The Full Wiki

John Yoo: Map


Wikipedia article:

Map showing all locations mentioned on Wikipedia article:

John Choon Yoo (born June 10, 1967 in Seoulmarker) is an Americanmarker attorney and former official in the United States Department of Justicemarker.

He has been a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeleymarker's School of Law (Boalt Hall) since 1993. Yoo has authored two books on presidential power and the war on terrorism, as well as numerous journal and newspaper articles. He has held the Fulbright Distinguished Chair in Law at the University of Trentomarker and has also been a visiting law professor at the Free University of Amsterdammarker, the University of Chicagomarker, and Chapman University School of Law. Since 2003, Yoo has also worked as a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. He also writes a monthly column, entitled Closing Arguments, for The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Yoo, a member of the Pennsylvania State Bar, was a law clerk for Appeals Court judge Laurence H. Silberman and for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He also served for a time as general counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Yoo is best known for his work from 2001 to 2003 in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel under the George W. Bush Administration. In the Justice Department, Yoo's expansive view of Presidential power led to a close relationship with the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. Yoo played a significant role in the 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 Guantanamo Bay detention campmarker, asserting executive authority to undertake waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" regarded as torture by the current Justice Department. Yoo furthermore argued that the President was not bound by the War Crimes Act, and provided a legal opinion backing the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Yoo's legal opinions were controversial within the Bush Administration. Secretary of State Colin Powell strongly opposed the invalidation of the Geneva Conventions, 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 legal opinions. In December 2003, Yoo's memo on permissible interrogation techniques was repudiated by the Office of Legal Counsel, then under the direction of Jack Goldsmith, as legally unsound. In June 2004, another of Yoo's memos on torture was leaked to the press, after which it was repudiated by Goldsmith and the OLC.

Yoo's contribution to these memos has remained a source of controversy after his departure from the Justice Department; he was called to testify before the House Judiciary Committee in 2008 in defense of his role. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility has been investigating Yoo's work since 2004, and is completing a report which is said to be sharply critical of his legal justification for waterboarding and other interrogation techniques. In 2009, Baltasar Garzón Real, a Spanish judge famed for his prosecutions of international human rights abusers such as Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, launched an investigation of Yoo and others for war crimes.


As an infant, Yoo emigrated with his parents from South Koreamarker to the United States. He grew up in Philadelphiamarker, Pennsylvaniamarker, graduating from the Episcopal Academymarker in 1985, and graduated with a B.A. degree summa cum laude in American history from Harvard Universitymarker in 1989 and Yale Law School in 1992. Yoo clerked for United States Supreme Courtmarker Justice Clarence Thomas and U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman. From 1995 to 1996, he was general counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. Yoo is an active member of the Federalist Society. He is married to Elsa Arnett, the daughter of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Peter Arnett.

Scholarly work

John Yoo lecturing in 2007.
Yoo's scholarship falls 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.

Yoo's academic work also includes analysis of the history of judicial review in the U.S. Constitution. 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. It was cited during the Senate hearings for then-U.S.marker Supreme Courtmarker nominee Samuel Alito by Senator Joe Biden, who "pressed Alito to denounce John Yoo's controversial defense of presidential initiative in taking the nation to war." Yoo is known as a public opponent of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Legal opinions

