John Yoo

This article is about the American attorney John Yoo. For the Chinese-Australian pediatrician, see John Yu.
John Yoo

John Yoo in 2012
Born John Choon Yoo
(1967-07-10) July 10, 1967
Seoul, South Korea
Alma mater Harvard University (B.A. 1989)
Yale Law School (J.D. 1992)
Occupation Law professor, former official in the United States Department of Justice
Known for Legal views on warrantless searches, domestic surveillance, torture memos (also known as "enhanced interrogation techniques") and expansive executive power
Title Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice[1]
Term 2001 to 2003
Political party Republican
Spouse(s) Elsa Arnett[2]
Awards Federalist Society Paul M. Bator Award (2001)[3]

John Choon Yoo (born July 10, 1967)[4] is a Korean-American attorney, law professor, and author. Yoo is currently the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley.[1] Previously, he served as a political appointee, the Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice (OLC), during the George W. Bush administration. He is best known for his opinions concerning the Geneva Conventions that attempted to legitimize the War on Terror by the United States. He also authored the so-called Torture Memos, which concerned the use of what the Central Intelligence Agency called enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding.

In 2009, two days after taking office, President Barack Obama in Executive Order 13491 repudiated and revoked all legal guidance on interrogation authored by Yoo and his successors in the Office of Legal Counsel between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009.[5][6]

Early life, education, and personal life

John Yoo was born "Yu Choon" (Korean: Yu Jun 유준) on July 10, 1967 in Seoul, South Korea, and later immigrated as a child with his parents to the United States. He grew up in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where he graduated from the Episcopal Academy in 1985. He earned a B.A. degree summa cum laude in American history from Harvard University in 1989 and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1992. Yoo was admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania in 1993.[7] He is married to Elsa Arnett, the daughter of journalist Peter Arnett.[2]


Yoo was a law clerk for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He also served as general counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee.[1] Yoo has been a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law since 1993. He has written two books on presidential power and the war on terrorism, and many articles in scholarly journals and newspapers.[8] He has held the Fulbright Distinguished Chair in Law at the University of Trento and has been a visiting law professor at the Free University of Amsterdam, the University of Chicago, and Chapman University School of Law. Since 2003, Yoo has also been a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington. He writes a monthly column, entitled "Closing Arguments", for The Philadelphia Inquirer.[9] He wrote and continues to write academic books including Crisis and Command.[9]

Yoo has been principally associated with his work from 2001 to 2003 in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) under Attorney General John Ashcroft during the George W. Bush Administration.[10][11][12] Yoo's expansive view of presidential power led to a close relationship with Vice President Dick Cheney's office.[11] He played an important role in developing a legal justification for the Bush administration's policy in the war on terrorism, arguing that prisoner of war status under the Geneva Conventions does not apply to "enemy combatants" captured during the war in Afghanistan and held at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp.[13]

In addition, in what was known as the Bybee memo, Yoo asserted that executive authority during wartime allows waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques," usually regarded as torture by the subsequent administration, yet at the time, undefined in the realm of a "war" against terrorism.[14] Yoo argued in his legal opinion that the president was not bound by the War Crimes Act. In addition, he provided a legal opinion backing the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program.[11][12][15][16]

Yoo's legal opinions were not shared by everyone within the Bush Administration. Secretary of State Colin Powell strongly opposed what he saw as an invalidation of the Geneva Conventions,[16] while U.S. Navy general counsel Alberto Mora campaigned internally against what he saw as the "catastrophically poor legal reasoning" and dangerous extremism of Yoo's opinions.[17]

In December 2003, Yoo's memo on permissible interrogation techniques, also known as the Bybee memo, was repudiated as legally unsound by the OLC, then under the direction of Jack Goldsmith.[17] In June 2004, another of Yoo's memos on interrogation techniques was leaked to the press, after which it was repudiated by Goldsmith and the OLC.[18]

