Comments (84)

anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 3:01 PM:

Does Michael Mukasey's role in Padilla's legal history and status impact on this suit?

Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 3:29 PM:

Why does Jose Padilla hate America so much?

Sue wrote on January 4, 2008 3:31 PM:

Good,
because - I don't usually use language like this in such personal terms - John Yoo is a total pig.
I've never understood why his students do not boycott his classes.
He would have fit right in with the SS elite.
He is another of the Bush Gang thugs.
One of the scariest and dispicable.

Dave Bowman wrote on January 4, 2008 3:35 PM:

Look for the Repugs to sneak a 'John Yoo immunity clause' into legislation soon.

Sue wrote on January 4, 2008 3:36 PM:

Good

I do not usually use such language in such personal terms but John Yoo is a total pig.
I have never understood why his students have not boycotted his classes.
He would have fit right in with the SS elite.
He should be in jail, not Padilla.

L.T. wrote on January 4, 2008 3:37 PM:

Anonymous

Because of ignorant people like you!

bill wrote on January 4, 2008 3:41 PM:

Question: What does it say about UC Berkeley Law School and the kind of people it is turning out?

Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 3:56 PM:

Damn, the complaint isn't available on PACER. I was looking forward to reading it.

mo2 wrote on January 4, 2008 4:04 PM:

I saw an interview with Yoo on BBC recently. He compared (illegally held) detainees to pirates captured on the open seas. He said that the "rules" that apply to pirates apply to detainees. He was careful to say "rules" and not "laws." If he intends to compare Padilla (born in Brooklyn and arrested in Chicago) to a non-US citizen captured on some random high sea, then this should be a hoot.

Lauren wrote on January 4, 2008 4:05 PM:

Doesn't he have immunity because he was acting in his official capacity?

EH wrote on January 4, 2008 4:05 PM:

bill: Care to elaborate? Yoo didn't go to Berkeley, though he does "teach" there. If you're proposing that the university be held accountable for each professor's influence on each student, you've picked a tough row to hoe.

That said, I'd love to see something come of this, but like Mr. Bowman above I don't see the case going very far.

parrot wrote on January 4, 2008 4:15 PM:

Good. I hope he takes that fascist to the cleaners.

chisholm wrote on January 4, 2008 4:15 PM:

How can you sue a member of a government for the government's policies? This suit sounds like it would only be appropriate in a Nuremberg-type setting. No lawyer here but it seems like it's going to be tossed asap.

moondancer wrote on January 4, 2008 4:16 PM:

Garnish his wages. Make the neo-con fascist support his victim. I don't think immunity covers civil litigation for Yoo.

CathieKayser wrote on January 4, 2008 4:18 PM:

Couldn't happen to a nicer person.

mo2 wrote on January 4, 2008 4:21 PM:

Yoo on Frontline in 2005 -

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/interviews/yoo.html

Lauren wrote on January 4, 2008 4:22 PM:

Scratch that -- they must have filed it as a Bivens action. (Law school memory finally coming back to me.)

phil james wrote on January 4, 2008 4:27 PM:

Two words: executive privilege

stephen wrote on January 4, 2008 4:27 PM:

This is what should be happening to Bush Cheney Powell Rice Rumsfeld etc etc. They should have to fight suits for the rest of their lives even if they never spend a day in jail at least they will have to spend their money defending themselves and who knows we could see them in Jail.

stephen wrote on January 4, 2008 4:28 PM:

This is what should be happening to Bush Cheney Powell Rice Rumsfeld etc etc. They should have to fight suits for the rest of their lives even if they never spend a day in jail at least they will have to spend their money defending themselves and who knows we could see them in Jail.

Palli Davis Holubar wrote on January 4, 2008 4:29 PM:

Yoo should be convicted of conspiracy to commit un-American Activities or
Crimes against Humanity...imprisoned without pencil or paper, tape recorder, or dictaphone.
Private citizens (Professors even) who construct "legal" rationalization for government misdeeds are the attorneys Shakespeare wrote about...

islandliberal wrote on January 4, 2008 4:33 PM:

It's about time. This action may not go far, but as long as it's alive, I hope Padilla's lawyers do everything they can to make Yoo's life a living hell and that every nasty detail of this ghoul's debased legal pandering to David Addington and Dick Cheney is broadcast far and wide.

brendancalling wrote on January 4, 2008 4:36 PM:

"Yoo should be convicted of conspiracy to commit un-American Activities or
Crimes against Humanity...imprisoned without pencil or paper, tape recorder, or dictaphone. "

No.
Yoo should be tortured, IO mean subjected to "harsh interrogation tactics". Maybe see if he still agrees with that "just short of organ failure" language.

greggp wrote on January 4, 2008 4:40 PM:

They would be better off suing the U.S. Government for negligent torture.