The following memos are some of those known or believed to have been authored, in whole or in part, by John Yoo during his tenure at the Office of Legal Counsel; some remain classified, and in some cases dates are approximate for that reason. (See January 5, 2005 letter from Senator Patrick Leahy requesting some of these documents, the Obama Administration's March 2, 2009 release of many of the memos, and the ACLU Index of Bush-Era OLC Memoranda Relating to Interrogation, Detention, Rendition and/or Surveillance.) Some of the memoranda drafted by John Yoo and others in the Department of Justicemarker and the Office of White House Counsel are collected in the book The Torture Papers. Some of these opinions have been explicitly withdrawn or repudiated.
  • September 25, 2001 Memorandum for David S. Kris, Associate Deputy Attorney General, "Re: Constitutionality of Amending Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to Change 'Purpose' Standard for Searches" (signed by John C. Yoo). Claims the US Federal Government's "right to self defense" authorized warrantless searches under the Fourth Amendment. Repudiated.
  • October 4, 2001 Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, "Legal standards governing the use of certain intelligence techniques", 36pp, "OLC 132". Created in response to a question from the White House for OLC's views regarding what legal standards might govern the use of certain intelligence methods to monitor communications by potential terrorists.
  • October 23, 2001 Memorandum for Alberto Gonzales and William J. Haynes, II, "Re: Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States" (signed by John C. Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty). Claims the U.S. military can ignore several Constitutional provisions: the Fourth Amendment, the Takings Clause, and the First Amendment. Repudiated.
  • November 2, 2001 Memorandum to John Ashcroft, "Legality of communications intelligence activities", 24pp. Described in the Inspector General's Report as "the first OLC opinion directly supporting the legality of the [NSA domestic surveillance program]". Quote: "the activity described in the Presidential Authorizations was ‘reasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment and therefore did not require a warrant." Known as "OLC 131" in the ACLU/EPIC Freedom of Information litigation.
  • November 5, 2001 Memorandum, "Authority of the Deputy Attorney General Under Executive Order 12333". Opines that the Deputy Attorney General can approve the use of intelligence surveillance techniques.
  • November 6, 2001 Memorandum to Alberto Gonzales, "Legality of the Use of Military Commissions to Try Terrorists" (signed by Patrick F. Philbin). "The President possesses inherent authority under the Constitution, as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, to establish military commissions to try and punish terrorists captured in connection with the attacks of September 11 or in connection with U.S. military operations in response to those attacks." Not yet repudiated, though the Supreme Court found that the military commissions actually set up by the President were not lawful.
  • November 15, 2001 Memorandum for John B. Bellinger III, "Re: Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Provisions of the ABM Treaty" (signed by John C. Yoo and Robert Delahunty). Claims that Bush could suspend any provisions he wanted in the ABM Treaty with the USSR/Russia, or any other treaty, without even telling the Senate or other states-parties. Repudiated.
  • December 21, 2001 Memorandum for William J. Haynes II, "Possible Criminal Charges Against American Citizen Who Was a Member of the al Qaeda Terrorist Organization of the Taliban Militia".
  • for William J. Haynes II, "Re: Possible Habeas Jurisdiction Over Aliens Held in Guantanamo Bay" (signed by John C. Yoo and Patrick F. Philbin). Claimed that US district courts have no jurisdiction to help US prisoners held in Guantanamo. Contrary to the opinions in this memo, the Supreme Court found habeas corpus jurisdiction over foreigners imprisoned in Guantanamo by the United States Government, in Rasul v. Bush.
  • for William J. Haynes II, "Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees", by John Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty. Claims that al Qaeda and Taliban members are "not governed by the bulk of the Geneva Conventions, specifically those provisions concerning POWs." This memo promptly led on January 19, 2002 to a secret order from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to his combat commanders, repeating its conclusions, and specifically ordering that the order be transmitted to "Joint Task Force 160", which at the time was setting up the new detainee prison at Guantánamomarker. The Supreme Courtmarker rejected this legal reasoning on June 29, 2006 in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which stated, "The conflict with al Qaeda is not, according to the Government, a conflict to which the full protections afforded detainees under the 1949 Geneva Conventions apply[...]. [T]here is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here[...]. Common Article 3 [...] is applicable here and [...] requires that Hamdan be tried by a 'regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.'" On July 7, 2006, Gordon England of the Defense Department ordered that Common article 3 of the Geneva Convention – which prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners and requires certain basic legal rights at trial – would apply to all detainees held in US military custody.
  • January 11, 2002 Memorandum for Alberto Gonzales, "Geneva Conventions" (by John Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty).
  • January 14, 2002 Memorandum for William H. Taft, Legal Advisor, Department of State, "Prosecution for Conduct Against al Qaeda and Taliban Members under the War Crimes Act" (by John Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty).
  • January 22, 2002 Memorandum for Alberto Gonzales and William J. Haynes II, "Re: Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees" (signed by Jay S. Bybee). Repudiated.
  • January 24, 2002 Memorandum for Alberto Gonzales, "Geneva Conventions and prisoners of war".
  • January 24, 2002 Memorandum for Larry D. Thompson, "Application of international law to the United States".
  • February 7, 2002 Memorandum for Alberto Gonzales, "Status of Taliban Forces Under Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949" (signed by Jay S. Bybee). Official version published by OLC, with one removed footnote. "The President has reasonable factual grounds to determine that no members of the Taliban militia are entitled to prisoner of war status under Article 4 of the 1949 Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War."
  • February 8, 2002 Memorandum ("OLC 62") for William J. Haynes II, "Re: (Classified Matter)", by John C. Yoo. Described in court declaration as "prepared in response to a request for OLC views regarding the legality of certain hypothetical activities". ACLU says it "proposes that FISA does not govern intelligence surveillance for national security purposes because FISA does not include a clear statement of intent to do so." Repudiated.
  • February 26, 2002 Memorandum for William J. Haynes II, "Re: Potential Legal Constraints Applicable to Interrogations of Persons Captured by U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan" (signed by Jay S. Bybee).
  • March 13, 2002 Memorandum for William J. Haynes II, "Re: The President’s Power as Commander in Chief to transfer captured terrorists to the control and custody of foreign nations" (signed by Jay S. Bybee). "We conclude that as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive, the President has the plenary constitutional power to detain and transfer prisoners captured in war. We also conclude that neither the GPW (Third Geneva Convention) nor the Torture Convention restrict the President's legal authority to transfer prisoners captured in the Afghanistan conflict to third countries. Although the GPW places conditions on the transfer of POWs, neither al-Qaeda nor Taliban prisoners are legally entitled to POW status, and hence there are no GPW conditions placed on their transfer. While the Torture Convention arguably might govern transfer of these prisoners, it does not apply extraterritorially." Repudiated.
  • March 28, 2002 Memorandum for William H. Taft, Legal Advisor, Department of State, "March 22, 2002 DOS Memorandum".
  • April 8, 2002 Memorandum for Daniel J. Bryant, "Re: Swift Justice Authorization Act" (signed by Patrick F. Philbin). Claims that proposed legislation governing military tribunals impermissibly encroaches on the President's alleged powers as 'Commander in Chief'. Repudiated.
  • An OLC Memorandum drafted in or about May 2002, regarding access to counsel and legal mail of detainees held at the naval brigs in Norfolk and Charleston.
  • June 8, 2002 Memorandum for the Attorney General, "Determination of Enemy Belligerency and Military Detention" (signed by Jay S. Bybee). Concludes that the US military has the legal authority to detain US citizen José Padilla as a prisoner captured during an international armed conflict. Not yet repudiated.
  • June 27, 2002 Memorandum for Daniel J. Bryant, "Re: Applicability of 18 U.S.C. 4001(a) to Military Detention of United States Citizen" (signed by John C. Yoo). Claims that statute flatly saying "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress" does not, and constitutionally could not, interfere with Bush's claimed authority to detain José Padilla as 'Commander in Chief'. Repudiated.
  • July 22, 2002 Memorandum for Alberto Gonzales, "Applicability of the Convention Against Torture". Concludes that the first fifteen articles of the Convention Against Torture are non-self-executing and place no affirmative obligations on the Executive Branch.
  • August 1, 2002 Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, "Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation Under 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A" (signed by Jay S. Bybee) (the Bybee memo). (Link includes August 1, 2002 cover letter summarizing memo.) Repudiated. Withdrawn.
  • August 1, 2002 letter for Alberto Gonzales, "regarding the views of our Office concerning the legality, under international law, of interrogation methods to be used on captured al Qaeda operatives".
  • August 1, 2002 Memorandum for John Rizzo (Acting General Counsel of the CIA), "Interrogation of al Qaeda Operative". Addresses the legality of particular interrogation techniques that the CIA wished to employ against Abu Zubaydah.
  • October 11, 2002 Memorandum ("OLC 129") for John Ashcroft, Attorney General, 9pp, concerning the legality of certain communications intelligence activities. The Inspector General's Report says it "reiterated the same basic analysis contained in Yoo's November 2, 2001, memorandum in support of the legality of the [surveillance program]."
  • October 23, 2002 Memorandum signed by Jay S. Bybee, "Authority of the President Under Domestic and International Law to Use Military Force against Iraq". "The President possesses constitutional authority to use military force against Iraq to protect United States national interests. This independent constitutional authority is supplemented by congressional authorization in the form of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution. Using force against Iraq would be consistent with international law because it would be authorized by the United Nations Security Council or would be justified as anticipatory self-defense." Anticipatory self-defense means attacking someone before they attack you.
  • November 27, 2002 Memorandum, "Counter-Resistance Techniques" (signed by William J. Haynes II and signed "Approved" by Donald Rumsfeld). Alleged to be reviewed and approved by Yoo. Recommends that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld approve a range of aggressive interrogation techniques that are not permitted by the military interrogation field manual.
  • December 7, 2002 Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the Vice President, signed by John Yoo, "Whether False Statements or Omissions in Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Declaration would constitute a 'Further Material Breach' under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441." He opines that they would.
  • February 7, 2003 Memorandum to William J. Haynes II, "American Bar Association's Task Force on Treatment of Enemy Combatants Report".
  • March 14, 2003 Memorandum for William J. Haynes II, "Re: Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the United States" (signed by John C. Yoo). Parts of this memorandum are preparation for a criminal defense for hypothetical U.S. government defendants against hypothetical charges of crimes of torture and crimes against humanity. Repudiated.

Regarding torture of detainees

After he left the Department of Justice, it was revealed that Yoo authored memos, including co-authoring the Bybee memo defining torture and American habeas corpus obligations narrowly. advocate enhanced interrogation techniques, while pointing out that refuting the Geneva Conventions would reduce the possibility American officials and surrogates face future prosecution under the US War Crimes Act of 1996 for actions taken in the War on Terror. In addition, a new definition of torture was issued. Most actions that fall under the international definition do not fall within this new definition advocated by the U.S. Several top military lawyers, including Alberto J. Mora, reported that policies allowing methods equivalent to torture were officially handed down from the highest levels of the administration, and led an effort within the Department of Defense to put a stop to those policies and instead mandate non-coercive interrogation standards.

On December 1, 2005, Yoo appeared in a debate in Chicago with University of Notre Damemarker law professor Doug Cassel. 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."

On June 26, 2008, Yoo and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and former counsel David Addington testified before the House Judiciary Committee in a contentious hearing on detainee treatment, interrogation methods and the extent of executive branch authority.

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 because the fourth amendment does not apply. Or, as another memo says in one of its footnotes, "Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations."That interpretation is used to assert that the normal mandatory requirement of a warrant, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, could be ignored.

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." He claimed that critics of the program misunderstand the separation of powers between the President and Congress in wartime because of a confusion to a failure to properly 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." In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece in July 2009, Yoo found it "absurd to think that a law like FISA should restrict live military operations against potential attacks on the United States." Contradicting Yoo, US courts have regularly found that the military and the president do actually have to follow the laws; indeed "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".

Unitary executive theory

Yoo suggested that since the primary task of the President during a time of war is protecting certain US citizens, the President has inherent authority to subordinate independent government agencies, and plenary power to use force abroad. Yoo contends that the Congressional check on Presidential war making power comes from its power of the purse, and 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". His positions on executive power are controversial because it is suggested that the theory holds that the President's war powers place him above any law.

