Following up on my earlier post about whether the Obama Justice Department really ought to be representing John Yoo -- the notorious former Office of Legal
Following up on my earlier post about whether the Obama Justice Department really ought to be representing John Yoo — the notorious former Office of Legal Counsel lawyer during the Bush administration — Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and a professor at Columbia Law School, pointed out to me today that the Justice Department’s defense of Yoo is fraught with not only political, but ethical complications.
That’s because fundamental to any argument on behalf of a government official being sued for things he did in government is the claim of “qualified immunity” — essentially, the official is immune if it wasn’t clear at the time that what he was doing violated established rights.
Now, lots of people will claim that we all knew that U.S. citizens have a right not to be tortured or detained indefinitely without access to counsel and incommunicado, so Yoo should really lose that argument. Still, it’s probably the best argument he has — that the president’s wartime authority at least arguably overrode all those rights we thought we knew we had, but didn’t know the administration had quietly revoked.
In fact, much to the dismay of some of its supporters, the Obama administration is making just that argument. In its brief moving to dismiss the case that Padilla and his mother filed against Yoo, the government argues that “Defendant Yoo is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.” Not only was he not personally responsible for what happened to Padilla, they claim (although Padilla’s lawyers claim Yoo participated personally in formulating the plan for Padilla’s detention and treatment), but the government claims that the claims all fail because “Plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of any constitutional rights.”
As long as Padilla was an “enemy combatant,” the government argues, it wasn’t clear he had any legal rights at all. That was, of course, what the Bush administration argued, too.
But doesn’t that claim contradict others made by President Obama and Eric Holder — that torture, for example, is and always was illegal? (Notably, as I wrote recently about the al-Marri case, the Obama administration has not claimed that indefinite detention of U.S. residents or citizens within the United States is unconstitutional.) Do they really want to be claiming now that they’re not so sure?
In Ratner’s view, that’s a bad thing all around.
“The more I think about it, representing Yoo puts the administration in a potential contradiction,” he wrote to me in an e-mail after our phone conversation. “They should not be arguing that there was not a clearly established right to be free from detention without trial, court access or abuse under the Fifth and Eighth amendments. If they do, or have, it would be a grave disappointment and justify many of the nasty Bush administration practices.”
Ratner added: “They need to get Yoo another lawyer, or better, cut him loose, as continued representation is contrary to government interests. A lawyer should represent Yoo who can take positions that they [the Obama administration] should not.”
Likewise with Donald Rumsfeld, added Ratner. The Center for Constitutional Rights is representing alleged torture victims in a case against the former secretary of defense, among others, now pending in the U.S.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court. As in the Yoo case, the Bush administration tried to dismiss the case against Rumsfeld on the grounds of qualified immunity. Now that the Obama administration has taken over, it will be interesting to see whether that argument changes.
The Justice Department’s brief in the Rumsfeld case is due later this week. Stay tuned.
MA-Sen: 150 Conservative Bloggers Fan Out, Looking for Scandals
BOSTON -- The mysterious Election Journal blog, which first released the infamous 2008 video of two bumbling New Black Panther Party members waving nightsticks
MA-Sen: 66 to 19
BOSTON -- That, via Alex Isenstadt and Josh Kraushaar, is the number that defined the Massachusetts Senate race more than anything else. From the primary
MA-Sen: A Text Message From Scott Brown
BOSTON -- Having signed up for Scott Brown’s text message service for election day, I just got this text: Are you about to have lunch? It’s a great time to
MA-Sen: Loyal Democrats Grouse About Coakley
BOSTON -- A little while after noon, a steady crowd of Democratic voters streamed into the Cathedral High School Gymnasium to cast votes for their party’s
MA-Sen: Brown Wins
BOSTON -- At 9:20, the first rumors of Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts Senate race started to work around the room. A moment later, Doug Flutie
MA-Sen Photos: ‘Paint the Town Red! Croakley’s Dead!’
Below are some photos of yesterday’s People’s Rally in Worcester, the rally that Brown held to counter-program the Obama rally in Boston. The crush of
MA-Sen: Out-of-Staters for Brown
BOSTON -- A surprising discovery at yesterday’s People’s Rally in Worcester was just how many people had traveled into the state to assist, in whatever way,
Menendez, Lautenberg to Continue BP-Lockerbie Investigation
Sens. Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, both New Jersey Democrats, will continue to seek details about BP’s alleged involvement in the release last year of
Net Investors Bullish on Palin’s Prospects for Staying on Ticket
Just for fun, the Internet prediction Website Intrade has opened a contract on whether Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will be withdrawn as McCain’s running mate.
No Experience Necessary
Gov. Sarah Palin’s a middle-class hockey mom, but does that really qualify her to be vice president?