Bybee may have to face the music after all

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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?

Mormons don't need to learn "ethics." Somehow we're exempt because we're mormon. At least that seemed to be a pretty popular opinion while I was at BYU among the other students when they had to take an ethics class or when I told them I was taking one.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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

It should be noted those comments were not in the original memo, but were issued after the story had broken (or he had been informed it was about to break).

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Mormons don't need to learn "ethics." Somehow we're exempt because we're mormon. At least that seemed to be a pretty popular opinion while I was at BYU among the other students when they had to take an ethics class or when I told them I was taking one.

If you need evidence that religion and ethics don't converge, just go to CB.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

It should be noted those comments were not in the original memo, but were issued after the story had broken (or he had been informed it was about to break).

Are you saying he is lying? If not, so what?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If you need evidence that religion and ethics don't converge, just go to CB.

Or just read a Tex post in virtually any thread.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Are you saying he is lying? If not, so what?

I'm saying he has tempered his remarks after the fact for political expediency.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm saying he has tempered his remarks after the fact for political expediency.

"Tempered his remarks," by saying that the procedures have made us more susceptible to danger and that there is no possible way of knowing if alternative methods would present the same or better results?

Those are dramatic statements from someone in his position. If you think he is lying, just say so. Stop dancing around the issue.

[MikeWaters]

Toobin lowers the cross-hairs onto Bybee:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...ing-bybee.html

The first, and very chilling memo in the group is an analysis of the various techniques that were used by C.I.A. interrogators on Abu Zubaydah. The author of the memo, which is dated August 1, 2002, is Jay S. Bybee, who was the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. Bybee concludes that all of these various techniques, including waterboarding, do not constitute torture under American or international law.

Bybee is generally the forgotten man in torture studies of the Bush era. The best known of the legal architects of the torture regime is John Yoo, who was a deputy to Bybee. For better or worse, Yoo has been a vocal defender of the various torture policies, and he remains outspoken on these issues. But whatever happened to his boss?

[MikeWaters]

LA Times on Bybee:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2274085.story

He's going to have to, at the very least, explain himself eventually.

The idea that he will just ride off into the sunset is not going to happen.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

LA Times on Bybee:

This is a great story.

As demands mounted Tuesday for sanctions against Bush administration lawyers who wrote so-called torture memos, one fiercely defended his legal justification for harsh interrogation tactics while another stuck to a carefully honed policy of silence.

"Carefully honed policy"? Heh. There's some objective journalism. And "sanctions"? What "sanctions" might Obama impose? Perhaps they could get the UN to pass a resolution: it would satiate the Left while accomplishing nothing.

"Three thousand of our fellow citizens had been killed in a deliberate attack by a foreign enemy," Yoo, unruffled by shouts that he is a war criminal and should be in jail, told a packed auditorium on the Orange County campus.

These are not your rational, sense-of-proportion types. These are the nutters: those who compare Bybee to Khmer Rouge and so forth.

Bybee is just a proxy for the folks who can't get at President Bush any longer.