|
|
May 22, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Bybee Must GoPosted on Apr 20, 2009By Marie Cocco George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allowed to leave office undisturbed by anything but their limited capacities for pangs of conscience over the morally repugnant treatment of terrorism detainees. The other architects of a system that violated the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and the most basic precepts of human decency also have for the most part left the public sphere. With one notable exception: Jay Bybee, a Bush Justice Department official who authored some of the memos that stretched the concept of acceptable maltreatment so far as to approve waterboarding—the simulated drowning of a prisoner. He is now a federal judge with lifetime tenure. He deserves to be removed. Bybee sits on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes California and eight other Western states. Bybee exercises enormous power to decide the fate of millions of Americans—including those with claims about their treatment at the hands of law enforcement—and others with civil grievances who have no place to turn but the federal courts. He is expected, in other words, to bring keen judgment and impartial reasoning to ensure that justice is served. It is astonishing that someone who has proved in his memos to be so lacking in judgment and so ideologically twisted in his reasoning that he laid a blanket of legal immunity over those who wanted to torture now holds one of the most powerful and prestigious seats a lawyer can attain. It is equally remarkable—but entirely expected—that partisans already are lining up to protect Bybee on the grounds that he shouldn’t be removed from the bench for memos he wrote while he was at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. That was then, the argument goes. This is now. Advertisement To examine the Bybee confirmation process is to discover an exercise in official deception. At the time—March 2003—all that senators knew about the detention policies was that the Bush administration claimed it could hold suspected terrorists indefinitely and without charge, even if the suspect was an American citizen picked up on American soil. This was sufficiently controversial to provoke unease. Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, then the ranking Democrat on the judiciary panel, asked Bybee about the Bush administration’s abandonment of the Geneva Conventions, the detention without charge of an American citizen—Jose Padilla—and the unusual secrecy in which the Office of Legal Counsel had begun cloaking its work. “I am concerned [about] the role he may have played in perpetuating the culture of secrecy that has enveloped the Justice Department over the past couple of years,” Leahy said. Sens. John Edwards, D-N.C., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., asked about the policy on “enemy combatants,” and the administration’s assertion that they could be held without charge. They wanted to know whether Bybee had a role in developing this novel legal theory, which the Supreme Court has since ruled to be unconstitutional. To these and related questions about the administration’s terrorism policies, Bybee had the same response: He could not reveal the advice he may have given the administration. “I am obligated to keep confidential the legal advice that I provide to others in the executive branch. I cannot comment on whether or not I have provided any such advice and, if so, the substance of that advice,” he wrote. Some of the advice Bybee would not divulge was his point-by-point approval of such interrogation “techniques” as fitting a prisoner with a collar to be used in smashing him against the wall; holding prisoners in tiny boxes; depriving them of sleep; and waterboarding, which Bybee described in a memo as “simply a controlled, acute episode” that did not induce “suffering.” The legal advice by senior Bush officials such as Bybee was cited by President Obama as reason not to prosecute the intelligence officers who actually carried out the torture, but did so believing they were following the rules. But what of a man who carefully constructed these odorous rules—then pointedly refused to disclose them in order to secure a federal judgeship? Should he remain a judge? Through a court spokesman, Bybee declined to comment. If he does not resign in the interest of justice, the House should impeach him.  TAGS:
|
Lock Up Washington
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Inherit The Wind, April 24, 2009 at 4:12 am Link to this comment
rolmike, April 22 at 3:54 pm #
i am still puzzled why congress did not seek to impeach justice Scalia for swinging the election to Bush in 2001, and even signaling beforehand that he would do so! No attempt was even made to really show the utter hypocrisy of a so-called “non-activist” judge taking such action. no wonder he went hunting with dick cheney! whoever claimed that US justice is fair, or impartial, or not politically motivated??
******************************************
You are kidding, aren’t you?
THINK 67!!!!!
In January of 2001, the GOP had a MAJORITY in the Senate because it was 50-50 and Cheney held the deciding vote. Jeffords left the GOP and caucused with the Dems, giving them a 51-49 advantage. No WAY they could impeach Scalia.
