While Judge Jay Bybee has declined to speak before the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain his role in the Bush torture program, he is reportedly reaching out to Nevada delegation members to find an alternative forum “to tell his side of the story.” I discussed the story on this segment of Rachel Maddow’s show.
Reps. Dina Titus (D-NV) and Shelley Berkley (D-NV) have said that Bybee has contacted them through intermediaries. I would be interested in who are the intermediaries (described as former Bush officials). The New York Times has called for the impeachment of Bybee as have many lawyers.
Bybee’s tale is, in my view, one of the corruption of blind ambition. Like many conservative lawyers eager for positions in the Administration, he found himself being asked to endorse the very antithesis of the rule of law in order to be advanced as a lawyer. Bybee reportedly went to Washington to seek a nomination to the 9th Circuit. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales sent him to the OLC instead where he was asked to write his infamous torture memos. He was then given the judicial post. I do not know the man. However, the appearance could not be worse. It appears as if he facilitated the torture of other human beings — part of the price for a promotion to the court. Regardless of such alleged motivations, his acts speak loudly to his involvement in a war crime — and his unsuitability for the court.
For the full story, click here.
AY,
Like the man says, “The monkeys are in the mail.” And I think I’d make a wonderful beneficent despot. 😀
BIL,
Sure you will. Once you have the power you will become corrupt, corrupt, Corrupt. Don’t you remember anything from the land of OZ.
Where are my monkeys.
eniobob, I didn’t know that site. Thanks to you and the many others who posted links to sites,
Prof.
In Re Rule #2
ROFLMAO
I’ll keep that in mind if I should ever declare war on Tonganoxie, KS (or any other situs). Unlike Bush Co., I will abide the law regarding war crimes.
Jill:
Thanks for that link I went there,and read some interesting comments,I know you are probably famlliar with the link I am about to post.
I saw some interesting headlines there and I thought that I would pass this link on.
http://opednews.com/
BVM, Thanks for the video and the link.
Judge Bybee’s counsel isn’t limited to 18 USC 2340-Torture:
“On October 23, 2002, Assistant Attorney General Bybee signed a 48-page memo to the “counsel to the president” (Alberto Gonzales) titled “Authority of the President Under Domestic and International Law to Use Military Force Against Iraq.” This was another secret law, but instead of authorizing particular uses of torture (which in reality were far exceeded, engaged in prior to the memos, etc.), this one authorized any president to single-handedly commit what Nuremberg called “the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
An Even Worse Bybee Memo-The Iraq War Memo
David Swanson, CounterPunch, May 4, 2009
http://www.counterpunch.org/swanson05042009.html
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/worstbybee.pdf
He’s more of a war crimes generalist.
“Stanford Anti-War Alumni, Students Call for Condi War Crimes Probe”
“During the Vietnam War, Stanford students succeeded in banning secret military research from campus. Last weekend, 150 activist alumni and present Stanford students targeted Condoleezza Rice for authorizing torture and misleading Americans into the illegal Iraq War.” more at http://www.marjoriecohn.com
“Marjorie Cohn at Stanford discussing Condi Rice’s War Crimes”
Article: “While Judge Jay Bybee has declined to speak before the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain his role in the Bush torture program, ”
Does anyone know if that was that a request or a subpoena?
—————————–
Eniobob: link to the Nation mag.
She’s right! If only we had known it was going to be such a growth industry and reward is architect’s and supporters so well we could have gotten in on the ground floor. Man, I wish they had taken the ‘business’ public, we could have bought stock early and made a few bucks.
At the very least these people should be shunned by society and business, every time I read about some speaking tour or benefit they accrue I am disgusted. That isn’t even getting close to what I think about Karl Rove being a commentator on FOX. Disgraceful is the mildest word one could use.
***************
A good examination on the US Torture program is also available:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7100
It’s the first installment of a 4 part examination. The Writer (from bio:)”Ernest A. Canning has been an active member of the California State Bar since 1977 and has practiced in the fields of civil litigation and workers’ compensation at both the trial and appellate levels. He graduated cum laude from Southwestern University School of Law where he served as a student director of the clinical studies department…” has guest blogged there before and his articles are always excellent.
eniobob,
That’s a great link. Jeremy Scahill has posted about prosecutions. He goes to the relevant passages in the law, things that Mr. Bybee knew well:
“1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
[…]
Article 4
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.”
http://rebelreports.com/post/104222547/a-response-to-those-who-say-dont-prosecute-bushs
Better living through torture from the Nation Magazine:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090518/pollitt?rel=emailNation
Thank you trolls for letting us know your masters aren’t certain they’ll get away with war crimes. I had expected you.
I thought the watch word for these guys,when things got a little hot was” I Don’t Recall” will he be the exception to that rule?
Rosen Defends Article, Backs Off On Sotomayor, Calls Her ‘Able Candidate’
By Brian Beutler – May 7, 2009, 3:04PM
As promised, over at The New Republic Jeffrey Rosen has responded to critics of an article he wrote earlier this week calling into question the fitness of appellate court judge Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the Supreme Court. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6168aeb7-9869-43eb-b401-2204a0d84478
Rosen defends all aspects of his piece beyond its title, which he says was assigned without his knowledge by TNR’s editors, and which he regrets. He makes a number of the same points he made to me yesterday when I asked him about the controversy, but adds a few more.
