Posted on 06/13/2009 9:16:53 AM PDT by Reagan Man
In a surprising ruling, a federal judge has determined that convicted terrorist, Jose Padilla, can sue former Department of Justice lawyer, John Yoo, over Yoo’s legal opinion that led to Padilla being held as an enemy combatant.
US District Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Northern District of California based in San Francisco, denied a Department of Justice motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Padilla’s lawyers contend that Yoo’s legal opinions allowed the US military to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant which led to Padilla being subjected to torture. As reported by local TV station KTVU: The lawsuit alleges the abuse included extreme sleep and sensory deprivation, exposure to extreme temperatures, forced sitting and standing in painful "stress" positions, prolonged shackling, lack of medical care and threats of being cut with a knife or killed. The judge found that
"Like any other government official, government lawyers are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their conduct." Obama’s Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder is handling the case. Coincidentally, Yoo is currently a Professor of Law at the University of California Boalt School Of Law while Judge White taught at the same school before he was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush in 2002. In another coincidence, Yoo’s boss at the time, DoJ Office of Legal Counsel head, Jay Bybee, now sits on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco where the likely appeal will be heard. Bybee signed the memos which Yoo drafted. (Bybee of course, would not participate in the case.)
This ruling, unless it is overturned on appeal, will further erode the presumption that government officials have immunity from lawsuit when they act in their official capacity. This ruling also gives the judicial branch even more oversight of the executive branch in time of war.
Well, good. I would like to sue Obama. When can I start?
Absolute, complete anarchy being propogated by this Judge. Is he ignorant or malicious (or both)?
can this judge be sued over giving a legal opinion on another lawyer being sued over giving a legal opinion?
In the 'Through the Looking Glass' world of the Obamanation anything will be possible. You voted for change. Here it comes in spades!
He's probably next in line on Obama's Supreme Court list.
Juan Padilla is a bad dude who wanted to kill people. Just like Weathermen friends of Obama.
Remember, if the Left wants to kill people, its justified. If the Right wants to kill people, they are crazed reactionaries and should be imprisoned or put to death.
Very simple to understand the Left, really.
Rahm Emanuel, Fur Shur, is not going to work someplace where he has to bring in the lawyers for every phone call, and he's not even a high quality appointee himself.
It's pretty obvious that the judiciary is upping the anty in the class of the three branches of government. I'd suggest the Legislative and Executive branches work up a plan to remove guys like this as fast as we can.
Bush’s fault
Does this mean that those who built the pre-9/11 “wall” between law enforcement and intelligence can be sued for the foreseeable consequences of their actions?
The problem is that our system of laws is being turned against itself. While obama’s crew is running wild and doing anything they want, constitutional or not, the opposition is still thinking in terms of legality. This is how the democrats operate. It’s like two children playing. One slaps the other, that one slaps back, and first one screams bloody murder that he’s been hit. If the first child plays “by the rules” he’s keeps being the victim.
I’m just saying.
Just let them all go. Obama is more interested in Right-wing domestic terrorist and veterans. Moslems are his buddies!
Me too. Where do we start?
If the Right wants to kill people, they are crazed reactionaries who listen to too much Rush Limbaugh radio and Sarah Palin speeches--who should be forced to shut up and should be imprisoned or put to death.
So pedilia will become a terrorist who is a millioniare...wonderful.../sarc.
Yeah, literally. What the hell was he thinking.
marked to read later
You said it:
White, Jeffrey Steven
|
Sorry, but there isn't much the judiciary could do that would surprise me nowadays.
Paraphrased: "Like any other government official, the Telepromotee in Chief is responsible for the forseeable consequences of his conduct."
Despite the surface appeal of the ruling's logical extension, $5 says it gets reversed on appeal based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity. "Sometimes known as official immunity, the doctrine was first supported by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1871 case of Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871)."
"Twenty-five years later, in Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483 (1896), the Court expanded the doctrine to include officers of the federal Executive Branch. Federal courts since Spalding have continued to grant absolute immunity—a complete bar to lawsuits, regardless of the official's motive in acting—to federal executive officials, so long as their actions are discretionary and within the scope of their official duties."
Despite these precedents, I have to acknowledge that in today's regime realities, there's a better than good chance I'll lose my $5.
They'll be lionized when the attack finally comes from the islamofascists. And America will want to put the grown-ups in charge again.
I think Padilla has a legitimate argument, although it’s less clear to me that Yoo should be the proper target of a lawsuit. If we are going to hold foreign enemy combatants indefinitely and without trial during a war, there needs to be a legal bright line between such foreign enemies and U.S. citizens (such as Padilla).
If you are a U.S. citizen, then you must be entitled to all of the Constitutional protections that accompany that status. The government can’t just grab you and incarcerate you without charging you with a crime and allowing you a speedy trial. If you committed terrorist acts, then it’s up to the government to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is vital to a free society and our political system. Otherwise the government can potentially seize any critic and make him “disappear” just by labeling him an “enemy combatant”. At least doing that to non-citizens doesn’t directly threaten our political freedom.
For the same reason, it’s much more important to have 4th Amendment protections against warrantless wiretapping of two parties within the United States than against warrantless wiretapping where one of the parties is outside the country. It’s vital that the government be prevented from bypassing Constitutional protections and spying on internal political opponents under the guise of fighting terrorism.
For those of you who didn’t fear the government having extra-Constitutional powers when Bush was President, just remember that administrations change. Do you feel equally safe under President Obama?
ONLY if the chief executive is a coward. A chief executive with any spine at all will tell the scumbag judges to go play in the street - - "war" isn't in their job description.
Yep. He appointed this scumbag judge.
The Padilla case was always sketchy because of his US citizenship and in retrospect the Bush administration erred in handling him as an enemy combatant. By doing so they’ve probably caused a lot of long-term damage than had they simply treated it as a straightforward law enforcement issue.
Got that right!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.