John Dean - The Torture Memo That Haunted Gonzales's Confirmation Hearings

[housewolf]

The Torture Memo By Judge Jay S. Bybee That Haunted Alberto Gonzales's Confirmation Hearings

<snip>

Actually, Gonzales, it turns out, was not the only focus of attention at his confirmation hearings. Time and again, one heard the name Jay S. Bybee - now a federal appellate judge. Bybee was confirmed for his seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by the Senate on March 13, 2003.

The reason Bybee's name came up so frequently was that he signed and sent the now-infamous August 1, 2002 torture memorandum to Gonzales. At the time, Bybee was Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) - an office once called the conscience of the Justice Department.

The memo leaked during the summer of 2004, so it was notably absent from Bybee's own confirmation hearing. And he stonewalled questions about advice relating to the war on terror. But his memo played a prominent role in Gonzales's - as well it should have.

This document is the most alarming bit of classified information to surface during wartime since the 1971 leak of the Pentagon Papers relating to the war in Vietnam.

Bybee's memorandum, however, is far more insidious than any of that material.

<snip>

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050114.html

[housewolf]

1. John Dean

I can't believe that I can say this... but... I LOVE JOHN DEAN! His articles are so insightful and cogent - always spot-on. This is an excellent read.

[murielm99]

2. Have you read his Worse than Watergate?

Great book!

[Demit]

3. I'm reading it now. Excellent!

I like his style of understated outrage. He's so measured and matter-of-fact it makes the case against * and Cheney that much more damning. Plus, I thought I was so familiar with the events of the past few years, but he points out a few facts I didn't know--and then points out why: they weren't covered by mainstream media. I'll look for his other stuff from now on.

[Quakerfriend]

4. Yes, one of the best books I've ever read

What's so amazing is how you can see things that he writes of in the book playing out now- the asbestos lawsuits come to mind.

I rec'd it to everyone I know.

[housewolf]

5. Highly recommend

Great book from someone who knows

[msgadget]

6. Yes!

There was enough history - much of which he witnessed - for him to be able to substantiate his opinions.

[grasswire]

7. John Yoo, anti-American

His name keeps popping up as a real true fascist.

[Martin Eden]

8. Bybee memo evidence of war crime

Experts Have Made Clear that the Bybee Memo Evidences War Crimes
--snip--
Both of these witnesses decimated Bybee's legal interpretations. For example, Dean Koh minced no words when he stated, "in my professional opinion as a law professor and a law dean, the Bybee memorandum is perhaps the most clearly legally erroneous opinion I have ever read." And he proceeded to spell out no less than "five obvious failures" within the memo.

According to Dean Koh, the memo's blatant flaws include its ignoring the existing "zero tolerance policy" on torture, and its defining torture so loosely that it would tolerate "the things that Saddam Hussein's forces did" such as "beating, pulling out a fingernail, burning with hot irons, suspension from ceiling fans" to name a few. Also, Koh noted, the memo so "grossly overreads the president's constitutional power" that, under its logic, the president could "order genocide or other kinds of acts" and neither Congress nor the courts could stop him.

Additionally, the memo's advice that "executive officials can escape prosecution if they are carrying out the president's orders as commander in chief" is, Koh noted, the same I-was-following-orders "defense which was rejected in Nuremberg and is at the very basis of our international criminal law." Finally, Koh noted, Bybee's memo tolerates "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment," which is contrary to the existing law.

Other international law, and law of war, experts tell me that Bybee's memo (not to mention a few others) is damning evidence suggesting a common plan on the part of the Administration to violate the laws of war. Strikingly, such a "common plan," or conspiracy, is itself a war crime.