Former Office of Legal Counsel lawyer John Yoo’s criminal liability for the U.S. Torture Program has been a topic of debate ever since the so-called ‘Torture Memos’ came to light. The debate has primarily focused on the criminal case against Yoo under domestic U.S. law or under abstract notions of ‘international law’. In light of the International Criminal Court’s investigation into the situation in Afghanistan there is reason to hope for a possible indictment of Yoo. This article fills in a gap in the literature surrounding Yoo’s culpability by straightforwardly delineating the prima facie case against John Yoo under the Rome Statute.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 2890 | 247 | 43 |
Full Text Views | 100 | 3 | 2 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 185 | 11 | 4 |
Former Office of Legal Counsel lawyer John Yoo’s criminal liability for the U.S. Torture Program has been a topic of debate ever since the so-called ‘Torture Memos’ came to light. The debate has primarily focused on the criminal case against Yoo under domestic U.S. law or under abstract notions of ‘international law’. In light of the International Criminal Court’s investigation into the situation in Afghanistan there is reason to hope for a possible indictment of Yoo. This article fills in a gap in the literature surrounding Yoo’s culpability by straightforwardly delineating the prima facie case against John Yoo under the Rome Statute.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 2890 | 247 | 43 |
Full Text Views | 100 | 3 | 2 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 185 | 11 | 4 |