From the Article linked in the OP (describinb a memo signed off on by Bybee:
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture"The memo interpreted the federal anti-torture statute as only prohibiting pain equivalent to 'the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.'"
Notice: only serious physical injury.
The freakin' full
nameof one of the treaties to which we are party is The United Nations Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
So, you don't have to read past the name of the treaty for an alarm bell to start going off. But, let's "zoom" from the title all the way to the beginning of the treaty, to the treaty's definition of torture.
"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or
mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
– Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1
Note: Torture is NOT ONLY physical, amounting to organ failure or death, as the government memo claims, but also severe mental suffering.
And if that is not enough: (Also from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture)
"Because it is often difficult to distinguish between cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture, the Committee regards Article 16's prohibition of such treatment as similarly absolute and non-derogable.<6>"
In other words, cruel, inhuman or DEGRADING treatment sometimes amounts to torture, and we don't want to play word games with y'all, so we are just slapping an ABSOUTE ban on that kind of treatment, too. You know, cause it can also amount to torture, too.
And then the Geneva Conventions From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions"Common Article 3
Article 3 has been called a "Convention in miniature." It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international conflicts.<2>
It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by
all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated
humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even though no one is classified as a prisoner of war."
From the article linked in the OP:
"Bybee, a judge on the California-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, headed the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel from October 2001 through March 2003. He signed off on four memos related to the policy.
During his 2003 confirmation hearing, Bybee declined to answer questions about his work in the Legal Counsel's office."
Okey dokey. You are in charge of deciding whether to confirm a judge. He refuses to answer questions about his most recent job, which has been as sort of lawyer for the D of J, and the D of J's job function is to represent the United States of America in court. No alarm bells go off when Bybee refuses to answer?
From the article linked in the OP:
"In the summer of 2004, Leahy noted, more than a year after his confirmation, a memo signed by Bybee on Aug. 1, 2002, became public."
1/ If the lying Bybee memo became public in 2004, why did it not set off alarm bells that would cause Congress to investigate until now?
2/ Who was in charge of providing information to Congress in connection with the Bybee confirmation hearings and does failure to provide this memo during the confirmation process violate any law?
IMO, anyone who signed off on a definition of torture limited to serious physical injury, like organ failure or death, is a lousy, lousy lawyer and/or a HIGHLY dishonest one.
MO, no one who refused to answer questions about his last job, which was his first gubbamint job and culminated in a judicial nomination after a couple of years, should ever have been confirmed as a judge of the United States. This was NOT a job where he was White House counsel like John Dean, or counsel to the President and therefore can claim attorney client privilege and executive privilege. It was a job where he was counsel the D of J, which, in turn, is counsel for the United States of America. Yet, they confirmed him.
In case you missed it, Bybee is a turd who traded dishonest "legal" opinions about torture for a judgeship. (This I got from another article, where Bybee asked Gonzalez for a judgeship and Gonzalez replied, come work for the gubbamint for a while first and we'll see what opens up after that" Or words to that effect.) He needs to be impeached, no matter what.
Congress was wrong to confirm him in 2003. That was a Republican Congress, to be sure, but I sure don't recall any public outcry or fillibustering from Democrats on this.
Having failed to keep him off the bench in 2003, Congress should have impeached Bybee in 2004, when his despicable memos became public. Same comment on Republicans and Democrats as above.
When Democrats took over Congress in 2006, the last thing Democrats should have done was cleaned tables. They should have initiated investigations immediately, created an Independent Counsel,, etc. Whatever it took.
Then, Bybee should have been impeached, and so should Bush and Cheney.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
