« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
The Timeline Behind Yoo's Memo
Marty Lederman has argued that Yoo's March, 2003 memo is "in effect, the blueprint that led to Abu Ghraib and the other abuses within the armed forces in 2003 and early 2004." Well, we decided we needed a brief timeline to size it all up. You be the judge. TPM Research Hound Peter Sheehy provided research for this post.
August 1, 2002
John Yoo authors and Jay Bybee, then the chief of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, signs a memo (now known as the Bybee memo or the Torture Memo) that narrowly defines what constitutes illegal torture.
October, 2002
Major General Geoffrey Miller assumes command of Guantánamo Bay and pushes his superiors hard for more flexibility in interrogations.
December 2, 2002
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld gives formal approval for the use of “hooding,” “exploitation of phobias,” “stress positions,” “deprivation of light and auditory stimuli,” and other coercive tactics ordinarily forbidden by the Army Field Manual.
Early, 2003
In part to satisfy internal administration critics of the Pentagon's interrogation program at Guantanamo Bay, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in 2003 convenes a "working group" of lawyers from all branches of the armed services to develop new interrogation guidelines for the Pentagon.
March 28, 2003
Jay Bybee resigns from his Office as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, to become a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
March 14, 2003
The Justice Department sends Yoo’s legal memo to Pentagon's general counsel. The memo forms the basis of the working group's report.
April 2, 2003
The Pentagon's “working group” (unbeknownst to a number of members of the working group) endorses the continued use of extremely aggressive tactics. Secretary Rumsfeld signs it.
April 16, 2003
The Pentagon issues a memorandum to the U.S. Southern Command, approving twenty-four of the working-group's list of thirty-five possible interrogation methods for use at Guantánamo, including isolation and what it called “fear up harsh,” which meant “significantly increasing the fear level in a detainee.” Gen. Miller is also "briefed" on the working group's report.
June 25, 2003
Haynes writes a letter back to Leahy saying that the Pentagon’s policy was never to engage in torture, or cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.
August, 2003
The Pentagon sends General Miller to Iraq to advise officials there on interrogating Iraqi detainees.
October-December, 2003
There are numerous instances of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" by U.S. military personnel at Abu Ghraib, as outlined in Major General Antonio M. Taguba's report.
December, 2003
Jack Goldsmith, the new chief of the Office of Legal Counsel, decides that both the Bybee memo and Yoo's March, 2003 opinions must be rescinded.
April 28, 2004
The Abu Ghraib scandal breaks.
Josh
Zachary
Seems none of the articles I have read today are willing to say it, that includes such people as Glenn Greenwald at Salon, or Horton at No COmment, but Murder is included in the crimes. We know for a fact that several people entered both Gitmo and Abu G alive, and left in Body Bags. We must not let this be forgotten. If we do can the ovens and gas chambers be far off ?
April 2, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy would I love to see a poster with the words "Wanted" slapped across that photo!
He deserves to face the World Court at the very least.
April 2, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm quite certain Mr. Yoo will never travel outside the borders of the United States again.
He's too smart not to know of the precedent of the US prosecuting enabling lawyers for war crimes. The ICC won't let him slip out of their hands...
April 2, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt our redoubtable (ha ha) leaders will prosecute anyone for war crimes. How does one go about lodging a war crimes complaint, with what country, agency, etc.?
April 2, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US system of government is broken if one crony in the OLC can push through something that clearly violates the constitution. Checks and balances? Just a distant memory now.
April 2, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder, can I now officially emigrate to another nation as an asylum seeker?
April 2, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, another example of why The Federalist Society is absolutely evil. There's a special place in Hell reserved for Yoo and one in Outer Darkness for Bybee.
April 2, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
US Govt = total insane fuckery
No checks and balances.
No law for the executive.
No oversight.
April 2, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, we've learned that the Bush administration is not beyond structuring legal arguments to justify any actions it wishes to take. It's only happened over and over. We're quick.
What's our next step in Iraq? Oh, right. We're going to elect a new President, so everything will be ok.
Except that while we're all wishing away the days of the Bush/Cheney presidency, they've been very busy indeed. They've been busy perfecting the legal arguments that may take the American people to places we don't want to go. We may end up with "agreements" in "oil rich" Basra that will shame us forever. But it's not history that we can critique yet, so we don't really need to worry about it.