Bob's not Right wrote on January 4, 2008 4:41 PM:

It is a brilliant but perilous legal strategy. If even one of the cards fall then it opens up the precedent for the house to collapse.

Now that is accountability in government.

Kendall wrote on January 4, 2008 4:41 PM:

Ah, law and order conservatives unless it involves one of their own against someone else. Don't forget their love of traditional values like banning gay marriage all the while shredding the most basic fundamental rights like Habeas Corpus

Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 4:42 PM:

Bivens doesn't get you around immunity. Immunity is the biggest hurdle to any Bivens action (besides judicial hostility to Bivens itself). They might get around immunity by claiming that Yoo's actions were blatantly unconstitutional and thus not part of his official duty. However, it seems like a hard sell to say writing legal memos is an unlawful act for a justice department official.

EH wrote on January 4, 2008 4:44 PM:

Palli Davis Holubar: On the off chance you're not just a drive-by commenter (like bill above), what makes you think "un-American Activities" are going to go over any better than they did last time?

Mike timmons wrote on January 4, 2008 4:45 PM:

If you don't love John Yoo, you don't love torture....errr, freedom.

Because the sign at the entrance to Gitmo says freedom through torture.

Chandra wrote on January 4, 2008 4:46 PM:

I like it!!
Yoo at least deserves his 15 minutes of total and abject shame, even if the action is summarily tossed afterward.

Chandra wrote on January 4, 2008 4:47 PM:

How about "Torture macht frei"?

agum wrote on January 4, 2008 4:47 PM:

Hooray.

John Yoo is a despicable, smug little fascist, and until he faces the criminal trial he richly deserves, anything that costs him money and causes him stress is commendable.

An ethics challenge to his bar membership would also be a good idea.

Single Party State wrote on January 4, 2008 4:51 PM:

Yoo is just one fascist in the apparatus. But it looks like this will go down after Bush is around to give him a pardon, (or send Padilla to Guantanamo for terrorizing Yoo). What we really need though is a Nurenburg style court, run by an independent entity, to bring these folks to trial in one fell swoop.

History wrote on January 4, 2008 4:53 PM:

Loaded question but I'm historically curious: did any Nazi lawyers get prosecuted and convicted during the Nuremberg Trials for providing legal justifications for the Holocaust?

joe wrote on January 4, 2008 5:11 PM:

from the first moment that this government kidnapped jose padilla, i've wondered why his case has not become THE issue of our time. consider the 5th amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; [...] nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [...]."

in my mind, one need look no further for an impeachable offense than the padilla case. if he's a traitor to his country, charge him with treason. if he's guilty, throw him in jail. but it's unamerican, uncivilized, and unconsititutional to apprehend him and throw him in a naval brig without due process, let alone torture him.

and worse yet, ask anyone on the street if they know the name jose padilla, and you'll hear silence.

bush: go to hell you horrible beast. you and your henchmen. burn there forever, evil beast. you fucker.

don de drain wrote on January 4, 2008 5:13 PM:

I'm an attorney but don't practice much torture law. My gut tells me this suit will be tossed out pretty quickly, but we should all read the complaint before offering any reasoned analysis.

Isn't there a statute that allows suits here in the US for torture that takes place abroad? Wasn't that statute invoked by the Gulf War vets who sued Iraq/Saddam here in the US (i.e., the lawsuits which were cited by The Chimpster when he tried to pocket veto the military appropriations bill)?

I'd be curious to know whether there would be a viable lawsuit here in the US against a foreign government/foreign government official if the foreign government/foreign government official had engaged in the types of conduct approved by Yoo in his infamous "Torture Memo." Wouldn't that be ironic if the suit against Yoo gets tossed but a similar suit based on conduct engaged in by a foreign government/foreign government official would be allowed to proceed here in the US?