Besides, not only was Scalia’s son working for the GOP as a lawyer, but Janet Rehnquist, the CJ’s daughter was either in govt in a political role, or in the GOP’s machine. So Rehnquist should have been impeached…but never would have been.
Meanwhile, Clarence Thomas’s wife was employed by Bush actively vetting candidates for appointment when Bush took over—the most blatant conflict of interest of any Justice.
Plus Sandra Day O’Connor was overheard at a party saying she couldn’t STAND the idea of Al Gore as President.
4 of the 5 justices who voted for Bush in 2001 had clear conflicts of interest. I don’t know if Kennedy did as well…I just don’t know.
I believe that Rehnquist and O’Connor very quickly came to regret their actions—which is why Rehnquist died on the court rather than give Bush that appointment. Bush rather quickly challenged the sovereignty of the Federal court system—the one thing GUARANTEED to make an enemy of Rehnquist, who cherished the Supremes’ absolute and sole authority to review cases.
Believe me, I would LOVE to see Scalia impeached and ousted, but there isn’t the will in the Dems, and there aren’t enough GOPers who’d swing over.
67, remember?
Report thisBy DMFD, April 23, 2009 at 8:41 am Link to this comment
There will never be any Nuremberg re-enactments with Congress because some of the Democrat members were on the 2002 Intelligence Committee that allowed for the torture. ie: Nancy Pelosi. If we are going to call on all involved then let’s call on all involved. This is not just a republican or democrat thing. Quit looking beyond your own party to place your revenge.
“Those officials won’t be the only ones who suffer if all of this goes forward. Congress will face questions about what the Members knew and when, especially Nancy Pelosi when she was on the House Intelligence Committee in 2002. The Speaker now says she remembers hearing about waterboarding, though not that it would actually be used. Does anyone believe that? Porter Goss, her GOP counterpart at the time, says he knew exactly what he was hearing and that, if anything, Ms. Pelosi worried the CIA wasn’t doing enough to stop another attack. By all means, put her under oath.
Mr. Obama may think he can soar above all of this, but he’ll soon learn otherwise. The Beltway’s political energy will focus more on the spectacle of revenge, and less on his agenda. The CIA will have its reputation smeared, and its agents second-guessing themselves. And if there is another terror attack against Americans, Mr. Obama will have set himself up for the argument that his campaign against the Bush policies is partly to blame.” WSJ
Peace
Report thisBy veronicaf, April 22, 2009 at 8:08 pm Link to this comment
Nuremberg Part Deux. ‘nuff said.
Report thisBy rolmike, April 22, 2009 at 12:54 pm Link to this comment
i am still puzzled why congress did not seek to impeach justice Scalia for swinging the election to Bush in 2001, and even signaling beforehand that he would do so! No attempt was even made to really show the utter hypocrisy of a so-called “non-activist” judge taking such action. no wonder he went hunting with dick cheney! whoever claimed that US justice is fair, or impartial, or not politically motivated??
Report thisBy mill, April 21, 2009 at 8:38 pm Link to this comment
from article: If he does not resign in the interest of justice, the House should impeach him.
agreed
Report thisBy johanB, April 21, 2009 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
This is not the first time that judges with very strong religious convictions let them influence their decisions. In a democracy where we are suppose to have separation of church and state this should not be possible.Throughout history many have been wrongly accused and sentenced by a judge who cannot separate law and religion. What is amazing that not more people have noticed these almost hidden type manipulations of this Bybee before. This man belongs in prison as he does not seem to have any respect for the real law of the country. Just his own personal law.
Report thisBy NYCartist, April 21, 2009 at 2:46 pm Link to this comment
Waterboarding causes drowning, not simulated drowning.
Report thisIf “the judge” goes on trial for his role in the torture memos, he’ll have to leave the bench, if convicted of his war crimes, yes?
By A concerned Mormon, April 21, 2009 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
There is a strange connection that is being missed here. Jay Bybee is a life-long Mormon and attended BYU for college and law school. Back when the existence of the torture memos came out, the Salt Lake Tribune ran an editorial on Bybee’s involvement in torture as a matter of faith ( http://www.cephas-library.com/mormon/mormon_memo_on_torture_stokes_ethics_vs_faith.html ).
