Liberals: Impeach "torture memo" judge

BushCo cronie Jay Bybee should not only be impeached, he should be disbarred. Only a crackpot lawyer would write "legal memos" enabling torture in this country.

The Repugs followed Bush and Cheney over the cliff on Iraq and now they're doing the same with Bush and Cheney's torture program. It's almost like they've completely given up on trying to win elections.
.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/04/this_analogy_isnt_close_to.php

Stop the witch hunt!. You morons are
safe and free due to the Bush administration. Torture, and Gitmo work. I don't want a weaker America with our so called President licking other countries boots. We do not have to apologize for anything. Europe and the Far East, and the South Pacific are also free because of American policies and fighting men.

This Mr. Bybee should be impeached. Let's not stop there though. He should be disbarred, his pension should be revoked and he should be fully prosecuted.

Stop the witch hunt!. You morons are
safe and free due to the Bush administration. Torture, and Gitmo work. I don't want a weaker America with our so called President licking other countries boots.
Posted by: Paul | April 28, 2009 3:47 PM
.............

Rush,
Bush "kept us safe"? Is that what he was doing on 9/11, when he was clearing brush at his fake ranch and ignoring memo's that said: "Bin-Laden Determined to Strike Inside America!"?

And since when is shaking hands with other world leaders considered "licking their boots", you nutjob?
.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/20/gingrich-obama-chavez/

This shouldn't be about politics. Torture is a human rights violation as vile as genocide and slavery.

arguing the the effectiveness of torture is like arguing the savings in labor for slavery.

You don't have to be a liberal democrate to rail against torture. Rebeca your drinking too much partisan koolaid

"Torture Judge" is what I'd call him.

Obviously he made the Faustian bargain with Bush/Cheney.

Well, Mr. Scratch has come calling a lot sooner than Bybee thought.

One copy of the Wannsee Protocol survived the end of WW II and the fall of Berlin--a document prepared from the stenographic transcript of the Wannsee Conference.

It is unsettling how similar the style, locution, or perhaps I should say circumlocution, use of euphemism, etc. in the Wannsee Protocol and the Torture Judge's memos are.

The troublesome thing about the "advice of counsel" defense is that when, as here, you are the lawyer who wrote out the "advice", the point man, as it were, you take the fall. Now that Berlin II, a/k/a Bush Admin., has fallen.

Ninth Circuit has both the Porno Judge and the Torture Judge. Both Republicans. So, there must be something a little off with their "vetting".

Posted by: Paul | April 28, 2009 3:47 PM
Torture and freedom don't coexist. We won World War 2 without the use of torture, and now you want to adopt the methods of the regimes we defeated in the name of freedom.

If you review the newspapers in smaller towns, the number of article wanting to know what happened on torture is increasing quickly. This is not going away.

I think the King of Jordan put it well. People though out the Middle East are looking to see if the rule of law is real or not in America. Just like many of our closet friends, that stopped working with us on intelligence issues, are wondering if America has turned a corner or not. McCain is a good example of someone saying they are against torture, but do not want anyone held accountable nor want talk about it.

Amazing and real.

Let's see... I read that there had been over 400 Armed Services cases against military personnel... and 4000 dead US people overseas, 100,000 dead Iraqis, and 2,000,000 refuges

Nothing like torture to try and get a link to justify the Iraq war!!!! Sure torture works...

Mel,

If you don't understand the difference between fighting nation-states and terrorists, you don't know the first thing about warfare and the different protection each is allowed.

And if you flatliners want you dog and pony show hearings, I suggest the 43rd President of the United States be the first on to be called.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/rendition701/timeline/timeline_1.html

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html

The CIA agents who destroyed the videos of the torture should be indicted.

I surmise the destroyed DVDs show:

1. A lot worse things than waterboarding being performed on the subjects beyond "simulated" drowning;

2. In the waterboarding DVDs, some shocking instances of the heroic measures necessary to "revive" subjects who "lost consciousness".

Will these agents who destroyed evidence be called to justice?

Or were they, too , relying on Judge Bybee's absolution?

The Wannsee Conference is a fascinating little chapter in history.
Brilliantly dramatized by Kenneth Branagh (as Heydrich) in the film CONSPIRACY.

The participants at Wannsee, like the CIA agents here, took care to destroy the evidence--the minutes, or Wannsee Protocol, which Eichmann prepared.

Only one copy survived; otherwise, there might have been no record of the Conference.

So, here, the CIA has sought to destroy the evidence.

If you don't understand the difference between fighting nation-states and terrorists, you don't know the first thing about warfare and the different protection each is allowed. And if you flatliners want you dog and pony show hearings, I suggest the 43rd President of the United States be the first on to be called.
Posted by: Terry | April 28, 2009 7:33 PM
**************

Teabagger Terri,

"Dog & Pony show"? - is that what you called the Nuremberg trials?

Don't worry your little head, Terri. We'll make sure that Shrub Jr goes down with all of your other war crimes heroes.