Does someone here (or maybe Glenzilla) have time to take a look at that? Unfortunately I have to get back to my real job suing the government on non-torture matters.

GUGLIERMO VINCENZO DI PAOLO wrote on January 4, 2008 5:15 PM:

SIXTEEN NAZI JUDGES WERE TRIED.

SEE: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/Alstoetter.htm#Commentary

Brian wrote on January 4, 2008 5:22 PM:

"History" asked if any Nazi lawyers were prosecuted at Nuremburg. Sixteen German judges and lawyers were tried, and most convicted, for their parts in furthering Nazi racial laws and policies.

As for suing John Yoo, federal officials have a qualified immunity, but it can be overcome:

"In Bivens, the Supreme Court held that individuals could “recover money damages for any injuries [they have] suffered as a result of [a federal agent’s] violation of the [Constitution].” 403
U.S. at 397. As with § 1983 actions against state and local officials, the Court has held that a claimant seeking relief under Bivens must overcome the federal official’s qualified immunity.
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001). To overcome that immunity, claimants must show (1) that the agents violated their constitutional rights and (2) that the constitutional right at issue is “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Id. at 202"

Mary wrote on January 4, 2008 5:25 PM:

I hope they call John Ashcroft for a deposition in discovery.

Ashcroft HATED Yoo, for going around his back/over his head and helping Cheney/Addington find any justification for torture they could.

Ashcroft was pretty much kept out of the inner circle loop, even though Yoo actually worked FOR him.

Get Ashcroft under oath. As soon as possible.

MillionthMonkey wrote on January 4, 2008 5:27 PM:

grumble grumble trial lawyers grumble grumble frivolous lawsuit grumble grumble tort reform grumble

foggylady wrote on January 4, 2008 5:30 PM:

In all seriousness, I would be willing to Padillas Legal fund..
anyone know if there is one???

Dilan Esper wrote on January 4, 2008 5:40 PM:

Isn't there a statute that allows suits here in the US for torture that takes place abroad?

Two of them. 28 USC 1350 and the Torture Victim Protection Act. The TVPA would require that the act be under color of foreign law, which is probably impossible to prove with respect to Yoo (but possibly would apply to claims brought against government officials who approved torture through rendition to foreign countries, and would certainly apply to the torturers themselves in such situations).

1350 doesn't apply to Padilla because he is not an alien.

So he has to take the Bivens route.

The interesting question, which will likely not be answered in this lawsuit (because it is tough to get US courts to recognize a cause of action for violations of international law) is whether international law holds a lawyer responsible for knowingly authorizing a state-client to violate nonderogable jus cogens principles of international law. My recollection is that the Nuremburg tribunals held that this could indeed be a prosectuable offense.

Likely, the only way that one ever gets tried, however, is if Yoo is arrested in a foreign country and tried for war crimes.

Xavier wrote on January 4, 2008 5:51 PM:

"in my mind, one need look no further for an impeachable offense than the padilla case. if he's a traitor to his country, charge him with treason. if he's guilty, throw him in jail. but it's unamerican, uncivilized, and unconsititutional to apprehend him and throw him in a naval brig without due process, let alone torture him."

well said

cynicalgirl wrote on January 4, 2008 5:57 PM:

Why not sue Gonzo, or even Bush and Cheney for that matter?

Wil Burns wrote on January 4, 2008 6:12 PM:

We know the effect of torture on the tortured...Pain! But, what is the effect on the person doing the torturing? I wonder does it screw them up? I mean, more then they already are!

scottp wrote on January 4, 2008 6:15 PM:

I can't help but wonder if someday we'll see the arrival of an Iraqi equivalent to Simon Wiesenthal.

ruddyoak wrote on January 4, 2008 6:17 PM:

The Volokh Conspiracy, www.volokh.com, has the complaint and some commentary.

Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 6:30 PM:

I can't imagine a Bivens action succeeding. My knowledge of Bivens is limited, but assuming the requirements for overcoming qualified immunity are similar to a 1983 claim, there's no way that SCOTUS—if/once this gets there—given its current members, would find the production of legal memos authorizing waterboarding, etc., to be in violation of "clearly established" law. To see just how far right the Court is on this issue check out Thomas's dissent in Hope v. Pelzer (2003, I think).

Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 6:32 PM:

Just to make this clear w/r/t the immediately preceding post, I am _not_ a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 7:02 PM:

"Frivolous legal arguments," when attached to counsel, would attach counsel to the underlying illegalities. Unclear that this would get tossed/dismissed, especially if there were reasonable grounds for the court to conclude the plaintiff would find evidence that Yoo allegedly made frivolous legal arguments.

It doesn't appear there is any evidence that Yoo did not make frivolous legal arguments, thus the court could reasonably conclude the complaint should not be dismissed, nor granted summary judgement. Rather, if someone were to argue "it's a no brainer the complaint would be dismissed" would ask the underlying complaint against Yoo was frivolous; and that legal counsel for the plaintiff filed a frivolous filing in violation of FRE.

It may get dismissed; but it appears plaintiff counsel is prepared to appeal that decision; and they do appear to have a chance of prevailing on the merits in re alleged frivolous legal statements by Yoo. His out of court statements since his departure are admissible as they are recorded.

PBS Frontline discussion on rendition, prisoner treatment, and other commentary by former/current WH counsel create other lines of evidence related to the issues which some would have us believe "cannot be discussed." If true, then legal counsel working for DoJ, WH, and OVP should have kept silent. They chose to speak, and have created other lines of evidence warranting judicial examination.

It does not appear plaintiff is likely to settle out of court with a private agreement, but appears more interested in having a jury trial to establish a public record. This hardly warrants judicial intervention to end the litigation, but the opposite: Devotion of resources to support discovery, fact finding, and open litigation.

Jon Leslie wrote on January 4, 2008 7:03 PM:

"officials acting under cover of law", should read "under color of authority".

I wouldn't mind seeing John frog marched off campus. But he has the right to work here like everybody else...

djcrow22 wrote on January 4, 2008 7:04 PM:

Yoo reminds me of a typical College Republican, a little doughy, entitled, spoiled, an absolute chickenhawk. From the comfort of a plush office passing judgement to satisfy the fascist rage of Dick Cheney and the sadistic,deviant desires of George Bush who wallowed in the blood and horror of 155 people in Texas and hundreds of thousands in the Middle East. Yoo is a war criminal. Hopefully comes of this and the whole band of sick bastards in the Office of Special counsel.

TJ wrote on January 4, 2008 8:29 PM:

A shot across the bow for any would be rogue lawyer enablers in government. I would like to see Padilla file a complaint against Yoo with the California State Bar Association to pull his license to practice law in this state.

tbhull wrote on January 4, 2008 8:32 PM:

Time to attach the battery cables clamps to each of Padilla's testicles and turn on the juice until he voluntarily dismisses this suit.

paul wrote on January 4, 2008 9:02 PM:

My understanding is that none of the arguments made in Yoo's memos that reached a court have been even close to upheld, and essentially all of them were repudiated as soon as members of the executive who weren't part of the original torture conspiracy were in a position to do so. That's an awfully good sign that Yoo should have known at the time that he was engaged in anti-constitutional behavior.

If I were in more of a mood, I'd say something like "conspiracy to use force or violence to overthrow the lawful government of the United States" but eh.

mykebee wrote on January 4, 2008 9:18 PM:

Fuck Yoo!

mykebee wrote on January 4, 2008 9:24 PM:

Just think....I may never again be able to get on a large airliner because I typed the two words, Fuck Yoo. Too fuckin' scary, but so true.

Captain Nemo wrote on January 4, 2008 9:43 PM:

What is wrong with Berkeley that they give tenure
to incompetents like Yoo? Does Academic Freedom protect incompetence?

Roberta wrote on January 4, 2008 10:08 PM:

Gotta get Jack Goldsmith to give a deposition about how he had to undo so many of Yoo's arguments, since he knew that they'd never hold up legally. He's the one that told Ashcroft about them since, as stated above, Ashcroft didn't know what Yoo was doing.

Kenji wrote on January 4, 2008 10:13 PM:

Fuck Yoo

Paulie wrote on January 4, 2008 10:29 PM:

I would LOVE it if this suit went a long way. Too many people don't know the full details about the torture program and certainly not enough people know the disgusting John Yoo. Maybe this suit will at least bring publicity to both. Having said that, the MSM will probably spin it so that Yoo is the victim of a spiteful lawsuit by a trrrist.
I agree with many of the posts, that Yoo is a fascist wanker, that Gonzo, Dick, Rice and Bush should also be jailed.