Yoo's contribution to these memos has remained a source of controversy following his departure from the Justice Department;[19] he was called to testify before the House Judiciary Committee in 2008 in defense of his role.[20] The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) began investigating Yoo's work in 2004 and in July 2009 completed a report that was sharply critical of his legal justification for waterboarding and other interrogation techniques.[21][22][23][24] The OPR report cites testimony Yoo gave to Justice Department investigators in which he claims that the "president's war-making authority was so broad that he had the constitutional power to order a village to be 'massacred'"[25] The OPR report concluded that Yoo had "committed 'intentional professional misconduct' when he advised the CIA it could proceed with waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques against Al Qaeda suspects", although the recommendation that he be referred to his state bar association for possible disciplinary proceedings was overruled by David Margolis, another senior Justice department lawyer.[25]

Regarding torture of detainees

Main article: Torture Memos

After he left the Department of Justice, it was revealed that Yoo had written legal opinions, including co-writing the Torture Memo of August 1, 2002, that narrowly defined torture and American habeas corpus obligations. They authorized what were called enhanced interrogation techniques and were issued to the CIA.[26][27][28] In addition, at the time the OLC issued a new definition of torture. Most actions that fall under the international definition did not fall within this new definition advocated by the U.S.[29]

In addition, on March 14, 2003, Yoo wrote a legal opinion memo in response to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, in which he concluded that torture not allowed by federal law could be used by interrogators in overseas areas.[30]

In 2004 Jack Goldsmith, then head of the OLC, advised agencies not to rely on these memos and withdrew them as authorized legal opinions.

Several top military lawyers, including Alberto J. Mora, reported that policies allowing methods equivalent to torture were developed in the highest levels of the administration. Lawyers within the Department of Defense worked internally to circumvent those policies and instead mandate non-coercive interrogation standards, but were not successful.[31][32]

On December 1, 2005, Yoo appeared in a debate in Chicago with Doug Cassel, a law professor from the University of Notre Dame. During the debate, Cassel asked Yoo,

'If the President deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?', to which Yoo replied 'No treaty.' Cassel followed up with 'Also no law by Congress—that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo', to which Yoo replied 'I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.'[33]

On June 26, 2008, Yoo and David Addington, former counsel and chief of staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney, testified before the House Judiciary Committee in what became a contentious hearing on detainee treatment, interrogation methods, and the extent of executive branch authority.[20][34][35][36]

Regarding the Fourth amendment

Yoo also authored the October 23, 2001 memo asserting that the President had sufficient power to allow the NSA to monitor the communications of US citizens on US soil without a warrant (known as the warrantless wiretap program) because the Fourth Amendment does not apply. Or, as another memo says in a footnote, "Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations." [37][38] That interpretation is used to assert that the normal mandatory requirement of a warrant, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, could be ignored.[38]

In a 2006 book and a 2007 law review article, Yoo defended President Bush's terrorist surveillance program, arguing that "the TSP represents a valid exercise of the President's Commander-in-Chief authority to gather intelligence during wartime".[39] He claimed that critics of the program misunderstand the separation of powers between the President and Congress in wartime because of a failure to understand the differences between war and crime, and a difficulty in understanding the new challenges presented by a networked, dynamic enemy such as Al Qaeda. "Because the United States is at war with Al Qaeda, the President possesses the constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to engage in warrantless surveillance of enemy activity."[39] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece in July 2009, Yoo wrote it was "absurd to think that a law like FISA should restrict live military operations against potential attacks on the United States."[40]

Unitary executive theory

Yoo suggested that since the primary task of the President during a time of war is protecting U.S. citizens, the President has inherent authority to subordinate independent government agencies, and plenary power to use force abroad.[41] Yoo contends that the Congressional check on Presidential war-making power comes from its power of the purse. He says that the President, and not the Congress or courts, has sole authority to interpret international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions "because treaty interpretation is a key feature of the conduct of foreign affairs".[42] His positions on executive power are controversial because the theory can be interpreted as holding that the President's war powers afford him executive privileges which exceed the bounds which other scholars associate with the President's war powers.[42][43][44][45]

In the Clinton administration

In 1998 Yoo criticized what he characterized as an imperial use of executive power by the Clinton administration.[46] Yoo has defended executive privilege, but only to protect national security, diplomatic, and military secrets. In an opinion piece in the WSJ, he criticized the Clinton administration for misusing the privilege to protect the personal, rather than official, activities of the President, such as in the Monica Lewinsky affair.[47] At the time, Yoo also criticized President Clinton for contemplating defiance of a judicial order. He suggested that Presidents could act in conflict with the Supreme Court, but that such measures were justified only during emergencies.[48]

In 2000 Yoo strongly criticized what he viewed as the Clinton administration's use of powers of what he termed the "Imperial Presidency". He said it undermined "democratic accountability and respect for the law".[49] Yet, Yoo has defended President Clinton, for his decision to use force abroad without congressional authorization. He wrote in the Wall Street Journal on March 15, 1999, that Clinton's decision to attack Serbia was constitutional. He then criticized Democrats in Congress for not suing Clinton as they had sued presidents Bush and Reagan to stop the use of force abroad.[50]

In the George W. Bush administration

Following his tenure as an appointee of the George W. Bush Administration, Yoo criticized certain views on the separation of powers doctrine as allegedly being historically inaccurate and problematic for the global war on terrorism. For instance, he wrote,

We are used to a peacetime system in which Congress enacts the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. In wartime, the gravity shifts to the executive branch.[51]


To his critics, Mr. Bush is a 'King George' bent on an "imperial presidency". But the inescapable fact is that war shifts power to the branch most responsible for its waging: the executive.[52]

War crimes accusations

Main article: The Bush Six

Glenn Greenwald has argued that Yoo could potentially be indicted for crimes against the laws and customs of war, the crime of torture, and/or crimes against humanity.[53] Criminal proceedings to this end have begun in Spain: in a move that could lead to an extradition request, Judge Baltasar Garzón in March 2009 referred a case against Yoo to the chief prosecutor.[54][55] The Spanish Attorney General recommended against pursuing the case.

On November 14, 2006, invoking the principle of command responsibility, the German attorney Wolfgang Kaleck filed a complaint with the Attorney General of Germany (Generalbundesanwalt) against Yoo, along with 13 others, for his alleged complicity in torture and other crimes against humanity at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantánamo Bay. Kaleck acted on behalf of 11 alleged victims of torture and other human rights abuses, as well as about 30 human rights activists and organizations. The co-plaintiffs to the war crimes prosecution included Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Martín Almada, Theo van Boven, Sister Dianna Ortiz, and Veterans for Peace.[56] Responding to the so-called "torture memoranda," Scott Horton noted

the possibility that the authors of these memoranda counseled the use of lethal and unlawful techniques, and therefore face criminal culpability themselves. That, after all, is the teaching of United States v. Altstötter, the Nuremberg case brought against German Justice Department lawyers whose memoranda crafted the basis for implementation of the infamous 'Night and Fog Decree'.[28]

Legal scholars speculated shortly thereafter that the case has little chance of successfully making it through the German court system.[57]

Jordan Paust of the University of Houston Law Center concurred with supporters of prosecution and in early 2008 criticized the US Attorney General Michael Mukasey's refusal to investigate and/or prosecute anyone who relied on these legal opinions:

[I]t is legally and morally impossible for any member of the executive branch to be acting lawfully or within the scope of his or her authority while following OLC opinions that are manifestly inconsistent with or violative of the law. General Mukasey, just following orders is no defense![58]

In 2009, the Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzón Real launched an investigation of Yoo and five others (known as the Bush Six) for war crimes.[59]

On April 13, 2013, the Russian Federation banned Yoo and several others from entering the country because of alleged human rights violations. The list was a direct response to the so-called Magnitsky list revealed by the United States the day before.[60][61] Russia stated that Yoo was among those responsible for “the legalization of torture” and “unlimited detention”.[62][63]