PS - you actually expect us to believe that a Repug armchair chickenhawk warrior like you actually knows anything about warfare? Ha ha ha!
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFGit_tZDqs

If you don't understand the difference between fighting nation-states and terrorists, you don't know the first thing about warfare and the different protection each is allowed
Posted by: Terry | April 28, 2009 7:33 PM
.

What part of 'WE DON'T TORTURE' don't you understand, girlfriend?

Terry, torture is illegal in all cases, whether against soldiers or terrorists. That's both federal and international law. But the rule of law means nothing to you. You prefer the law of the jungle.

Terry, I assume you hit the wrong key and meant to reference 42 (Clinton)?

If so, don't bother.

The Democratic Party rejected the Clintons.

She wouldn't give in even as the neon sign was on the wall.

And the more they reflected on the Marc Rich pardon and other Clintonisms, the stronger the rejection.

True, Hill is Secy of State, but I think that was given to her on the theory that he'd rather have her in the tent p-----g out than the other way round.

Clinton tried too hard to be a Republican after 1994.
Plus, I think after the 1995 Pizza delivery trysts with M. the Republicans let him know they had something on him, as an additional incentive to play ball with them.

Finally the cat, so to speak, was let out of the blue dress before the 98 election, in January.

But if Clinton had done the honorable thing, like Spitzer, and resigned, think of all the grief the US would have been spared.

Except for Letterman, of course.

Great Moments in Presidential Speechs---people used to tune in just to watch that bit every night.

I know I did.

Ter, if you meant to reference Clinton, you hit the wrong key. He was 42.

Dem party rejected the Clintons.

The more that comes out about them, the more they are rejected. Marc Rich and all that.

Clinton behaved more like a Republican than a Dem after 1994.

Then, when the Pizza Delivery Girl really delivered in 1995, something tells me Clinton was advised his Monica trysts were known to more than just Betty Curry and Linda Tripp.
That kept him playing ball with the Replicans.
Then the election year 98 rolled around and they decided to go for broke--the whole nine-yard blue dress.

If Clinton had done the honorable thing like Spitzer and resigned, America would have been spared a lot of grief.

Except for Letterman of course. Great Moments in Presidential Speechs kept his ratings up for years. People used to tune in every night just to see that bit.

I know I did.

Trickled On You,

If you are going to prosecute those that have waterboarded, let's start with our own military on its own officers. There are 1000's of officers that could line up for a lawsuit. Then again, what would the evidence be that they were tortured - they all went on to be functioning officers of our military. No longer-term damage.

Opie and Ornery,

Are you two one in the same?

You know my typing skills well - I meant the 42nd president.

Let the trials begin and if you the dems want Bush in prision for "torture", then he can share a cell with Clinton.

Let the games begin. Politically, this will be the same over-reach that the GOP did with the impeachment of Clinton for lying under oath in a sexual harassment trial.

Terry, there is a huge difference between being test waterboarded, for a few seconds, under controlled conditions, when the person being waterboarded can end the waterboarding as soon as they want, and the repeated sustained waterboarding of prisoners with absolutely no control of the situation. Your comparison simply does not hold up, and in no way proves that being waterboarded hundreds of times does no long term damage. Do you really believe the crap you post?

Terri,
You meant Bush can share a cell with Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice?? I thought so.
Other than your fixation for Clinton, I don't see where he's part of this equation.

Doogie,

Similar rendition was done by Clinton - see by link above.

Mel,

There is a difference between a terrorist and US solider. I guess I can't assume you would know the difference.

The military does not have this done to the repeatedly since they are no withholding information that could save a large city like LA or a structure such as the Brooklyn Bridge.

If you have kids and one of these terrorists kidnapped your child on foriegn soil, would you be upset if a CIA operative waterboard the person to find out critical information upon the condition and whereabouts of your child?

Doogie,

Sure, it might be crowded when Gore, Albright, Cohen, and Perry

join them

Terry, not in the eyes of the laws regarding torture,. I assumed you knew that. I guess that was a bad assumption.

Yes Terry, I would be upset if a CIA agent tortured to save me or my child. Torture is evil. I'm willing to sacrifice just about anything to fight that evil, and fight for freedom. Obviously you are not.

Tell me Terry, What if your kid is arrested in a foriegn country and the regime there decides a little torture is in order, just in case your precious little snowflake knew something that would save their kids, are you just going to say "Oh, well, they were just trying to protect their kids. It's ok?"

I'm sure the torturers for the KGB thought they were protecting Mother Russia from vile enemies. I'm sure Saddam Husseins's torturers thought they were protecting Iraq from radical islamic enemies. Does that make it ok Terry? Were we wrong to condemn those nations for their acts?

Mel,

The difference bewteen your example and mine is that the torture in my example is being done to the terrorist and not an innocent child. The terrorist that killed 3,000 and was planning on killing thousand more. The inncoent child was just picked up.

Next time make sure when you concoct an example, make sure you get the comparison correct