Chandra wrote on January 4, 2008 11:46 PM:

mykebee--
Don't laugh about the airliner thing; I wrote a few emails to GWB about his unConstitutional policies and ended up on the TSA watch list myself. They just removed me (after I filed paperwork basically handing over my civil rights) a few months ago.

But I'm glad you're speaking up! Yoo and Addington and many others deserve to be defendants in war crimes tribunals.

Fight on!
(I'll bet I'm back on that wretched list now too . . . )

don de drain wrote on January 5, 2008 12:25 AM:

Below is the text of the Torture Victim Protection Act:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991'.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF CIVIL ACTION.

(a) Liability- An individual who, under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation--

(1) subjects an individual to torture shall, in a civil action, be liable for damages to that individual; or

(2) subjects an individual to extrajudicial killing shall, in a civil action, be liable for damages to the individual's legal representative, or to any person who may be a claimant in an action for wrongful death.

(b) Exhaustion of Remedies- A court shall decline to hear a claim under this section if the claimant has not exhausted adequate and available remedies in the place in which the conduct giving rise to the claim occurred.

(c) Statute of Limitations- No action shall be maintained under this section unless it is commenced within 10 years after the cause of action arose.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) Extrajudicial Killing- For the purposes of this Act, the term `extrajudicial killing' means a deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Such term, however, does not include any such killing that, under international law, is lawfully carried out under the authority of a foreign nation.

(b) Torture- For the purposes of this Act--

(1) the term `torture' means any act, directed against an individual in the offender's custody or physical control, by which severe pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering arising only from or inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions), whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on that individual for such purposes as obtaining from that individual or a third person information or a confession, punishing that individual for an act that individual or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, intimidating or coercing that individual or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind; and

(2) mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from--

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another individual will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

So the question is: If a foreign government ever takes any of the actions authorized by the Yoo Torture Memo against an individual, can that individual sue the foreign government here in the US under the TVPA?

If the answer is "Yes", Yoo may have a difficult time getting a Bivens action dismissed.

I have not read the Torture Memo in quite some time, so I don't know whether the actions authorized by Yoo fall within the definition of "torture" for purposes of the TVPA. Anyone have the answer to that one?

fisharcade wrote on January 5, 2008 1:25 AM:

Absurd, but worth the try. Yoo should be renditioned by someone with more cajones than me, tortured as punishment--which is what it always is--and then put into prison. I thought it was a crime to incite a crime? Hasn't Yoo got a history of crime inciting?

Helena Montana wrote on January 5, 2008 4:28 AM:

Yoo looks like a concentration camp guard. Apparently acts like one, too.

Anonymous wrote on January 5, 2008 8:59 AM:

Good, Yoo, you fucking torturer. Stand by your writings, get yourself a legal defense funds, and we'll see you in court.

Bubba wrote on January 5, 2008 11:30 AM:

I do so hope he gets what he so richly deserves.

Ed wrote on January 5, 2008 1:04 PM:

Wil Burns asked, "{W]hat is the effect on the person doing the torturing? I wonder does it screw them up? I mean, more then they already are!" That question is touched on (and further sources are provided) in the article, "Torture, Terrorism and the State: a Refutation of the Ticking-Bomb Argument," by Vittorio Bufacchi and Jean Maria Arrigo [_Journal of Applied Philosophy_, Volume 23, Number 3, August 2006 , pp. 355-373(19)]--luckily one of the articles made available for free by the journal online as a .pdf: www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2006.00355.x
(If the URL didn't make it in the post, just Google the article--you'll find it.)

redterror wrote on January 5, 2008 1:05 PM:

Is it schadenfreude that I'm feeling, as a lifelong denizen of flyover country, that Boalt Hall is the one law school that houses John Yoo, with tenure? Yes, I think it is.

tom wrote on January 5, 2008 3:33 PM:

As a kind of PR thing, this might be good and useful. As an actual lawsuit, it is nothing. It will be decided on a motion to dismiss, before any discovery can be had, with no need for Yoo even to appear in court. Indeed, there may not even be any oral argument on the motion. And there's no way a claim will survive a motion to dismiss, if it's based on Yoo's writing a legal analysis so plainly wrong that writing it constituted a clear violation of someone's constitutional rights. As a legal claim, it's hard to imagine this going anywhere. Indeed, there could well be a non-trivial motion by Yoo to sanction Padilla's lawyer for filing a frivolous complaint. A sanctions motion might -- and probably should -- be denied, but it would certainly be arguable.

