Bybee may have to face the music after all
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/...rogation_memos

Bybee should be required to explain himself under oath, without a deal, to an investigative committee.

If he is guilty of breaking the law, he should be punished.

Don't they teach ethics at BYU Law?

On another board, someone pointed out that Bybee was doing what a lawyer is supposed to do - tell his client what he can do without breaking the law. If this is the case, then there really is nothing that can be done in regard to prosecuting Bybee.

I tend to believe there is an ulterior motive behind going after Bybee - he's a conservative on the ridiculously liberal 9th Circuit Court and the crybaby liberals don't like it. They don't want balance there.

He's not a conservative. He's a fascist. A conservative wouldn't have written that memo.

The memo was not "this is as much as we can justify getting away with." It spelled out the Justice Dept.'s opinion on what is and what is not torture. If I'm not mistaken. I haven't read it myself.

WHEN YOU WORK FOR THE JUSTICE DEPT. YOU ARE WORKING FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE--YOU ARE WORKING FOR ME!

Bybee, you betrayed the American people, and for that you must pay.

May you be impeached, disbarred, imprisoned, and removed of your right to vote.

Doesn't it make you happy that you and he share an alma mater?

No doubt, Bybee was instructed to come up with a document that would justify various means of torture, and give it the imprimatur of morality and legality, as I have already said.

And Bybee complied.

But that was his moment of courage. He could have said no. He should have said no. He should have said "I will have no part of this, I'm not writing this."

But at the end of the day, he did as he was asked, and he signed his name. HE SIGNED HIS NAME. He said, THIS IS MY WORK, AND I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.

All I am asking is that he be held responsible for what he claimed responsibility for.

The loyal boy he is, I doubt he will turn state's witness and implicate his co-conspirators. No, I think he would be willing to serve a couple years in jail, all the while patting himself on the back as one of the true "warriors" against terrorism. One of the men "fearless," "who knows what must be done."

This is a man that will be described as decent. Gentle. A man that looks you in the eye with a firm handshake. A man that cries at the pulpit.

But sadly, a man that has lost his way. The tragedy of Jay Bybee. I hope a book is written someday, where we find out the truth behind his rise and (hopefully) fall.

Let's not kid ourselves here. While they teach what they call "religion" at BYU, it certainly is not ethics.

At BYU, they do teach you to do what you are told. Who better to write the torture memo, then a diligent man who always does what he is told?

It's kinda amusing to watch Waters continually blame Mormonism for Bybee's willingness to write that memo.

This latest announcement is just further evidence of the Left's desire to criminalize politics. Whether one agrees with Bybee's authored opinions, the charge he did something illegal by writing them is patently ridiculous. The only people who can't see that are those blinded by their anti-torture Bloodlust.

I'm disappointed that the light that should have been in Bybee did not shine. I expect better of him.

Times editorial calls for the impeachment of Bybee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19sun1.html

Whether or not he broke the law is entirely separate from whether or not he should face consequences for his actions. He was a coward and failed to do his job as he swore to do when he became a lawyer. He should be disbarred. He should be impeached.

I disagree with the memo he wrote, but if he failed to violate the law, how can he be disbarred or impeached?

Because you don't like his moral ethics?

On what basis?

Are you suggesting the only standard for disbarment or impeachment is criminal conduct?

He advocated a position that was clearly contrary to law and public policy. He began with the conclusion and backed his way into a "legal" justification for that position when his obligation was to tell his employer what the law actually said and to follow it. He placed the interests of his employer before the interests of the country and its laws. Those are not the signs of a capable counsel, those are the signs of a coward. He certainly should not have been rewarded with a federal judgeship for his unethical conduct.

Who knows how many have suffered at the hands of those operating under the imprimatur of authority granted to them by Mr. Bybee.

If it was so "clearly" contrary, then there wouldn't be a debate about it.

I think impeaching a judge for political expediency is dangerous ground to be breaking. If I recall, that's what usually gets the Democrats all riled up when the situation is reversed. Heck, they even got mad when Bush allegedly fired some of his OWN lawyers for political purposes.