While not directly linked, Vanity Fair reported in 2007 that the two psychologist who signed off on torture methods and said they did not cause permanent psychological harm were mormons ( http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/07/torture200707?currentPage=1 )
And today, it is widely reported that Mormon Senator Orrin Hatch is calling Bybee “one of the most honorable people you’ll ever meet.” ( http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705298762/Hatch-opposes-calls-for-impeachment.html )
I wonder if Mormon Senate majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will call for Bybee’s impeachment? Or Mitt Romney? Or any one of the 5 or six Mormon senators or 20 Mormon members of the house.
This is par for the course within the Church. Former Church President Ezera Taft Benson, one of Eisenhower’s cabinet members, famously said that one could not be a democrat and a good Mormon. This type of closed-mindedness delivers a monoculture of obedience to authority. Bybee was just following orders without critical thought, just like he learned when he was a little boy. He never should have been put on any bench.
I am a Mormon. I attended BYU. And I used to attend church in DC with Jay Bybee. He is not an honorable man. He should be impeached. I call on the Mormon Church to excommunicate him.
Report thisBy bcc, April 21, 2009 at 1:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Unfortunately, most people form their opinions based on an effort to rationalize their core gut beliefs.
A good example on the left is the common argument that “studies prove torture does not work” and this is further backed up by select expert opinions. These statements are glossed over and not analyzed for validity. They are put forth simply because it supports their core belief. Now, I believe torture is wrong for plenty of other reasons but being a human I am sure this particular argument is absolute nonsense. If you are tortured harshly enough (Rain Man style would do it for me) you will spill everything and anything you can to make it stop. The second straw man argument then invoked by those on the left is that the “information from torture is not reliable”. But if that is the case then the enterprising torturers only need to filter the information by cross referencing it with that obtained from their other tortured victims. I have no doubt people can obtain real information this way. You can even see Cheney now falling back to challenge this false premise by wanting to show in his own defense the information obtained. So this may end up being a very conterproductive argument that shifts our focus away from the real issue.
I think it is better to argue that it is morally corrupt and that any such power given the government will be pushed and abused to the limit and beyond, and will furthermore be applied to innocent people. There is no need to lie to be anti-torture.
Report thisBy purplewolf, April 21, 2009 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment
If they cannot get enough votes to impeach this sadist, perhaps it is time(past time) to use these same techniques on all those who sit on the repug side and test out these enhanced torture methods on them that they so believe need to remain. Perhaps they will see the light-error- of their kind of thinking and do something right for a change.
If not, we could have a new reality TV series for the 70% of the population to watch starring these same elected people who are ignoring their constituents. I like the neck collar and slamming them into the walls for the first episode. Maybe then these self-rightous repugs will see just how low they have drug America down into dishonor in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Report thisBy BigEasy, April 21, 2009 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Judges are ciminal in their behaviour. They ridicule those who come before them, look for any sign of contempt to avoid having to actually practice law and routinely favor large law firms. Justice is a fallacy and we have simply allowed these despotic individual to go too far. Obama may be the worst of all offenders in that he engenders confidence by his nature but, so far, has been shoring up the despotic government we suffer under.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, April 21, 2009 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment
JFoster2k, April 21 at 3:47 pm #
Other than impeachment, isn’t conviction of war crimes sufficient justification for removal?
We can hope…
***************************************
Nope. Removal can only be by impeachment by House and conviction by the Senate. Of course, conviction of war crimes should be sufficient cause to ENSURE conviction in an impeachment.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, April 21, 2009 at 12:52 pm Link to this comment
Ed Harges, April 21 at 10:31 am #
ITW: Bringing impeachment to a vote, with a solid majority voting in favor, would be an important accomplishment, even if the majority is less than 67 votes.
*************************
Just realize that it will be no more than political posturing and positioning—as the Clinton impeachment was.
The history of judicial impeachments is frequently ignored. I BELIEVE one Democratic congressman is an impeached Federal judge—and was removed by a bi-partisan super-majority of Senators.
