telling toyota exactly what kind of circuitry and wiring to use?

[boppers]

32. Are the lawyers building the cars?

Opinions aren't actions.

If you want to start making opinions illegal or criminally punishable, well, I don't know what to tell you, other than pointing out countries that do such things tend to shoot people like you and me.

[Loudmxr]

8. I am watching the dismantling of the Nurnberg Principles.

It is quite disturbing that within living memory of the trials the USA is junking the basis on which we prosecuted the Nazis.

Its like I said: Conservatives are Amoral theocratic authoritarians.

[FiveGoodMen]

29. In part, blame Godwin's Law

Someone made a rule that we are not to discuss one of history's great (and terrible) lessons.

And so we are condemned to repeat it.

[CHelms]

10. Let The Lawyering begin!

Here's where we stand:


John Yoo is not responsible for the words that come out of his mouth or the ensuing behavior of the people who hear those words. In fact, nobody is accountable for the Bush administrations torture policy, which wasn't really a torture policy, but it would have been perfectly legal even if it had been a torture policy because what the government did to Padilla didn't "shock the conscience" of the sociopaths who were specially trained to do horrible things to get information out of people, so it therefore wasn't really "torture." Which would have been legal anyway, in the wake of the administrations lawyers ruling that the Geneva Convention's prohibition on torture was "quaint," and didn't apply to them anyway. Even though it still wasn't torture.

Round and round and round goes the buck and sometime in late 2014 or so, the buck will quietly run out of gas, landing in a spot where everybody in the Bush administration is vaguely responsible for the torture policy of the Bush administration, but nobody is specifically responsible for the torture policy of the Bush administration, even though it won't be torture then, either.

[elleng]

11. dupe

[elleng]

12. He is responsible for his words, NOT for actions of those he advises.

[Xipe Totec]

13. He was just ordering followers...

[elleng]

14. Don't understand job of lawyers, I guess.

[Xipe Totec]

15. I understand professional responsibility

That's why they are licensed.

[elleng]

16. Our license says we have received the necessary education.

[No Elephants]

21. No, it says lawyers have the knowledge necessary to practice law in a particular jurisdiction.

there's a difference.

And knowledge necessary to practice includes professional ethics.

Most, if not all states require character references.

[elleng]

26. Its called 'character and fitness.' Here's one example, MN:

The essential eligibility requirements for the practice of law are the following:

The ability to reason, recall complex factual information and integrate that information with complex legal theories;
The ability to communicate with clients, attorneys, courts, and others with a high degree of organization and clarity;
The ability to use good judgment on behalf of clients and in conducting one's professional business;
The ability to conduct oneself with respect for and in accordance with the law;
The ability to avoid acts which exhibit disregard for the rights or welfare of others;
The ability to comply with the requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct, applicable state, local, and federal laws, regulations, statutes and any applicable order of a court or tribunal;
The ability to act diligently and reliably in fulfilling one's obligations to clients, attorneys, courts, and others;
The ability to use honesty and good judgment in financial dealings on behalf of oneself, clients, and others; and
The ability to comply with deadlines and time constraints.


The Board will certify an applicant's good character and fitness for admission if the Board finds that the applicant has a record of conduct which demonstrates that the applicant meets the essential eligibility requirements for the practice of law and justifies the trust of clients, adversaries, courts and the public. Honesty is the single most important characteristic. A person with a record showing a deficiency in honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, or reliability may not be recommended for admission.

http://www.ble.state.mn.us/character_and_fitness.html

[No Elephants]

25. Did you read these opinions? they were very specific about exactly what

kinds of things did or did not amount to torture, what degree of force to use, etc. And they knew exacly why they were giving these opinions.

i think when the outcome of what you say or write is 100% foreseeable, maybe you should be liable for that outcome.

Not that I expect that to happen in this case, what with looking forward and lawyers protecting lawyers andd all. But, I think letting everyone off the hook is horrific public policy.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

17. Nothing is going to happen.

There will be no law suits against the former administration.
Obama has already said he will not pursue these matters.

Congress got cold feet when they wanted to investigate. Now its too late.

[Solly Mack]

18. K&R

[Hubert Flottz]

19. Nothing will happen to Yoo until...

another republican takes over the White House and appoints him AG.

[Joe Bacon]

23. President Palin would do that.

If that doesn't scare the crap out of everyone, I don't know what will!

[woo me with science]

20. I read that as an LOLcat.

Yoo not liable.

Yes I is!

[No Elephants]

24. Wonder why they didn't also sue Bybee, who got a seat on the federal bench for his memos.

[Javaman]

27. Why, of course he's not. This surprises you all?

the himmler's of our society get a free ride.

We are the living example of what happens when one nation conquers the world.

The crooks go free.

[newtothegame]

30. Not a big fan of this suit actually. Too 1984-esque.

Shit, I can't IMAGINE what the government would do to me for some of the stuff I wrote in college.