2turk wrote on January 5, 2008 8:32 PM:

Isn't this "just short of organ failure" crap an idea that originated from the Old Testaments of the Bible ?

A man's home is his castle - he has the right to beat his wife, children, and slaves to a bloody pulp if they fail to precisely follow his wishes and dictates.

Provided this beating is performed in the confines of the man's home he remains answerable to no one as long as the victim of this beating, no matter how savage, does not perish within 24 hrs of time.

After Yoo, will Addington, then Cheney, and finally the despot/dictator fascist child boy king be hauled into court ?

2turk wrote on January 5, 2008 9:22 PM:

Dilan Esper wrote on January 4, 2008 5:40 PM

Maybe we could - say,.. rent a banquet room at the Marriott Hotel in - say,.. Toronto, Canada. Hold a seminar and call it - say ,.. "Freedom is not free, and John Yoo knows that." and ask him to be the headline speaker.

On the date of the seminary we meet Yoo at the Toronto airport then do a NGO-extraordinary rendition, toss him in a leased Lear Jet and dump him off at a holding dungeon cell at the International Criminal Court at the Hague then put the sick/sorry Fascist/Nazi on trial there.

Then Addington. then Cheney, then the chimperor - monkey dung for brains - boy.

jollyroger wrote on January 6, 2008 2:52 AM:

Since the shame of his employment by my alma mater, I have amused myself by stamping their donation importunities with the legend:

"FUCK YOO!"

Then returning same in the pre-paid envelope.

KucinichOnly wrote on January 6, 2008 5:46 AM:

We need to support the attorneys who are honorable and courageous enough to fight these nazis.

The original corporately produced nazis went down despite their support from Henry Ford, IBM, Prescott bush's powerful banking buddies even though there were dark hour in the fight against this barbarism.

Maybe there will be enough courageous judges, military officers, etc. to finally force an accounting for these crimes against humanity done in our names and with our tax dollars.

joe wrote on January 6, 2008 2:35 PM:

this item from sunday 05 jan., the AP, regarding the american al-q. member named Gadahn. Q: why is gadahn being carged with treason while padilla was not?

"In symbolic rejection of the American citizenship that honorable and decent and compassionate people are ashamed to carry, I will now proceed to destroy my American passport," he said.

"But don't get too excited, I don't need it to travel anyway," he added with a smile after tearing it apart.

Gadahn is the first American to be charged with treason in more than 50 years and could face the death penalty if convicted. He also was indicted on a charge of providing material support to terrorists.

again: why is padilla an "enemy combatant" and gadahn is a "traitor"? one, who seems to have committed no real crimes, has lost his citizenship rights, the other retains his rights. i just don't get it.....

Chris Phillips wrote on January 6, 2008 5:16 PM:

Jose Padilla: Former Latin Disciples gang member who for a time was married to 2 women at the same time (bigamy) found Islam and ran in a circle of fiends which included well establish Islamic terrorists and terrorist supporters. Arrested in Chicago after a return trip from (including:) Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. After his arrest he changed his name to Abdullah al-Muhajir.

That Jose Padilla???

Al in Austex wrote on January 6, 2008 6:19 PM:

Chris Phillips 6th Jan @ 1716 ...
Yeah the same Jose Padilla that then United States Attorney General Ashcroft tried to scare the crap out of We the People when he broadcast live from a darkened studio in Moscow -that Padilla was about to kill "potentially thousands of innocent Americans with an Islamic radioactive dirty bomb ". The same Jose Padilla , American citizen- still, held in detention & tortured with yours & mine tax dollar.. with no trial to date , no way to confront his accusers in a court of law ..
You know Chris what many of you TROLLS don't realize is that when you defend this bunch of neocon morons,opportunist ,crypto fascist , arrogant corporationist -- collectively known as the Bush Administration 43 - you are all making us less safe - you all are squandering valuable resources - otherwise we could have used to have captured UBL. Many of us on this side of the political spectrum will be just as reactionary and as aggresive as any neo con in defending these United States.
Hell bells- if we knew for sure that UBL was at Tora Bora , and we did ... why didn't we go up there with everything we had and put that dudes head on a spike.
The Iraqi Occupation is making us less safe - you know it , I know it , we all know it .. We have squandered irreplaceable blood & treasure in Iraq.
Yeah Jose Padilla could very well be the extreme threat you seem to imply he is - fine lets put him on trial - find him guilty of treason or whatever - but lets get it done and move on . We had some very high profile criminal cases in the 1990's .. and we put several of them away for a long time and then moved on ..(Kudos to Mary Jo White and the FBI !)
For my money I wish we had turned Tora Bora into a radioactive parking lot . We could have at least dropped a series of Daisy Cutters on known co-ordinates ,and then sent in the combined arms we had in country - the 10th Mountain was there and they were trained for that mission - Instead we still have UBL making /sending us home videos.