Usually, by the time the impeachment of a judge reaches the House Judicial Committee, you know that if it EVER reaches the House floor it will pass AND the Senate will undoubtedly convict. That’s because the judge is clearly guilty as hell of a non-political offense (namely a crime)and nobody seriously opposes keeping a stupid crooked judge on the bench (so stupid he got caught being crooked).
But Bybee, POS that he is, is a POS because of his politics. Even the fact that he LIED to the Senate Judicial Committee is seen as a political act.
So…enough of a firestorm needs to be brewed around Bybee so that nobody dare oppose his removal….and THEN impeach the SOB!
Report thisBy JFoster2k, April 21, 2009 at 12:47 pm Link to this comment
Other than impeachment, isn’t conviction of war crimes sufficient justification for removal?
We can hope…
Report thisBy thebeerdoctor, April 21, 2009 at 9:52 am Link to this comment
Accountability seems to be the first casualty of the need to look forward.
Report thisBy skulz fontaine, April 21, 2009 at 9:46 am Link to this comment
War crimes tribunal. Nuremberg style. Congress hasn’t the sack to do more than ‘appease’. Obama drama turns Vichy.
Report thisBy Ed Harges, April 21, 2009 at 7:31 am Link to this comment
ITW: Bringing impeachment to a vote, with a solid majority voting in favor, would be an important accomplishment, even if the majority is less than 67 votes.
Report thisBy Rodger Lemonde, April 21, 2009 at 6:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
These people have shown what they need to get the truth. SO let’s do some detainment and enhanced interrogation to get to the bottom of this matter.
Report thisBy Jim Yell, April 21, 2009 at 6:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Everyone has seen the crime, but the villian is wealthy and has wealthy friends, therefore he can not be touched, even though the law says his behavior is illegal and probably treason. He betrayed his country.
He dances, Cheney dances and Bush dances and Rumsfield and Rove dance and thousands of people die and more than ever America becomes a 4 star hypocritical preacher of values it doesn’t honor.
Report thisBy MarthaA, April 21, 2009 at 6:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The lower 70% of the population are not being represented in the laws and the Congress of the United States or something like this would never have gone done in the first place, and if so, would not be a problem being impeached, it would just be done, as Congress can make corrections pretty fast if it’s what they really want to do, but this judge has been planted for a purpose, and it isn’t in the best interest of the 70% common class and culture of the United States.
It is time for the people to rise up and force a third constitutional legislative body into Congress to represent the third part of the population that are not being represented, which is 70% of the population. The elite capitalist 10% are being represented in Congress and the law, the New “middle” Class 20% are being represented in Congress and the law, but there is no representation of the rest of the population, although they march, and polls are taken as to their opinions, they are being ignored; their marches are seldom showed at all on right-wing television, which works hand and glove with the conservative/moderate fascist New “academic middle” Class and the elite capitalist class that run the government, not the people.
Nader may well have been competition for the other two parties if there was a real third party constitutionally legislated to have their own representatives in Congress, but there is not, and must be. It is time for a change.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, April 21, 2009 at 4:50 am Link to this comment
It’s easy to call for impeachment, especially with such a deserving POS like Bybee. It sounds good, it makes good politics with the base, but there is one and only one criterion that MUST be met before going forward with impeachment proceedings:
Can you get 67 senators to vote for conviction?
That’s the key. Right now there are 58 Democrats (59 if Franken is finally seated). That means you MUST convince 8 or 9 Republicans to vote for conviction. Who are they going to be?
Assume that Spector, Snowe and Collins will vote. That STILL leaves 5 to 6 votes needed. Who are they going to be?
Who is in trouble? Bunning, for one, but he’ll NEVER vote for conviction of a GOP choice. Who else, looking at 2010 will be weighing the odds?
Who else is in trouble?
Without those 5 votes impeachment is nothing more than a very loud and expensive political ploy.
But maybe, if enough noise is made about it, and enough pressure is applied to vulnerable Re-thug senators, it can happen.
Until then, it’s about as real as the dreams of the Naderites that their guy will be President.
Report this