After the December 2014 release of the executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law called for the prosecution of Yoo for his role in authoring the Torture Memos as "conspiracy to violate a federal statute".[64]

Federal tort suit

On January 4, 2008, José Padilla, a U.S. citizen convicted of terrorism, and his mother sued John Yoo in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Case Number 08-cv-00035-JSW), known as Padilla v. Yoo.[65] The complaint sought $1 in damages based on the alleged torture of Padilla, attributed to the authorization by Yoo's torture memoranda. Judge Jeffrey S. White allowed the suit to proceed, rejecting all but one of Yoo's immunity claims. Padilla's lawyer says White's ruling could have a broad effect for all detainees.[66][67][68]

Soon after his appointment in October 2003 as chief of the Office of Legal Counsel, DOJ, Jack Goldsmith withdrew Yoo's torture memoranda. The Padilla complaint, on page 20, cited Goldsmith's 2007 book The Terror Presidency in support of its case. In it Goldsmith had claimed that the legal analysis in Yoo's torture memoranda was incorrect and that there was widespread opposition to the memoranda among some lawyers in the Justice Department. Padilla's attorney used this information in the lawsuit, saying that Yoo caused Padilla's damages by authorizing his alleged torture by his memoranda.[69][70]

While the District Court ruled in favor of Padilla, the case was appealed by Yoo in June 2010. On May 2, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Yoo had qualified immunity at the time of his memos (2001–2003), because certain issues had not then been settled legally by the U.S. Supreme Court. Based on the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (2011), the Appeals Court unanimously ruled against Padilla, saying that, when he was held as a detainee, it had not been established that an enemy combatant had the "same constitutional protections" as a convicted prisoner or suspect, and that his treatment had not been legally established at the time as torture.[71]

Retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to General Colin Powell in the Persian Gulf War and while Powell was Secretary of State in the Bush Administration), has said of Yoo and other administration figures responsible for these decisions:

Haynes, Feith, Yoo, Bybee, Gonzales and—at the apex—Addington, should never travel outside the US, except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel. They broke the law; they violated their professional ethical code. In the future, some government may build the case necessary to prosecute them in a foreign court, or in an international court.[72]

Office of Professional Responsibility report

The Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility concluded in a 261-page report dated July 29, 2009, that Yoo committed "intentional professional misconduct" when he "knowingly failed to provide a thorough, objective, and candid interpretation of the law", and it recommended a referral to the Pennsylvania Bar for disciplinary action.[73][74] But, David Margolis, a career Justice attorney,[75] in a Memorandum dated January 5, 2010, countermanded the recommended referral.[76] While Margolis was careful to avoid "an endorsement of the legal work," which he said was "flawed" and "contained errors more than minor", concluding that Yoo had exercised "poor judgment", he did not find "professional misconduct" sufficient to authorize OPR "to refer its findings to the state bar disciplinary authorities".[76]

Yoo contended that the OPR had shown "rank bias and sheer incompetence", intended to "smear my reputation", and that Margolis "completely rejected its recommendations".[77]

Although stopping short of referral to the bar, Margolis had also written:

[Yoo's and Bybee's] memoranda represent an unfortunate chapter in the history of the Office of Legal Counsel. While I have declined to adopt OPR's findings of misconduct, I fear that John Yoo's loyalty to his own ideology and convictions clouded his view of his obligation to his client and led him to author opinions which reflected his own extreme, although sincerely held, views of executive power while speaking for an institutional client.[76]


Yoo's writings and areas of interest have fallen into three broad areas: American foreign relations; the Constitution's separation of powers and federalism; and international law. In foreign relations, Yoo has argued that the original understanding of the Constitution gives the President the authority to use armed force abroad without congressional authorization, subject to Congress's power of the purse; that treaties do not generally have domestic legal force without implementing legislation; and that courts are functionally ill-suited to intervene in foreign policy disputes between the President and Congress.

