Jesus, what a whiner. All I can think of is the movie Clerks and its classic slacker refrain, "I'm not even supposed to be here today!"

The only more-or-less honorable thing for Bybee to do at this point is resign. Seriously.

If he really feels so bad he can resign and save us the work of impeaching him.

All other torture denialists: Christianist warrior heroes. Bybee: Christianist martyr-saint. The corporatist-authoritarian, um, 'conservative' narrative marches on.

I've heard him express regret at the lack of context

The context was a conspiracy to fabricate evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq. The context was that in a world of classified operations, the memo would serve as permission to torture, regardless of the laws. The context was that there were plenty of laws, both statutory and case, that made it clear these procedures were illegal. And the context was that his superiors knew his position at OLC was part of an autition for the circuit court. The rest is irrelevant.

"I've heard him express regret at the contents of the memo," said a fellow legal scholar and longtime friend, who spoke on the condition of anonymity while offering remarks that might appear as "piling on."

Good god, what does that even mean? The granting of anonymity on demand must stop. At a certain point, if someone doesn't want to be on the record, you shouldn't be able to use the quote.

Are you serious? This smorgasbord of lame-ass excuses from the self-proclaimed torch-bearers of "personal responsibility?" This clown needs to be hauled away in an orange jump suit and leg irons, along with Yoo, Addington, et al!

Under the pressures of time and the fear of doing the wrong thing, Bybee says that he was unable to recognize and do the right thing, so his resulting memo was not top-quality and "got away from him". Indeed, this happened on a matter where the Constitution, international treaties, and past practice are all quite clear-cut.

Don't judges routinely make life and death decisions under constraints of time and political pressure, where the decisions must be just and and must either master and respect established precedence or overturn it for judicious reasons that are carefully justified in well-written documents? So isn't Bybee's miserable performance a straightforward demonstration of incompetence at the primary tasks of being a high-level judge?

So, how does this anonymous person know Bybee's intention? The contents of his "heart"? Why does Bybee not speak for himself? Is anonymous just another coward of the Republican persuasion?
I heard General Wilkerson on Rachel Maddow's show Thursday call Cheney a coward (paraphrased), who lives in fear and acts from fear, ever since he avoided military service during the VietNam era.
I think this is the midset of most of these people on the right, and many Congresspersons on both sides of the aisle who allow these liars to get away with it, day after day. Until someone besides Dennis Kucinich & Nader call them out, nothing will change. The Sunday morning gabfests are replete with the spokespersons and cowards of the media, who will not get in the faces of these political liars, but allow them to lie with no pushback, if they are even allowed on the air.

I get so frustrated with reading these blog comments that address, in many cases, the facts and yet are not heard beyond these pages. I wonder what Olbermann and Maddow have to sacrifice to remain on the air every night. Phil Donahue was summarily dismissed for his anti-war position by MSNBC. I'd love to see him interviewed by one of the Sunday talk hosts. Not likely.

Oh well, that is off my chest.
peace,
st john

I think N. Wells has it exactly right. We all have a context in which we make our decisions, for better or worse. The ability to make good decisions in tough situations is what makes a person good at his or her job. To say I would have done better, but it was hard may be true, but it speaks more about the person saying it than it does about the circumstances under which a decision was made. If Bybee is really so self-aware to recognize he got it wrong, he should also know he needs to resign. And Congress should see that this "regret", real or not, is not a reason to give Bybee a pass, but a clear demonstration of the lack of a judicial temperament.

If, in fact, Bybee has spoken to people about the contents and process of these memos then any claim of privilege has been waived. He should be forced to testify to the Congress about how these memos were drafted and produced.

While we are at it what is the possible justification for allowing these types of comments to be treated as anonymous source material?

The honorable thing for Bybee to do is to emulate the Romans and draw himself a warm bath. Or the Japanese.

This article reveals him as the most shallow person imaginable. He "regrets" that it got away from him. I have no doubt that is true, that he was steamrolled by John Yoo and Cheney and Addington. But that's the point. He is utterly lacking in moral character.

Most people who commit vehicular manslaughter feel remore I'm fairly sure. But we hold them responsible precisely so that other people will think twice about driving drunk or negligently. Surely as judge he should understand that. It's about personal responsibility and moral character, things the GOP is always telling the rest of us are paramount values. Bybee clearly lacks both. He should resign and implicate Cheney and the rest of those who made him do it.

To reiterate my point from downblog: Suppose for the sake of honing the argument we pretend torture can be OK in some circumstances. Even then, there's more to the picture, so it's not just about "what if a terrorist knew how to stop a catastrophe, can't we torture the info out of him"? For example, some detainees are innocent. Harsh techniques against *suspects* are dangerous because we will end up using them on some innocent people who can't easily "cooperate."

Also, there's the issue of abuse of any process even if we granted it was OK in principle. Our legal system allows arrest and imprisonment, but crooked cops and crooked can get in trouble for how they handle the process Finally, the whole point of investigations is to find out what happened, but defenders of the torturers act like investigation is a prosecution for granted.

