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.
|Published (Last):||12 January 2014|
|PDF File Size:||17.18 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.33 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
W hether torture helped lead to the killing of Osama bin Laden or not, the beating of John Yoo’s tell-tale heart has compelled him to speak.
His preemptive rush, in a recent op-ed article for the Wall Street Journalto vindicate the Bush administration’s torture policies that he and Jay Bybee created tortire his guilt for approving one of the most reprehensible policies in US history — a policy of systematic torture that not only failed to provide actionable intelligence, but undermined the security of the United States.
In the infamous torture memos ofYoo and Bybee, authorised “enhanced interrogation” techniques EITsacts previously recognised by the US as torture — and the same torture methods used on US soldiers to obtain false confessions during the Korean war.
In pages of memos, ojhn two justice department legal counsels redefined torture in a manner that required medical monitoring of all EITs, but failed to provide any meaningful provisions to detect medical evidence of torture as defined by them.
Moreover, their “good faith” defence against criminal liability for torture rested on two presumptions, that interrogators would not exceed the severe physical and severe and prolonged mental pain thresholds for torture as defined by Yoo and Bybee, and, even if they did, that it would not constitute torture unless these physical and psychological harms johb the precise objectives of the interrogators.
Even Torture Memo Author John Yoo Thinks Rectal Feeding Was Illegal
For more than 20 years, I have been documenting medical evidence of torture and testifying as a medical expert in courts of law. I have served as a public member of US human rights delegations and criticised other governments for the very practices that John Yoo authorised and continues to defend.
In each of the cases that I have evaluated, the physical and psychological evidence of torture is consistent with the UN Convention Against Torture’s definition of torture — as well as Yoo and Bybee’s definition of torture.
In some cases, Yoo’s condition of “specific intent” to commit acts of torture is clear from declassified interrogation yo, which reveal systematic and prolonged efforts to induce psychological states of debility, dependence and dread, euphemistically referred to as ”ego down”, ”futility” and ”fear up harsh. The fact that Yoo and Bybee raised the thresholds for physical and mental pain of torture without any provisions to assess possible evidence of torture suggests criminal negligence and possibly the intent to commit and conceal a systematic policy of torture.
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. Unfortunately, he fails to mention any of the negative consequences of the policies. For starters, the US invasion of Iraq joohn 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 Mmemo.
The reason why torture is universally prohibited in international and domestic law the world over, however, is not because it is memi or counterproductive though it is.
Torture has been universally prohibited because in the aftermath of the second world war, the nations of the world agreed, under the leadership of the United States, that respect for basic human dignity required the absolute prohibition of torture under any circumstance.
John Yoo – Wikipedia
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. Order by newest oldest recommendations.
Show 25 25 50 All. Threads collapsed expanded unthreaded. Loading comments… Trouble loading?