With the separation of powers, Yoo has argued that each branch of government has the authority to interpret the Constitution for itself, which provides the justification for judicial review by the federal courts. In international law, Yoo has written that the rules governing the use of force must be understood to allow nations to engage in armed intervention to end humanitarian disasters, rebuild failed states, and stop terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.[78][79][80][81][82]

Yoo's academic work includes his analysis of the history of judicial review in the U.S. Constitution.[83] Yoo's book, The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11, was praised in an Op-Ed in The Washington Times, written by Nicholas J. Xenakis, an assistant editor at The National Interest.[84] It was quoted by Senator Joe Biden during the Senate hearings for then-U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, as Biden "pressed Alito to denounce John Yoo's controversial defense of presidential initiative in taking the nation to war".[85] Yoo is known as an opponent of the Chemical Weapons Convention.[86]

During 2012 and 2014, Yoo published two books with Oxford University Press. Taming Globalization was co-authored with Julian Ku in 2012, and Point of Attack was published under his single authorship in 2014.


He has also contributed chapters to other books, including:

See also

Wikimedia Commons has media related to John Yoo.


  1. 1 2 3 "Berkeley Law – Faculty Profiles". UC Berkeley School of Law. n.d. Retrieved 2015-04-15.
  2. 1 2 "In Berkeley, Yoo feels at home as a stranger in a strange land" by Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times, March 29, 2010. Retrieved 2010-03-30. Arnett is the daughter of journalist Peter Arnett.
  3. Past Bator Award Recipients
  4. Contemporary Authors Online, Thomson Gale, 2008.
  5. "Executive order: Interrogation". USA Today. January 22, 2009. Retrieved 2013-03-28.
  6. Warrock, Joby; DeYoung, Karen (January 23, 2009). "Obama Reverses Bush Policies On Detention and Interrogation". Washington Post. Retrieved 2013-03-28.
  7. "PA Attorney Information John Choon Yoo". The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Retrieved July 8, 2011.
  8. Bibliography at the American Enterprise Institute; Bibliography at the Social Science Research Network
  9. 1 2 Yoo, John (December 20, 2009). "Closing Arguments: Platitudes won't guarantee world peace". Currents. Philadelphia Inquirer.
  10. Barrett, Paul M. (September 12, 2005). "A Young Lawyer Helps Chart Shift in Foreign Policy: Prof. Yoo Sees Broad Powers For Presidents at War". Wall Street Journal.
  11. 1 2 3 Golden, Tim (December 23, 2005). "A Junior Aide had a big role in Terror Policy". The New York Times. Retrieved April 21, 2009.
  12. 1 2 Richardson, John (May 13, 2008). "Is John Yoo a Monster?". Esquire. Retrieved April 21, 2009.
  13. "Frontline Interview with John Yoo". Frontline. PBS. July 19, 2005.
  14. Stout, David (15 January 2009). "Holder tells Senators Waterboarding is Torture". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 April 2009.
  15. Shapiro, Walter (February 23, 2006). "Parsing Pain". Retrieved April 21, 2009.
  16. 1 2 Isikoff, Michael (May 17, 2004). "Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings". Newsweek.
  17. 1 2 Mayer, Jane (February 27, 2006). "The Memo: How an Internal Effort to Ban the Abuse and Torture of Detainees was Thwarted". The New Yorker. Retrieved April 22, 2009.
  18. Rosen, Jeffrey (September 9, 2007). "Conscience of a Conservative". The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved April 23, 2009.
  19. Lithwick, Dhalia (March 19, 2010). "It's Not Me. It's Yoo". Slate. Retrieved March 22, 2010.
  20. 1 2 Eggen, Dan (June 27, 2008). "Bush Policy authors defend their actions". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 22, 2009.
