Padilla to see civil remedy

15 June 2009, 10:49AM

John Yoo © Mandel Ngan/Agence France-Presse-Getty Images

A US District Court Judge has allowed a civil case to proceed which holds John Yoo, one of the authors of the now notorious 'torture memo's', liable for approving the alleged torture and ill-treatment and illegal detention of Jose Padilla. Mr Padilla and his mother are suing for US$1 in damages and a declaration from the court that his treatment was unconstitutional.

Jose Padilla was arrested on 8th May, 2002 at a Chicago airport upon his return from Egypt¹. On 9th June, 2002, then President George W. Bush issued an order which declared Padilla an 'enemy combatant' and gave direction to then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld to take Mr Padilla into 'protective custody'². Mr. Padilla was detained in a military brig in South Carolina for three years and eight months without access to US courts to challenge his detention, defend himself or challenge the conditions of his confinement.

During the time Mr. Padilla was detained, he alleges that he suffered "gross physical and psychological abuse" and that this abuse occurred directly due to the orders given by high ranking government officials as 'part of a systematic program of abusive interrogation which mirror the abuses committed at Guantanamo Bay³. Whilst he was detained, Mr Padilla was subjected to methods approved by government officials through the 'torture memos' such as;

1. Prolonged and extreme isolation;
2. 'Sleep adjustment';
3. Threats to kill him immediately;
4. Extreme variations of temperatures in his cell;
5. Deprivation of light and exposure to prolonged periods of excessive light;
6. Threats to transfer him to a location outside of the US where he would be subjected to far worse treatment, such as Guantanamo Bay;
7. Administering or making Mr Padilla believe he was being administered psychotropic drugs against his will;
8. Shackling and manacling for long periods (hours at a time);
9. Forcing him into painful 'stress positions'
10. Requiring him to wear blacked out goggles and earphones when being moved within and to and from the brig;
11. Introduction into his cell of noxious fumes that caused pain to the eyes and nose;
12. Lying to him about his location and the identity of his interrogators;
13. Loud noises at all hours of the night caused by government agents banging the the walls and bars of his cell or opening and closing doors to empty nearby cells.
14. Withholding of a mattress, pillow, sheet or blanket, leaving him with nothing to sleep or rest on except a cold steel slab;
15. Forced grooming;
16. Sudden and unexplained suspension of showers;
17. Sudden and unexplained removal of religious items;
18. Constant surveillance, including during the use of toilet facilities and showers;
19. Blackening out of the interior and exterior windows of his cell;
20. Deprivation of access to any form of information about the outside world, including radio, television, and newspapers from the time of his imprisonment in the military brig until summer 2004, at which time he was allowed very limited access to such materials;
21. Denial of sufficient exercise and recreation and, when permitted intermittently, only in a concrete cage and often at night;
22. Denial of any mechanism to tell time in order to ascertain the time for prayer in keeping with the Muslim practice;
23. Denial of access to the Koran for most of his detention; and
24. Complete deprivation or inadequate medical care for serious and potentially life-threatening ailments.

List obtained from Judge Jeffery S. White's Court Order available here. Pages 4-5.

Mr Padilla's legal team argue that Mr. Yoo admittedly "shaped government policy" in the "war on terrorism" and that he was personally involved in the approval of his designation as an 'enemy combatant'. They also argue that he approved the unlawfully harsh interrogation techniques which foreseeably led to the abuses he suffered ⁴.

The complaint alleges that Yoo "proximately and foreseeably" injured Mr Padilla by infringing on his constitutional and statutory rights including; denial of access to counsel, denial of access to court, unconstitutional conditions of confinement, unconstitutional interrogations, denial of freedom of religion, denial of the right of information, denial of the right of association, unconstitutional military detention, denial of the right to be free from unreasonable seizures, and the denial of due process ⁵. The complaint also includes damages to Mr Padilla's mother due to her prolonged separation from him and denial of contact.

This case is of particular importance considering the continued reluctance to pursue criminal charges against the authors, sanctioners and perpetrators of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under the Bush Administration. John Yoo worked for the Department of Justice (DoJ) between 2001 and 2003 and is now lecturing law at Berkeley in the US.

References

1. John Schwartz. 13th June, 2009. "Judge Allows Civil Suit Over Cliams of Torture". New York Times.

2. Jose Padilla and Estela Lebron v.John Yoo Unites States District Court No. C 08-00035 JSW. p.3.

3. ibid.

4. Jose Padilla and Estela Lebron v.John Yoo Unites States District Court No. C 08-00035 JSW. p.6.

5. ibid. p. 9.

Share: What are these?

Features and analysis

Sorry, commenting is no longer available in this weblog entry.

Make an impact

© US Dept of Defence

One year ago President Obama pledged to close Guantanamo Bay. Tell Prime Minister Kevin Rudd you support its' closure and the resettlement of detainees.

Stay Informed

Sign up for email updates

Email address:

Subscribe using RSS

Get Involved

© David Herthnek

The 'war on terror' has been used by the US and its allies as an excuse to condone torture. Help to build a secure community - by donating today.

• Join Amnesty International
• Act locally