Al in Austex wrote on January 6, 2008 6:21 PM:

Chris Phillips 6th Jan @ 1716 ...
Yeah the same Jose Padilla that then United States Attorney General Ashcroft tried to scare the crap out of We the People when he broadcast live from a darkened studio in Moscow -that Padilla was about to kill "potentially thousands of innocent Americans with an Islamic radioactive dirty bomb ". The same Jose Padilla , American citizen- still, held in detention & tortured with yours & mine tax dollar.. with no trial to date , no way to confront his accusers in a court of law ..
You know Chris what many of you TROLLS don't realize is that when you defend this bunch of neocon morons,opportunist ,crypto fascist , arrogant corporationist -- collectively known as the Bush Administration 43 - you are all making us less safe - you all are squandering valuable resources - otherwise we could have used to have captured UBL. Many of us on this side of the political spectrum will be just as reactionary and as aggresive as any neo con in defending these United States.
Hell bells- if we knew for sure that UBL was at Tora Bora , and we did ... why didn't we go up there with everything we had and put that dudes head on a spike.
The Iraqi Occupation is making us less safe - you know it , I know it , we all know it .. We have squandered irreplaceable blood & treasure in Iraq.
Yeah Jose Padilla could very well be the extreme threat you seem to imply he is - fine lets put him on trial - find him guilty of treason or whatever - but lets get it done and move on . We had some very high profile criminal cases in the 1990's .. and we put several of them away for a long time and then moved on ..(Kudos to Mary Jo White and the FBI !)
For my money I wish we had turned Tora Bora into a radioactive parking lot . We could have at least dropped a series of Daisy Cutters on known co-ordinates ,and then sent in the combined arms we had in country - the 10th Mountain was there and they were trained for that mission - Instead we still have UBL making /sending us home videos.

Bert wrote on January 7, 2008 3:08 AM:

Well, can't the government counter-sue, then Padilla can counter-counter sue, and the government can counter-counter-counter-sue, then countercountercountercountercountersuits
and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, ad
agency, ad water, until something like
97 heptillion in promissory scrip is
spent JUST on continuing the litigation
on one guy foreverrrrrrr.....hey, but
it's job security, there, for the trial
lawyers....somebody will end up with
a nice house out of it...

judyinnm wrote on January 7, 2008 5:31 PM:

Of course, it's not true that without Yoo's okay the mistreatment wouldn't have been condoned - Yoo would have simply been replaced with someone else who would say it was okay. But, Yoo was too enthusiastic about justifying it.

judyinnm wrote on January 7, 2008 7:00 PM:

The same Jose Padilla AMERICAN CITIZEN to whom Amendments V, VI, and VIII of the Constitution is supposed to apply, regardless of Bush Administration's efforts to re-interpret it.

The Constitution applies to all citizens regardless of their NAME. Sorry, Chris
Phillips. Get used to it!

JayFyd wrote on January 19, 2008 6:07 AM:

In response to what Bert said about the lawyers getting rich off of this...

Padilla is only requesting one dollar in damages, and attorney fees.

The attorney fees, I have been told (if by some miracle justice prevails and the plaintiffs win), will be donated to charity.

fisharcade wrote on January 22, 2008 3:03 PM:

Who the hell is using Fisharcade as their handle here? It's impossible to believe that someone else came up with that moniker out of thin air. Why would someone steal someone else's tag? How strange.

john yoo wrote on January 22, 2008 3:06 PM:

I didn't mean it, it was an error, that's all. I like Padilla, it's just that he's kind of weird and dangerous.