  21. Shane, Scott (February 16, 2009). "Justice Dept to Critique Interrogation Methods Backed by Bush Team". The New York Times. Retrieved April 22, 2009.
  22. Shane, Scott (February 23, 2009). "Waterboarding Focus of Inquiry by Justice Dept". The New York Times. Retrieved April 22, 2009.
  23. Johnston, David; Scott Shane (May 6, 2009). "Interrogation Memos: Inquiry Suggests no Charges". The New York Times. Retrieved May 6, 2009.
  24. "OPR Final Report" (PDF). Committee on the Judiciary. July 29, 2009. Retrieved July 4, 2011.
  25. 1 2 Report: Bush Lawyer Said President Could Order Civilians to Be 'Massacred', Newsweek, February 19, 2010
  26. Double Standards?, MSNBC, May 15, 2005 Archived September 10, 2005, at the Wayback Machine.
  27. "The Interrogation Documents: Debating U.S. Policy and Methods", George Washington University;
  28. 1 2 Suggested origin of legal justifications
  29. U.S. definition of torture
  30. "A Top Pentagon Lawyer Faces a Senate Grilling On Torture", Newsweek, 5 April 2008, accessed 18 January 2013
  31. "Memorandum for Inspector General, Department of the Navy (July 7, 2004)"
  32. Jane Mayer, "How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted", The New Yorker (February 27, 2006)
  33. Hentoff, Nat (July 3, 2007). "Architect of Torture". The Village Voice.
  34. Scott Shane (2008-06-27). "Two Testify on Memo Spelling Out Interrogation". The New York Times.
  35. Dana Milbank (2008-06-27). "When Anonymity Fails, Be Nasty, Brutish and Short". The Washington Post.
  36. "Addington, Yoo offer little in House Torture Hearing", video of Addington and Yoo's testimony, Democracy Now!
  37. "Bush Administration Claimed Fourth Amendment Did Not Apply to NSA Spying". Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2009. Retrieved 2009-03-02.
  38. 1 2 Fourth amendment does not apply
  39. 1 2 John C. Yoo, "The Terrorist Surveillance Program and the Constitution", Geo. Mason L. Rev. 14 (2007):565.
  40. John Yoo, "Why We Endorsed Warrantless Wiretaps", Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2009, page A13.
  41. Suggested interpretation of War Powers in the Bush administration
  42. 1 2 "An interview with John Yoo: author of The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11", University of Chicago
  43. "A Wunnerful, Wunnerful Constitution, John C. Yoo Notwithstanding", After Downing Street, December 9, 2005
  44. ""The Unitary Executive in the Modern Era, 1945–2001"" (PDF)., Vanderbilt University
  45. Blumenthal, "Meek, mild and menacing",, January 12, 2006
  46. A Privileged Executive? by John C. Yoo, The Wall Street Journal, March 2, 1998. Accessed April 5, 2008 via Google News Archives.
  47. John Yoo, Opinion: "A Privileged Executive?", The Wall Street Journal, March 2, 1998
  48. John Yoo, " Subpoenaing the President", The Wall Street Journal, July 20, 1998
  49. John Yoo, Chapter 12: "The Imperial President Abroad"; The Rule of Law in the Wake of Clinton, p. 159, edited by Roger Pilon, Cato Institute, 2000. ISBN 1-930865-03-1.
  50. John Yoo, Opinion: "War Powers: Where Have All the Liberals Gone?", The Wall Street Journal, March 15, 1999
  51. Bob Egelko, "9/11: Five years later: Bush continues to wield power", San Francisco Chronicle, page E-2 of print edition, September 10, 2006.
  52. John C. Yoo, OPED: "How the Presidency Regained Its Balance", New York Times, September 17, 2006.
  53. Glenn Greenwald (2008-04-02). "John Yoo's War Crimes". Retrieved 2008-04-27.
  54. Julian Borger, "Spanish judge to hear torture case against six Bush officials", The Observer, 29 March 2009
  55. "Spain may decide Guantánamo probe this week". Reuters. 2009-03-28. Retrieved 2009-03-29. mirror
  56. Universal jurisdiction
  57. "Report on lawsuit against Yoo, et al", Time magazine
  58. Jordan Paust, "Just Following Orders? DOJ Opinions and War Crimes Liability", Jurist, February 18, 2008
