John Yoo is an accessory to war crimes

Solly Mack

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Mar-04-09 11:03 AM
Original message

John Yoo is an accessory to war crimes

Edited on Wed Mar-04-09 11:21 AM by Solly Mack

John Yoo attempts to frame his involvement in the Bush administration's war crimes as nothing more than a lawyer serving his client.

"These memos I wrote were not for public consumption. They lack a certain polish, I think – would have been better to explain government policy rather than try to give unvarnished, straight-talk legal advice. I certainly would have done that differently, but I don't think I would have made the basic decisions differently.

I think the job of a lawyer is to give a straight answer to a client"

A Timeline

US invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001

November 13, 2001 - President Bush authorizes trials by military commission.

(e) To protect the United States and its citizens, and for the effective conduct of military operations and prevention of terrorist attacks, it is necessary for individuals subject to this order pursuant to section 2 hereof to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals.

From this we know people are/will being/be detained.

"(f) Given the danger to the safety of the United States and the nature of international terrorism, and to the extent provided by and under this order, I find consistent with section 836 of title 10, United States Code, that it is not practicable to apply in military commissions under this order the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts."

From this we know there will be a new thinking applied to the detainees. That it's just not "practicable" to grant the same rights usually found in military tribunals/commissions

December 27, 2001 - Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announces plan to send prisoners to GTMO.

We've now been in Afghanistan since October - over 2 months. Where are the detainees at this point?

Let's look at a timeline of David Hicks

9 December 2001:

An unnamed Australian twenty-six year old Caucasian male (later known to be David Hicks) is reported to have been captured by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.

14 December 2001:

David Hicks is to be transferred to US custody. The Australian Government intends to ‘do whatever is necessary to bring him to justice’ if Mr Hicks ‘has committed a crime against Australian law’.

17 December 2001:

The Northern Alliance transfers David Hicks to US forces.

David Hicks withdraws claims

"As part of the plea bargain, Hicks also withdrew claims he had been beaten by US forces after his capture in Afghanistan (in 2001) and that he had been sedated before learning of the charges against him."

David Hicks claims abuse by US military

24 December 2001:

A joint team of AFP and ASIO officers begins interviewing David Hicks aboard a US naval ship.

2 January 2002:

Australian officials complete their week-long interrogation of David Hicks on board the USS Peleliu in the Indian Ocean.

3 January 2002:

David Hicks is transferred from the USS Peleliu to the USS Bataan, an amphibious naval assault ship

Prison ships, torture claims, and missing detainees

"The US has admitted that the Bataan and Peleliu were used as prison ships between December 2001 and January 2002"

13 January 2002:

Mr Hicks is confirmed as having landed yesterday at Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

17 January 2002:

The Australian Government confirms that David Hicks is being held in US military custody and accepts that this is appropriate. Access to Mr Hicks is assured and advice is given that he is held in humane conditions.

US faces prison ship allegations

US accused of holding terror suspects on prison ships

"Ships that are understood to have held prisoners include the USS Bataan and USS Peleliu. A further 15 ships are suspected of having operated around the British territory of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which has been used as a military base by the UK and the Americans

According to research carried out by Reprieve, the US may have used as many as 17 ships as "floating prisons" since 2001. Detainees are interrogated aboard the vessels and then rendered to other, often undisclosed, locations, it is claimed"

"Even on the (usually-dubious) assumption that these secret detainees may be held as prisoners of war, Article 22 of the Third Geneva Convention states that "Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land." These provisions were included in the 1949 Conventions in response to the appalling mistreatment of American prisoners of war by the Japanese, who shipped thousands of American prisoners to labour camps in the Philippines, Thailand, Korea and elsewhere under decks in vermin-infested ships. (Indeed, many of these prisoners were killed when allied armed forces torpedoed the unmarked prison ships where they were held.)"

Extraordinary Rendition:

"According to the flight plans, the first 23 prisoners to arrive at Guantanamo — including another British citizen, Feroz Abbasi, then 21, and an Australian, David Hicks — had arrived at the American naval base in Cuba after flying from the Moron airbase in Spain." (January 11,2002)

So from December 9, 2001 until January 11, 2002, Hicks goes from Afghanistan to 2 different US naval ships to Spain and then on to GTMO. One month - which included multiple interrogations

Spain 'authorised' CIA rendition flights

" Spain has previously denied all knowledge of "secret stopover" flights by CIA planes transporting terror suspects to the US military base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

But a "top secret" document leaked to Spanish daily newspaper El Pais shows that permission was sought by the US from Spain's Foreign Ministry in early 2002.

The request was communicated to Josep Pique, then foreign minister, hours before a CIA flight landed at Moron airbase in southwest Spain, the newspaper claimed."

David Hicks arrives in GTMO on a flight from Moron airbase in Spain in early 2002.

December 28, 2001 - Legal advisors inform President Bush GTMO is probably beyond reach of federal courts.

"One Justice Department memo, written for the CIA late in the fall of 2001, put an extremely narrow interpretation on the international anti-torture convention, allowing the agency to use a whole range of techniques—including sleep deprivation, the use of phobias and the deployment of "stress factors"—in interrogating Qaeda suspects. The only clear prohibition was "causing severe physical or mental pain"—a subjective judgment that allowed for "a whole range of things in between," said one former administration official familiar with the opinion. On Dec. 28, 2001, the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel weighed in with another opinion, arguing that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction to review the treatment of foreign prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The appeal of Gitmo from the start was that, in the view of administration lawyers, the base existed in a legal twilight zone—or "the legal equivalent of outer space," as one former administration lawyer described it. And on Jan. 9, 2002, John Yoo of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel coauthored a sweeping 42-page memo concluding that neither the Geneva Conventions nor any of the laws of war applied to the conflict in Afghanistan."

So in the fall of 2001, they were already allowing the CIA to torture people...I mean, use "enhanced interrogation" on people...

And ALL of this long before the infamous Yoo memo of March 2003....and well before the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2911107&mesg_id=2911107">Bybee "torture memo" of August 2002.

And just one more person - among many - tortured BEFORE Yoo's March 2003 memo was written

Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded by the CIA in March 2002 - a full year before the Yoo memo was issued, and 5 months before the Bybee "torture memo" was issued.

John Yoo was attempting to provide legal cover for crimes already committed

January 9, 2002 - Legal advisors (Yoo) inform William Haynes, Defense Department General Counsel, laws of war do not restrain President Bush, and Geneva Conventions do not protect prisoners seized during war on terror.

January 11, 2002 - First detainees arrive at GTMO. David Hicks is among the group.

January 18, 2002 - President Bush decides detainees' standing as terrorists disqualifies them from prisoner-of-war protection under the Geneva conventions

January 25, 2002 Memo from Alberto Gonzlaes reaffirms the thinking that the GC doesn't apply.]

March 14, 2003 - Infamous Yoo Memo
Part 2 of memo

Definition of Accessory: Aiding or contributing in a secondary way or assisting in or contributing to as a subordinate.

In Criminal Law, contributing to or aiding in the commission of a crime. One who, without being present at the commission of an offense, becomes guilty of such offense, not as a chief actor, but as a participant, as by command, advice, instigation, or concealment; either before or after the fact or commission.

One who aids, abets, commands, or counsels another in the commission of a crime.