If Bybee had an ounce of regret, he would resign.

If Bybee had an ounce of regret, he would apologize.

Sometimes, when what you do is heinous enough, the only way the mind can grapple with it is to justify it.

See: Khmer Rouge.

Dick Cheney said over the weekend that if the Obama admin is going to take the (unwise, IMO) move to release interrogation memos, they ought to release the whole story, including the good that came of them.

Now the NYTimes has obtained memo from Obama's national intelligence director--an admiral--saying that the techniques "produce[d] significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists." The interestingly part is, the memo was released last week with the rest, but with those statements deleted from the text.

The admiral's spokeswoman called it "normal editing." Right. More like the further politicizing of national security.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/

Can't Cheney die already? How long is the man going to poison the country?

Let's torture every criminal suspect we arrest. I'll bet we get some useful information in a few cases.

The logical fallacy is that the information could not have been obtained in any other way.

It IS clearly contrary. The fact that there is a debate doesn't speak to the lack of clarity but to the degree to which people are willing to go when they are scared and threatened.

This is hardly an issue of political expediency, despite your best efforts to make it so.

What is his point? If it works it must be legal? Are you really on board with this line of reasoning, Tex? Seriously? Even assuming the truth of his statement?

Ironically, the Khmer Rouge used waterboarding, which we promptly denounced as torture. The Japanese used it as well. Some of those who used it were later executed for war crimes.

It blows my mind that OBL has started us down the path of a police state, and nobody cares.

Illegal wiretaps? Who cares.

"Patriot" Act? Yawn.

Homeland Security? Gives me warm fuzzies.

Is it possible Bybee could be executed?

No, I don't think that's his point.

The NY Times editorial page isn't very objective, so it's no surprise it would call for impeachment.

I'm not defending Bybee. I was only pointing out what lawyers do.

Then what do you think is his point?

That the benefits should be carefully weighed against the drawbacks in determining policy. That attitude is reflected in this quote:

It's too bad the Bush administration and the CIA acted without oversight. I think Nancy and Bob Graham would have put a stop to waterboarding. Oh...that's right, I forgot Congress does have oversight over intelligence and receives briefing on the legality of their programs methods; it's their job.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us...nted=3&_r=1&hp

Is it possible Pelosi could be executed?

No. She is already more Botox and hair products than human.

I am referring to Dick Cheney, not the admiral.

While I find it disturbing that anyone could ever approve these tactics, Pelosi certainly included, I am less troubled by political approval of the tactics than I am by the legal opinions which enabled the political approval, except to the extent the politicians drove the lawyers to reach a certain conclusion and then used that legal conclusion as a tool to persuade other politicians to approve the conduct as well.

I suppose a violation of known ethics of your local bar association also rise to the leve of potential disbarment or impeachment, but such would have to be with notice and warning, so for all practical purposes, the only sitting judges I know of that have been impeached have been first convicted of crimes.

As a policy rule, you couldn't allow vague generalities to suffice to remove potentially unpopular judges. I'm uncomfortable with that standard.

Had the memo been known more broadly, it casts much doubt on whether Bybee would have been confirmed to the Court in the first place.

I haven't specifically read Cheney's quotes, I'm just going off what was reported. I assume he feels the same way.

Are you troubled at all by the advocacy to use impeachment and/or disbarment as a political weapon, to threaten lawyers of a previous administration simply because the governing ideology and resulting policies have changed?

taking a monster off one of the most important courts in the land, who has done things that would have prevented his confirmation in the first place, is hardly political.

That isn't the point of the threat of impeachment and/or disbarment. The fact that you believe this to be the result of a change of "governing ideology and resulting policies" is depressing.

It isn't supposed to be the point, I agree. But if Bybee is impeached, disbarred, or jailed based on the information that is currently public, that's exactly what it will be. Does that trouble you?

No, that isn't what it will be, so no, it doesn't trouble me.

By the way, here are the rest of the admiral's comments:

“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us...er=rss&emc=rss