judge FAIL
Apr. 20th, 2009 06:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drewkittyAbout the New York Times calling for the impeachment of a former Bush Administration attorney now turned Federal judge:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19sun1.html
"These memos make it clear that Mr. Bybee is unfit for a job that requires legal judgment and a respect for the Constitution. Congress should impeach him."
I see the argument. It's not a criminal prosecution, but rather a finding that someone who conducted such a horrid misread of the Constitution in an official capacity is simply unfit to be a judge.
What a grisly memo. He's talking about the law that codifies our compliance with the U.N. Convention Against Torture.
Let's quote him, from the memo itself:
"We conclude that torture as defined in and proscribed by Sections 2340-2340A, covers only extreme acts. Severe pain is generally of the kind difficult for the victim to endure. Where the pain is physical, it must be of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure. Severe mental pain requires suffering not just at the moment of inflict but it also requires lasting psychological harm, such as seen in mental disorders like [PTSD]. Additionally, such severe mental pain can arise only from the predicate acts listed in Section 2340. Because the acts inflicting torture are extreme, there is significant range of acts that though they might constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment fail to rise to the level of torture."
Earlier in the memo, he stipulates (as the Reagan administration did) that such cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, yet not amounting to torture, is a violation of Constitutional rights. He also points out that these can be read as a violation of Article 16 of the CAT:
"Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
Bybee continues:
"Further, we conclude that under the circumstances of the current war against al Qaeda and its allies, application of Section 2340A to interrogations undertaken pursuant to the President's Commander-in-Chief powers may be unconstitutional. Finally, even if an interrogation method might violate Section 2340A, necessity or self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability."
The comparison to a Mafia lawyer is apt. Essentially, the President is above the law -- above the Constitution, above treaty, above commonly held understandings of human rights -- if the President chooses to torture under his powers as Commander-in-Chief. And if this argument doesn't fly, bring on the self-defense claim (which can be tortured, pardon the not-pun, into the classic 'ticking bomb' interrogation) and the necessity defense (which again by Bybee's own admission in the memo, can be used to justify the torture of innocent third parties with critical intelligence.)
To quote Article 2, Sections 1 and 2 of the CAT:
Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
And let me quote just a tad from the Constitution of the United States, here, at Article Six:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
This is massive judge fail. Purely epic. In fact, I think a move to impeach him on simple incompetence might go over well. I'm embarrassed to have him in the circuit I happen to reside in.
Other references:
Wikipedia on the memo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybee_
ImpeachBybee.org
http://www.democrats.com/no-amnesty-f
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19sun1.html
"These memos make it clear that Mr. Bybee is unfit for a job that requires legal judgment and a respect for the Constitution. Congress should impeach him."
I see the argument. It's not a criminal prosecution, but rather a finding that someone who conducted such a horrid misread of the Constitution in an official capacity is simply unfit to be a judge.
What a grisly memo. He's talking about the law that codifies our compliance with the U.N. Convention Against Torture.
Let's quote him, from the memo itself:
"We conclude that torture as defined in and proscribed by Sections 2340-2340A, covers only extreme acts. Severe pain is generally of the kind difficult for the victim to endure. Where the pain is physical, it must be of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure. Severe mental pain requires suffering not just at the moment of inflict but it also requires lasting psychological harm, such as seen in mental disorders like [PTSD]. Additionally, such severe mental pain can arise only from the predicate acts listed in Section 2340. Because the acts inflicting torture are extreme, there is significant range of acts that though they might constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment fail to rise to the level of torture."
Earlier in the memo, he stipulates (as the Reagan administration did) that such cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, yet not amounting to torture, is a violation of Constitutional rights. He also points out that these can be read as a violation of Article 16 of the CAT:
"Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
Bybee continues:
"Further, we conclude that under the circumstances of the current war against al Qaeda and its allies, application of Section 2340A to interrogations undertaken pursuant to the President's Commander-in-Chief powers may be unconstitutional. Finally, even if an interrogation method might violate Section 2340A, necessity or self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability."
The comparison to a Mafia lawyer is apt. Essentially, the President is above the law -- above the Constitution, above treaty, above commonly held understandings of human rights -- if the President chooses to torture under his powers as Commander-in-Chief. And if this argument doesn't fly, bring on the self-defense claim (which can be tortured, pardon the not-pun, into the classic 'ticking bomb' interrogation) and the necessity defense (which again by Bybee's own admission in the memo, can be used to justify the torture of innocent third parties with critical intelligence.)
To quote Article 2, Sections 1 and 2 of the CAT:
Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
And let me quote just a tad from the Constitution of the United States, here, at Article Six:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
This is massive judge fail. Purely epic. In fact, I think a move to impeach him on simple incompetence might go over well. I'm embarrassed to have him in the circuit I happen to reside in.
Other references:
Wikipedia on the memo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybee_
ImpeachBybee.org
http://www.democrats.com/no-amnesty-f
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-04-24 06:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-25 05:42 am (UTC)