In the Clinton administration

Yoo was a strong critic of what he viewed as the Clinton administration's use of the powers of what he termed the "Imperial Presidency". For instance, Yoo wrote:

Yoo has defended both Republican and Democratic Presidents, including President Clinton, in their decisions 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, and criticized Democrats in Congress for not suing Clinton as they had sued Presidents Bush and Reagan to stop the war:

Yoo further stated, in regards to the Clinton administration's use of executive power:

Yoo declared in 2000, at a conference regarding executive power:

Yoo has been a defender of executive privilege, but only for protecting national security, diplomatic and military secrets. He criticized the Clinton administration for misusing the privilege to protect the personal, rather than official, activities of the President, in the Monica Lewinsky affair:

Yoo also criticized President Clinton for contemplating the defiance of a judicial order. Yoo suggested that Presidents could act in conflict with the Supreme Court, but that such measures were justified only during emergencies, and not to defend against a President's personal sexual affairs:

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, stating, for instance:


War crimes accusations

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. 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. mirror

On November 14, 2006, invoking the principle of command responsibility, German attorney Wolfgang Kaleck filed a complaint with the German Federal Attorney General (Generalbundesanwalt) against Yoo, along with 13 others for his alleged complicity in torture and other crimes against humanity at Abu Ghraibmarker in Iraq and Guantánamo Bay. Wolfgang 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. Responding to the so-called "torture memoranda" Scott Horton pointed out
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.marker
Altstöttermarker, the Nuremberg case brought against German Justice Department lawyers whose memoranda crafted the basis for implementation of the infamous "Night and Fog Decree."

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

Jordan Paust of the University of Houston Law Center concurred, responding to Attorney General Mukasey's refusal to investigate and/or prosecute anyone that relied on these legal opinions:
it 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!

On January 4, 2008, John Yoo was sued in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Case Number 08-cv-00035-JSW) by José Padilla and his mother. The complaint seeks damages based on the alleged torture of Padilla attributed by the complaint to 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 impact for all detainees.

Yoo's torture memoranda had been almost immediately retracted by Jack Goldsmith, upon his October 2003 assumption of the duties of chief of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice. The Padilla complaint, on page 20, cites Goldsmith's 2007 book The Terror Presidency in support of its case. Goldsmith's book and his interviews while marketing the book 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, providing the basis for the lawsuit. The claim is that Yoo caused Padilla's damages by authorizing his alleged torture through his memoranda.

Retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, General Colin Powell's former chief of staff (in both the Persian Gulf War and while Powell was Secretary of State in the Bush Administration), has stated the following regarding Yoo: "Haynes, Feith, Yoo, Bybee, Gonzales and — at the apex — Addington, should never travel outside the US, except perhaps to Saudi Arabiamarker and Israelmarker. 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."


Yoo has authored two books:

Yoo has also contributed chapters to other books, including:

See also


  1. Contemporary Authors Online, Thomson Gale, 2008.
  2. Bibliography at the American Enterprise Institute; Bibliography at the Social Science Research Network
  3. John C. Yoo and Jide Nzelibe, Rational War and Constitution Design, Yale Law Journal 115 (2006):2512
  4. John C. Yoo, War, Responsibility, and the Age of Terrorism, Stanford Law Review 57 (2004): 793
  5. John C. Yoo, Globalism and the Constitution: Treaties, Non-Self-Execution, and the Original Understanding, Columbia Law Review 99 (1999): 1955
  6. John C. Yoo, Using Force, University of Chicago Law Review 71 (2004): 729
  7. 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.
  8. See discussion in the article Marbury v. Madison
  9. Congress goes wobbly, The Washington Times, October 25, 2005
  10. "The War Over the War Powers"
  11. June 8, 2002 Memorandum for the Attorney General, "Determination of Enemy Belligerency and Military Detention"
  12. Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004)
  13. "In connection with the consideration of these opinions for possible public release, the Office has reviewed them and has decided to withdraw them. They no longer represent the views of the Office of Legal Counsel."
  14. Double Standards?, MSNBC, May 15, 2005
  15. The Interrogation Documents: Debating U.S. Policy and Methods * The Torture Memos and Academic Freedom by Christopher Edley, Jr., The Honorable William Horsley Orrick, Jr., Distinguished Chair and Dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, Boalt Hall, April 10, 2008 * Bush Admits To Knowledge of Torture Authorization by Top Advisers by the American Civil Liberties Union * Yoo Two, by Scott Horton, No Comment, April 3, 2008 * John Yoo: Spearhead or scapegoat? by Glenn Greenwald, April 12, 2008
  16. Suggested origin of legal justifications * The Bush Regime from Elections to Detentions: A Moral Economy of Carl Schmitt and Human Rights by David Abraham, University of Miami Law School, University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2007-20, May 2007 * Torture, Necessity and Existential Politics by Christopher L. Kutz, University of California, Berkeley School of Law, Boalt Hall, UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 870602, December 2005 * Deconstructing John Yoo by Scott Horton, Harpers, January 23, 2008 * The will to undemocratic power By Philip S. Golub, Le Monde diplomatique, September 2006 * The Leo-conservatives by Gerhard Spörl, Der Spiegel, August 4, 2003
  17. War crimes warning * Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings by Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, May 19, 2004 * Torture and Accountability by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, June 28, 2005 * US Lawyers Warn Bush on War Crimes by Grant McCool, Lawyers Against the War, Global Policy Forum, January 28, 2003
  18. U.S. definition of torture * Judge's anger at US torture by Richard Norton-Taylor and Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian, February 17, 2006 * Torture as National Policy by Dahr Jamail,, March 9, 2006
  19. Memorandum for Inspector General, Department of the Navy (July 7, 2004)
  20. "How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted", Jane Mayer, The New Yorker (February 27, 2006)
  21. Yoo/Cassel debate
  22. "Meek, mild and menacing"
  23. Addington, Yoo offer little in House Torture Hearing, video of Addington and Yoo's testimony, Democracy Now!
  24. Fourth amendment does not apply * DOJ Endorsed Terrorism Exception to 4th Amendment in Another Disavowed Memo, By Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal, magazine of the American Bar Association, April 4, 2008 * Bush Administration Memo Says Fourth Amendment Does Not Apply To Military Operations Within U.S., ACLU, April 2, 2008 * Memo linked to warrantless surveillance by Pamela Hess and Lara Jakes Jordan, Associated Press, April 3, 2008 * Administration Asserts No Fourth Amendment for Domestic Military Operations, Electronic Frontier Foundation, April 2, 2008
  25. John C. Yoo, The Terrorist Surveillance Program and the Constitution, Geo. Mason L. Rev. 14 (2007):565.
  26. Why We Endorwed Warrantless Wiretaps, Wall St. Journal, July 16, 2009, page A13.
  27. US Constitution, Article II, Section 3
  28. Suggested interpretation of War Powers in the Bush administration * George Bush's rough justice — The career of the latest supreme court nominee has been marked by his hatred of liberalism by Sidney Blumenthal, The Guardian, January 12, 2006 * How Close Are We to the End of Democracy? by Martin Garbus, The Huffington Post, January 20, 2006 * Scholar Stands by Post-9/11 Writings On Torture, Domestic Eavesdropping by Peter Slevin, The Washington Post, December 26, 2005.
  29. An interview with John Yoo: author of The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11
  30. A Wunnerful, Wunnerful Constitution, John C. Yoo Notwithstanding, After Downing Street, December 9, 2005
  31. , Vanderbilt University
  32. Meek, mild and menacing,, January 12, 2006
  33. Julian Borger, "Spanish judge to hear torture case against six Bush officials", The Observer, 29 March 2009
  34. Universal jurisdiction * Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse by Adam Zagorin, Time
  35. Time magazine report on lawsuit against Yoo, et al
  36. Just Following Orders? DOJ Opinions and War Crimes Liability by Jordan Paust, Jurist, February 18, 2008

Embed code:

Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address