Yoo is a neocon ideologue and a member of the hard right
Federalist Society that espouses views any despot would love. It's for
rolling back civil liberties; ending New Deal social policies; denying
women reproductive choice; quashing government regulations, labor
rights, and environmental protections; subverting justice in defense of
privilege; and for former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Yoo (from
2001 - 2003) even more. He believes presidential war powers grant the
executive:
— unlimited authority to ignore international and constitutional law;
— the right to torture and assault "enemy combatant" detainees;
— deny them habeas, due process, and consign them to "Stalinist show
trial" justice in what law professor Francis Boyle calls "Gitmo
Kargaroo Courts;"
— dismiss the fact that doing so violates
international law; is a war crime under the Laws of War, Geneva, the
Army's own Field Manual 27-10 and other statutes;
— bypass Congress and the courts in the process;
— deceive them along with the public; and
— justify virtually anything (including "unilateral presidential
warmaking") to defend "national security," as so stated in his 2005
book, The Powers of War and Peace and in (at least two) memos dated
August 2, 2002 and March 18, 2003; he, David Addington (Cheney's legal
counsel), and then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales wrote them; Jay
Bybee, now a Bush-appointed federal judge, also signed them making him
equally culpable.
On April 1, Yoo's infamous (81 page) 2003 one
was made public. Days later, the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) and
Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) urged UC Berkeley to fire him.
They also called for his disbarment and prosecution for war crimes.
Hundreds of others in the country and around the world share similar
views about a man who shames UC Berkeley, has no business teaching
constitutional or any other law, and is guilty of high crimes,
misdemeanors, and other abuses of the rule of law he disdains.
NLG
President Marjorie Cohn, international law expert Francis Boyle, CCR
President Michael Ratner and others point out that officials like Yoo
are guilty of grievous war and other crimes under:
— the US Constitution;
— US War Crimes Act;
— Geneva Conventions;
— UN Charter;
— UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;
— Nuremberg Principles; and
— various other statutes that were (and still are) repeatedly violated
with impunity by Yoo (earlier) and many other past and present Bush
administration officials.
Yet there was Yoo on June 17 given
prime, near-half page space on the Journal's opinion page to state his
views on the important June 12 Supreme Court's harsh rebuke of
administration policy. It was in its Boumediene v. Bush (No. 06-1195)
5-4 ruling that Guantanamo detainees (most of whom have never been
charged and are innocent) may challenge their detention in US courts in
defiance of the 2006 Military Commissions Act - an unconstitutional
October 2006 law empowering the administration and Pentagon (in
military tribunals) to deny habeas, due process, and act as accuser,
trial judge and executioner with no right of appeal and no chance for
judicial fairness.
Yoo objected in his piece titled "The Supreme
Court Goes to War," in which he rails against the rule of law the way
he did as Deputy Assistant Attorney General and likely does in his
classroom. He called the Court ruling "judicial imperialism of the
highest order," and stated: "The only hope for reigning in the
judiciary is the November election (when) the next president will be in
a position to appoint a new Court that can reverse the damage done to
the nation's security" - by which he means replacing retiring Justices
with more extremist ones.
He continued saying "out the window
went precedent... Until Boumediene, the Supreme Court had never allowed
an alien who was captured fighting against the US... to challenge his
detention (in US courts)." Unmentioned is that nearly all detainees
fall outside this classification. They were lawlessly and randomly
seized; turned in for bounty; nearly all are innocent victims; yet have
been isolated, imprisoned, denied counsel or an inadequate amount of
it, and tortured in violation of international and domestic law. Some
have died, been killed or committed suicide as a result.
Granting
them habeas rights is their best chance for justice long denied, and it
can't come a moment too soon. Calling Guantanamo detainees "al Qaeda
terrorists" has no basis in fact. Most have been held for years without
charge, under the dubious Geneva-superceded category of "unlawful enemy
combatant." They're denied their human rights and humanity, and had
little chance until now for judicial fairness. Yoo played a major role
in the process. He insists it be continued, and got prominent op-ed
space for his views - outlandish ones against the rule of law but
championed by the likes of Murdoch.
He goes on saying:
"Boumediene... also ignored the Constitution's structure (granting) all
war decisions to the president and Congress." It twice before (in 2004
and 2006) "extend(ed) its reach to (unproved) 'al Qaeda terrorists' at
Guantanamo... " Each time Congress "overruled (it to establish) its own
procedures for the appeal of detentions. Incredibly... five Justices
have defied the 'considered judgment' of the president and Congress for
a third time (to grant) 'al Qaeda terrorists' the exact same rights as
American citizens to a day in civilian court."
Unmentioned is
Jose Padilla's ordeal - a US citizen unlawfully held for nearly four
years in military and civilian confinement as an "enemy combatant."
Charges against him were bogus and unjustifiable, yet he was denied due
process, tortured, brutalized and dehumanized in solitary confinement.
They destroyed him by turning his mind to mush, but it wasn't enough.
Last January, he was sentenced to 17 years, four months in a police
state show trial for his "role" in a "conspiracy" to help "Islamic
jihadists" - a concocted scheme to imprison and destroy him further on
the pretext of protecting "national security." Chalk up another win for
injustice along with all the many others besides.
But it's not
how Yoo sees it in his op-ed comments. In an astonishing inversion of
truth, he claims "Congress gave Guantanamo (detainees) more rights than
any prisoners of war (which they're not), in any war, ever." And he
continues by accusing the Justices of "intrud(ing) into the conduct of
war... jury-rig(ing) a process (that) second-guesses our soldiers and
intelligence agents in the field (and may force them to give
'prisoners') some kind of Miranda-style warning upon capture."
There's
more. Boumediene "is only a hop, skip and a jump from judges
second-guessing whether someone is an enemy to second-guessing whether
a soldier should have aimed and fired at him." He goes on, but you get
the point. Yoo calls Boumediene a "brazen power grab (with Justices)
act(ing) like we are no longer at war." Like we're back to the
"business-as-usual attitude that characterized US antiterrorism policy
up to September 10, 2001."
It was never kind and gentle, but
consider its post-9/11 harshness from what Lawrence Wilkerson told a
June 18 House Subcommittee on Civil Rights hearing on torture. He's
Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff (2001-2005), and his testimony was
damning. He told Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold Nadler that 108
detainees died in US custody, around 27 were declared homicides, and it
"start(ed) as early as December 2001 in Afghanistan."
And that's
besides the February 2006 Human Rights First report of hundreds of
deaths in US custody, around 34 confirmed or suspected homicides,
including at least eight from torture and likely more. Because of
command responsibility cover-up, lax investigation, poor record
keeping, and little attempt to treat these crimes seriously, few
prosecutions occurred, and the stiffest penalty for any was five months
in jail. None of this was in Yoo's piece nor any sense of remorse, and
in his judgment they likely got what was they deserved.
Others
share Yoo's views and get ample mainstream space and air time to
present them. Yoo as well in his classroom, and imagine how young minds
are harmed. Instead of teaching constitutional law, he renounces it. So
do others with clout, and that's the problem.
What's ahead is
anyone's guess. Repressive laws won't be repealed. Illegal wars won't
end, and extremist judges still dominate the federal bench, one
favorable High Court decision notwithstanding. Deserving detainees are
still denied justice. Their ordeal continues because influential war
criminals are featured daily on major opinion pages where truth and
righteousness lose out to hateful viciousness, and the nation slips
closer to tyranny - thanks to men like Yoo and Murdoch.
Stephen
Lendman is a Research Associate for the Centre for Research on
Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