He writes, “I was satisfied that my sources’s concerns were widely shared when I read Sotomayor’s entry in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which includes the rating of judges based on the collective opinions of the lawyers who work with them. Usually lawyers provide fairly positive comments.”
That Almanac entry is here: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/05/almanac-of-the-federal-judiciary—sonia-sotomayor.php?page=1
There are, to be sure, some very negative assessments as well, and Rosen says they vindicate his critique. But a Sotomayor supporter who once clerked on the second circuit for a different judge disputes that interpretation. “I was…shocked by his implication that because prosecutors dislike her it means she isn’t fit — in fact, it should be the reverse,” the source said. “If prosecutors have a low opinion of a judge it’s probably because she challenges them, rather than rubber stamping their allegations as many judges do.”
As a peculiar footnote to this entire imbroglio, the last paragraph in Rosen’s post contains unexpected sentence: “Sotomayor is an able candidate–at least as able as some of the current Supreme Court justices–and if Obama is convinced she is the best candidate on his short list, he should pick her.”
Which is rather different, at least in tone, than the conclusion he reached in his original article. “Given the stakes,” Rosen wrote, “the president should obviously satisfy himself that he has a complete picture before taking a gamble.”
Rosen himself acknowledges that, according to the report, “most of lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor has good legal ability,” and “lawyers said Sotomayor is very active and well-prepared at oral argument.”
Christian Right: Obama Is A Heretic For Observing Day Of Prayer In Private Just Like Most Other Presidents
President Obama will sign a proclamation recognizing today as a National Day of Prayer (NDP). Notably, the President will not continue former George W. Bush’s practice of holding a “formal White House event.” In response, conservative commentators in recent days have been suggesting that Obama is in some way attempting to downplay the significance of the NDP — and faith in general.
Limbaugh went so far as to suggest that Obama was trying to “cancel” the NDP, while the National Day of Prayer Task Force issued a statement suggesting that Obama was departing from historical tradition. The task force claimed that Obama’s decision was “contrary to the administrations of President George W. Bush, President George H. W. Bush, and President Ronald Reagan.”
This morning on Fox and Friends, co-host Steve Doocey echoed the claim that Reagan and George H. W. Bush held events similar to that of George W. Bush. Guest Elisabeth Hasselbeck asserted that public events at the White House on the National Day of Prayer stretched back to President Truman and strangely suggested that Obama’s decision was interfering in Americans’ right to “gather and pray” in public:
HASSELBECK: This has been a tradition in our country in our country since 1952 with Truman. … I think that we are looking to him today to lead this country and this has been a huge tradition. It has also been one that has been protected in our country through our constitution. We should be able to gather and pray as we see fit.
In reality, it was Bush who broke with tradition by holding official White House events on the NDP. Indeed, as the National Day of Prayer Task Force spokesperson Brian Toon explained on May 1, “There was no East Room event until George W.” And despite the Task Force’s claim today that Reagan and H. W. Bush were in the habit holding White House events on the NDP, U.S. News and World Report explains that each of them held such events only once during their presidencies.
Asked by ThinkProgress about the Task Force’s false statements, Rev. Susan Thistlethwaite, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, pointed out that the organization is chaired by Shirley Dobson — wife of the ultraconservative Focus on the Family founder James Dobson. Indeed, the fact that conservatives and the Task Force in particular feel the need to lie about the history and traditions surrounding the NDP suggests that they are less concerned with promoting prayer in America than they are with taking every possible opportunity to “slam Obama” for political gain.
Experts Say Authors Of Memos May Avoid Professional Sanctions http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/06/AR2009050603182.html?wprss=rss_politics
ambition? or perhaps he really believes in this stuff
Yes, seconded.
Prof. Turley, please extend an invite to Bybee to explain himself here. We’ll be glad to listen to any explanation he has to offer, provided he is willing to answer challenges to his assertions.
He should be prepared to not only explain but to answer questions because an unchallenged explanation is a statement at best and propaganda at worst. We don’t need more propaganda. We the People want answers, good ones too, not weasel words.
Personally, I’d love to see Bob, Vince and mespo et al. take the battle to him as much as I’d like him to face my questions.
I bet he doesn’t have the cajones (or intellect) to do it.
BIL:
I have often discussed the first rule of the blog: civility. The second rule is you cannot post if you have allegedly committed war crimes. Thankfully, that second one rarely comes up.
This stuff keeps blowing me away. First of all if we committed a war crime and tried to “approach” our Congressperson to “tell our story” we’d be tazed and thrown to the curb. I’m generally not for tazing but I’d make an exception here. Why is this man at large and uncharged? Why is he allowed to have his own emissaries make pleas on his behalf? For gods sakes, our war criminals seem to be in charge of our govt. Let him tell his story by all means, in public, on TV, in front of the judiciary committee, under oath–no immunity. Anything else is just crazy. That these actions are tolerated shows just how corrupt our govt. really is.
Meanwhile, I will say again that if it’s just innocent bad legal advice that we’re talking about here, why did bushco destroy the many truly legal, legal opinions they received telling them they could not torture?
Why can’t he explain it here?