Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Quid Pro Quo-Bybee/Yoo/Bradbury Sought & Got Higher Office By Supporting Torture

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 09:38 PM
Original message
Quid Pro Quo-Bybee/Yoo/Bradbury Sought & Got Higher Office By Supporting Torture
Edited on Mon Feb-22-10 09:45 PM by kpete
By Scott Horton
February 22, 3:28 PM
Quid Pro Quo

A critical question in examining the criminal culpability of the torture memo writers goes to what lawyers call mens rea or guilty mind. With respect to a joint criminal enterprise to torture, the requisite mens rea is simple: the perpetrators must have the intention to introduce torture. John Yoo and Jay Bybee have repeatedly stated that they believe their advice was and is correct, that none of the techniques they counseled or approved were torture, and that therefore they are innocent. They continue to adhere to this position, even in recent interviews, for a simple reason: it would be vital to their defense in the event of a future criminal prosecution.

But the facts developed by the OPR report strongly support another approach to the mens rea problem. There is strong evidence to show that each of the key actorsJay Bybee, John Yoo, and Steven Bradburyhad the same compelling motivation in rendering false legal advice. Each sought a specific high office that the recipients of the memos were able to give to them.

...........................

Jay Bybee, while working in the White House, advised his boss Alberto Gonzales that he wanted a judicial nomination. The Washington Post reports:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403888.html

*****Bybees friends said he never sought the job at the Office of Legal Counsel. The reason he went back to Washington, (Randall) Guynn said, was to interview with then-White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales for a slot that would be opening on the 9th Circuit when a judge retired. The opening was not yet there, however, so Gonzales asked, Would you be willing to take a position at the OLC first? Guynn said. Being unable to answer for what followed is very frustrating, said Guynn, who spoke to Bybee before agreeing to be interviewed.

.................

The evidence therefore supports the case for a quid pro quo scheme in which Bybee, Yoo, and Bradbury were offered powerful government preferments (in Bybees case, a life-time judgeship) in exchange for rendering the opinions. In fact, the Justice Departments Public Integrity Section has regularly prosecuted public office holdersboth those making the appointments and those seeking themon the ground that the extraction of a wrongful act in exchange for a preferment constitutes an act of public corruption. Consider, for instance, the recent prosecution of Judge Bobby DeLaughter in Mississippi, whose judgment in a criminal case was claimed to have been corruptly influenced by the offer of a federal judgeship, or Governor Don Siegelman in Alabama, who was prosecuted for appointing a campaign supporter to an honorary unpaid oversight board.

more:
http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006587
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yes! That's the scenario that makes everything
else fall into place. In hindsight, it the most obvious scenario.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. So did that apply to the other actors as well?
Like David Addington? Or Viet Dinh, one of the authors of the PATRIOT Act?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benld74 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. God will judge them when it counts the most
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Excellent point.
Until that day, may they spend their remaining years imprisoned at hard labor, making little rocks out of big ones in their younger days and printing license plates in their dotage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtrockville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
5. Chief Justice Roberts too.
Edited on Mon Feb-22-10 10:44 PM by jtrockville
Hamdan v Rumsfeld wasn't about torture, but it was about violations of the Geneva Conventions. It's not hard to follow the quid-pro-quo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan 16th 2022, 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC