U. S. v. Lee - more on torture

Looseheadprop comes through with another great article on the ramifications of, and problems with, the Yoo torture memo. This one (Part VI in a series) brings up another bit of case law relevant to the Yoo memo.

Here's the quick version:

The case is called U.S. v. Lee, and it involves the prosecution of several Sheriff's Deputies in Texas for waterboarding people they had arrested in an effort to induce those detainees to confess to crimes.

Yep, you read that right, the Department of Justice has actually prosecuted folks who used waterboarding to induce confessions. Oh, and convicted them. And had those convictions sustained on appeal.

[Emphasis mine]

Now, why would Yoo have omitted that in his discussion? You'd think it would be relevant, no?

Care to guess what arguments for the defense did NOT prevail? "I was only following orders" and "I was led to believe it was legal."

So, if we're sticking with stare decisis (" the policy of the court to stand by precedent" according to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals), then the Yoo arguments for making torture legal begin to collapse.

As they say in the Motel 6 commercials, and now may say at the Hague to Bush and his staff, "We'll leave the light on for you."
--the BB