ReRushlickins' won't care about such squishy subtleties.

what i hear is that bybee considers the memo bearing his name to be wrong in its reasoning. that being the case, it does not -- and never did -- give legal cover to the use of torture by the bush administration.

it's kind of a back door, perhaps unintentional, way of admitting that torture policies carried out by the bush administration are in fact illegal.

i'd like to see bybee locked in a room wallpapered with photographs of what came from his "mistake."

If I remember correctly, Albert Speer had a lot of regret, too. His book "Inside the Third Reich" seems to be providing a lot of ReThuglican (and never has that name been more apt) talking points.

Lame, lame, lame. Traditional Republican't non-apology apology.

"I regret that someone took my detailed descriptions of methods of 'enhanced interrogation' and followed them to the letter."

"I didn't read what I signed my name to" is that it?

The last bit sez it all, "I had to do it, or I never would have gotten the life-time appeals court appointment I really, really wanted. I had to spell out torture methods or I would never have been able to achieve my dream."

And Republican'ts say lefties are the party of self-gratification.

Isn't Jane Harman in trouble for the appearance of the kind of 'quid pro quo' this article implies Bybee engaged in? (Except for, you know, the torture.)

Doesn't anyone but Democrat official resign any more when they're caught red-handed? It's seriously time to hit the road Bybee. You'll get no sympathy from anyone, except you lawless friends perhaps.

That's "a Democrat official". Where is the god damn edit button?

So now we know the "context" for Bybee allowing a memo with which he was not "pleased" to go out under his name: He REALLY wanted that spot on the 9th Circuit. Isn't that what we call a quid pro quo?

So there we have the quid pro quo.
Commit these criminal acts and you will receive a lifetime appointment as a judge of other criminal acts.

Regrets - yeah, he probably really regrets all this came out. Regrets he got caught. Common enough in a courtroom I suppose.

"as amn NYT recently noted"

amn?

Just like every schoolyard bully - laughing merrily at the squeals of protest as long as things are going his way, and blubbering like a two-year-old (or, at least, his few friends assure us he is) as soon as he has to assume responsibility. Jay Bybee was on top of the world while the Republicans were riding high, and gave every evidence of relishing his power. Now he's only another rat scrambling to get off before the ship sinks.

Fits right in with all those judges who realized the error of their ways at Nuremberg.
Bybee sounds like an opportunist willing to compromise his integrity to get promoted. They came seeking justification for torture and Bybee not only gave it to them but went a step further noting they could even step further than they already had. If McCain were president Bybee would have no regrets.

Time for accountability. He will force his impeachment before volunteering to step down but it is all about him and his career without a thought about a program that was so horrendous and did such damage to so many human beings.
That is why he only 'now' feels any regret because of how it makes 'him' look. I'll wait till I hear him say "I regret that my memos allowed others to commit such horrible acts on other humans and because I succumbed to such pressure to give the president and VP justification to torture just to advance my own career, I feel I should resign my judgeship"

Bybee should have realized that any Torture bought right from the retail show room would depreciate greatly, just by taking it off the dealer's lot.

Alas, Mr. Bybee it is a bit too late to have buyer's remorse! -Kevo

"Congress should impeach him"? If the House does impeach him, it would be based on his actions before becoming a judge. That's probably a new precedent--do we want to set it? And can you really get enough Republicans in the Senate to vote for conviction? Let us not forget the history of the Clinton impeachment so soon.

Impeaching someone for criminal (or at least profoundly unethical) activity pre-appointment that didn't become known until after the appointment is not unprecedented. At a minimum Bybee's actions virtually demand disbarment, which unfortunately does not lead inevitably to his removal from the bench since federal judges are not legally required to be lawyers. That means impeachment is ultimately necessary if he doesn't have the decency to resign.

It is possible that the Republicans will refuse to support his conviction in the Senate. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth doing. First, removing Bybee is the right thing to do and giving up before without even trying would send a very bad message. Second, going over Bybee's ridiculous and disgusting "legal" opinions in detail and forcing Republicans to publically support him (assuming they suffer an unexpected return to return to sanity) would also be worthwhile.

Oops, the parenthetical part of that lsat comment should have read "assuming the don't suffer an unexpected return to sanity."

"Are you serious? This smorgasbord of lame-ass excuses from the self-proclaimed torch-bearers of "personal responsibility?" This clown needs to be hauled away in an orange jump suit and leg irons, along with Yoo, Addington, et al!..."
Posted by: bogenrim on April 25, 2009 at 1:57 PM |

Yet look how Don Siegleman was treated. Shackled in leg irons. gagged and drug off to solitary confinement...an ex-Governor of AL. He was also deprived out of the election he clearly won and not a word from DoJ.

What did Holder expect out of such a corrupt DoJ, a good portion of whom should be in prison, including Bybee and Gonzales. The last 8yrs of the Bush crime family have consequences which includes 'un-doing' the wrongs they have done and holding them accountable.

Don Siegleman's case should have been overturned long before Holder dealt with the Steven's case. After all, Stevens is guilty, it was the way he was prosecuted that was in error. Whereas Siegleman is innocent of any crime and was railroaded by a corrupt judiciary. Had Bybee been on the case he probably would have found reason to justify having him tortured.

I love the remorse: "IT got away from him." Like the memo was an errant child that could do mischief of its own accord. Personal responsibility is only for poor people according to them.

btw...I never see this mentioned but intentional or not...it was Dick Cheney who allowed 9/11 to happen by calling down our defenses on that fatal day. (I still don't get what the VP was doing directing a military practice drill on that particular day instead of the sec of defense or another 'expert' in the area).

Whether you think of it like a man who tripped and accidentally hit the nuke button sending missiles out to start a WW and saying "whoops" or not...it was still Dick Cheney who called our defenses off or the twin towers would never have been hit by those off course passenger jets.

One would think that just knowing that would be enough for Cheney to feel so guilty that he'd keep his mouth shut from then on, on any subject dealing with 9/11...but NOOOOO. Why Cheney??? Why THAT particular day???? It's eerie that England was was also doing drills when they were attacked and their defenses were being told to stand down also. Coincidence??
Whatever, but if Cheney had not told our defenses to stand down (for whatever reason) 9/11 would not have happened.

Cheney attempted all kinds of illegal activities in other administrations before he came into power in the Bush adm,...why would one even doubt he didn't follow through once he got the power. Rove, Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and family of supporters which included Bybee and Yoo and many others.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that Bybee wrote an advocacy brief, considering his role to be that of an advocate for the position desired by the administration. Unfortunately that memo was then applied as a judicial legal decision, either by him or by others.

If that was the case, then he misunderstood his proper role, and there would be a lot of room for regret. It was also a massive professional failure on his part. He can't duck that. He can't be allowed to.

Someone needs to give us a careful review of Bybee's work as a member of the Ninth Circuit. I have read only one of his opinions, his dissent in the RUI case, and it is just as intellectually dishonest and results-driven as the torture memo. My suspicion is that we will find the same pattern throughout: Bybee reaching the result he wants, the law be damned.

Which makes these second-hand expressions of regret as hollow as a drum: he regrets that the memos have been published and that he has been revealed to be the unprincipled criminal hack that he is. But that has been his entire career in public service. Impeach him.

What is your heart vengeful about? What are you wanting?

Sorry Steve--I posted this on the wrong blog--meant for Hilzoy..

Don't you know "amn" ? It's a variant spelling of "an" in which the "m" is silent and acts as an abbreviation for the phrase "editorial in the".

So the whole hunka hunka burnin' sentence reads,

"an editorial in the NYT"

(There are grammarians of a twisted and perverted sort who maintain that it would read "an NYT editorial" but they are huffing glue and should be ignored.)

Here's the thing. Bybee was basically offered a federal judgeship in exchange for writing a memo advocating that which his bosses wanted. That was, in fact, a part of his job. They said, I'm sure, 'hey, write a brief, just as an exercise, justifying torture. We'll have joe write the other side' happens all the time. And that, in and of itself, isn't so terrible. But once it became perfectly clear, not long after, that his memo was actually being taken seriously, and used to justify the actions in it, he had a responsibility to stop it, either in private or by going public. That's the best case scenario. Worst case is he's just an unethical asshole. Your pick.

Short of resigning, I suppose that Bybee could pull an Earl Warren and becomes a zealous defender for equal protection and due process before the law -- but I suspect that's not in the cards. (Earl Warren, former governor of California, is one of the public officials who is probably most responsible for the internment of Japanese Americans during war time, to hearken back to another great injustice associated with our American "experiment".)

Fuck Bybee. I mean really. Fuck him. I am so fucking sick of this shit. Man up, Bybee.

The impeachment would be for lying to congress during the confirmation process, I would guess.

"It's a variant spelling of 'an' in which the 'm' is silent and acts as an abbreviation for the phrase 'editorial in the.' "

Thanks. I thought it was short for "When is somebody going to start proofreading this blog?"

He never wanted to be a judge.

He wanted to be a lumberjack.

"...I'd find it a lot easier to believe this if Bybee were to say something publicly, and perhaps explain his conduct...."

But if he did that, he'd have to apologize to Rush Limbaugh. I can see where he might think the game wasn't worth the candle.

"...the torture memo 'got away from him,' and ended up in a place Bybee 'never intended.' Another source said Bybee 'was not pleased' with the memo that bore his name....Being unable to answer for what followed is 'very frustrating,'..."

Totalitarianism is about degrading people, obviously those outside the Party but also those within. Placing people in impossible moral quandaries, to watch them squirm, is part of the game. The nominal content of the specific moral dilemmas doesn't matter. They're totalitarians, and that's how they roll.

Yes, I'd say the memo ended up in a place Bybee never intended -- in public view.