  59. Marlise Simons (2009-03-28). "Spanish Court Weighs Inquiry on Torture for 6 Bush-Era Officials". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2009-05-02.
  60. "Russia strikes back with Magnitsky list response". Retrieved 13 April 2013.
  61. "Russia hits back at US with its own blacklist". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 13 April 2013.
  62. Barry, Ellen (April 13, 2013). "Russia Bars 18 Americans After Sanctions by U.S.". New York Times. Retrieved 2013-04-13.
  63. Englund, Will (April 14, 2013). "Russia retaliates against U.S., bans American officials". Washington Post. Retrieved 2013-04-13.
  64. Wiener, Jon (2014-12-12). "Prosecute John Yoo, Says Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky". The Nation. Retrieved 2014-12-15.
  65. Yoo, John (January 19, 2008). "Opinion: Terrorist Tort Travesty". The Wall Street Journal. p. A13. Retrieved 2008-02-10. Last week, I (a former Bush administration official) was sued by José Padilla—a 37-year-old al Qaeda operative convicted last summer of setting up a terrorist cell in Miami. Padilla wants a declaration that his detention by the U.S. government was unconstitutional, $1 in damages, and all of the fees charged by his own attorneys.
  66. American Civil Liberties Union (2009-04-22). "Index of Bush-Era OLC Memoranda Relating to Interrogation, Detention, Rendition and/or Surveillance" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-06-16.
  67. Judge Jeffrey S. White (2009-06-12). "Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Document #68 in José Padilla and Estela Lebron v. John Yoo, case No. C 08-00035 JSW)" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-06-16.
  68. Schwartz, John (June 13, 2009). "Judge Allows Civil Lawsuit Over Claims of Torture". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-06-14.
  69. Curt Anderson (January 4, 2008). "Padilla sues ex-Bush Official over memos". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2008-01-07. Retrieved 2008-02-10.
  70. Elaine Cassel (January 4, 2008). "Jose Padilla's suit against John Yoo: an interesting idea, but will it get far?". FindLaw. Retrieved 2008-02-10.
  71. "'Padilla v. Yoo, argued and submitted June 14, 2010", Legal Eagle, 2 May 2012, accessed 18 January 2013
  72. Norton-Taylor, Richard (April 19, 2008). "Top Bush aides pushed for Guantánamo torture". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
  73. Justice Department OPR Report (pdf), 29 July 2009, at website of U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary.
  75. Smith, R. Jeffrey (February 28, 2010). "Lessons from the Justice Department's report on the interrogation memos". The Washington Ppost. Retrieved February 28, 2010.
  76. 1 2 3 "Margolis Memorandum of 5 January 2010" (pdf), available at website, U.S. House of Representatives House Committee on the Judiciary.
  77. John Yoo, "Opinion: My Gift to the Obama Presidency", The Wall Street Journal, February 24, 2010
  78. John C. Yoo and Jide Nzelibe, "Rational War and Constitution Design", Yale Law Journal 115 (2006):2512
  79. John C. Yoo, "War, Responsibility, and the Age of Terrorism", Stanford Law Review 57 (2004): 793
  80. John C. Yoo, "Globalism and the Constitution: Treaties, Non-Self-Execution, and the Original Understanding", Columbia Law Review 99 (1999): 1955
  81. John C. Yoo, Using Force, University of Chicago Law Review 71 (2004): 729
  82. John C. Yoo and Julian Ku, "Beyond Formalism in Foreign Affairs: A Functional Approach to the Alien Tort Statute", The Supreme Court Review 2004 p. 153.
  83. See discussion in the article Marbury v. Madison
  84. Congress goes wobbly, The Washington Times, October 25, 2005
  85. "The War Over the War Powers"
  86. "The U.S. Debate Over the CWC: Supporters and Opponents". The Henry L. Stimson Center. 2007. Archived from the original on June 9, 2007. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/4/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.