July 31, 2008--that's the date that's been set for the US and Iraqi government to finish our new
"agreement" with Iraq. We don't really need to worry that David Satterfield mentioned the "continuing applicability" of the 2002 AUMF as a possible basis for the President to make whatever committments he may design. Don't worry about the power of "executive agreements". And don't worry that, according to congressional testimony, Maliki took a page out of the Bush/Cheney playbook, and bypassed parliamentary
ratification last year when he got the UN mandate extended. We certainly shouldn't worry that players in both countries will change after these "agreements" are finalized.
It isn't like Congress could get together right now and put together legislation that makes it clear to both countries that Congressional intent for the 2002 AUMF cannot be a legal basis for new "agreements".
It's not like they could get together to make it clear to the world that the American people are
reserving the right to have new leadership in 09 make new "agreements".
Not to worry. The issue isn't part of main stream media discussion, so it isn't a real issue we should be worried about. It's not like we won't thoroughly examine all of the legal arguments that have committed our troops or locked the Iraqi's into unwanted committments after the fact. We've proven time after time that we're good at looking back.
Excerpts from the house Foreign Affairs Subcommittee hearing, 12-19-07
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. RAED JARRAR, IRAQ CONSULTANT, MIDDLE EAST
PEACE BUILDING PROGRAM, AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE
The Iraqi executive branch argued that while it respects and understands the parliament’s
exclusive right to ratify international treaties and agreements, the UN mandate does not count as an international treaty or agreement, and therefore does not require parliamentary ratification. The Iraqi legislative branch insisted that renewing the UN mandate falls under article 61, section 4, and that members of the
Council of Representatives were given verbal guarantees that they would be consulted
before the renewal request letter was sent to the UN.
And:
In light of these events, it should come as no surprise that the Iraqi public opinion
is now highly suspicious of the executive branch and skeptical of its promises, specifically
that no permanent foreign military bases will be established in Iraq. Az-
Zaman, one of the two papers with highest circulation in Iraq, had this front page
headline on November 27th 2007 commenting on the Bush-Maliki Agreement: ‘‘Bush
and Al-Maliki agree on principles to leave permanent military bases in Iraq.’’
(See Appendix IV for original)
April 2, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we can have a "POSSE COMMITATUS " civilan -we the people rendintion of YOO to the Hague ,
(I cry for my country and our ideals that have been hijacked by these cut throat neocon 'sumbitches" ) ..
Here's a question where are the real conservatives ? Barry Goldwater wouldn't let this bunch be called CONSERVATIVES .. And this is the same bunch that McCain has sold his soul to get the Greed Over Patriotism nomination ..
How do we lure Yoo out of the country -just long enough to get him on an unmarked fast mover to the Netherlands ...Yoo would get a more fair & better trial then David Hicks did ...
MAY ALL THESE NEO SCUMS ROT IN HELL...
April 2, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Friends!
Premier Asshole Doug Feith teaches at Georgetown. His email is djf35@georgetown.edu.
His office number is 202-687-7846.
If you get a moment, do let him know how much we appreciate his shredding of the Constitution. Not to mention his tough talk (and Yoo's, and Cheney's, etc) that is based on not a single second served in the military.
April 2, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to rant on the dem party.
The ACLU has done more to hold them accountable than the whole dem party.
This is unacceptable.
They should not get one penny or one vote for these failures.
Donate to the ACLU and elect them.
April 2, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time after time, Yoo's reasoning comes down to, "It would be a real drag if we had to act legally, because we really see the president as an absolute monarch."
All those references to "the sovereign"!! They always taught us in school that the President is merely the Executive, while the People are sovereign.
No more.
vidhardt.blogspot.com
April 2, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
On this, you and I agree 100%.
I realize that neither Hillary nor Obama will risk alienating votes by declaring they will seek criminal charges against the Bush admin.
But it is unacceptable.
Especially considering the last thing Bush will do before leaving office is pardon everyone who may have done anything illegal.
(Actually, interesting point: I'm not a lawyer. Can you "pardon" someone who has not been charged with anything?)
April 10, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink