Impeachment of U.S. judge urged - News

PRINT THIS Popular

Apr. 21, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

CORRECTION -- 05/01/09 -- A Stephens Washington Bureau story published on April 21 incorrectly identified Alberto Gonzales as the U.S. attorney general in August 2002 when he received a memo from Justice Department lawyer Jay Bybee regarding interrogations. Gonzales was White House counsel at that time.

Impeachment of U.S. judge urged

N.Y. congressman denounces Bybee for 'torture memos'

By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Read Jay Bybee's 2002 memo to John Rizzo, acting general counsel of the CIA, here.

Jay S. Bybee
Las Vegas-based federal judge is part of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, on Monday called for the impeachment of Las Vegas federal judge Jay Bybee, one of the authors of "torture memos" written by senior Justice Department lawyers during the Bush administration.

Nadler, D-N.Y., previously had called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate officials tied to the authorization and use of extreme interrogation methods.

Most Popular Stories

Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer

FATAL SHOOTING: Police again mourn comrade

NORM: Biden finds rank has its privileges

NORM: Walton: Coach deserved a punch

Two of three suspects in slaying of officer could face death penalty

DEADLY HOME INVASION: Police suspect link to family

Station Casinos posts $455 million third-quarter loss

Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop

UNLV sacks football coach Sanford

NORM: 'Girls Gone Wild' creator feels heat

On Monday, he became the first member of Congress to go further when he said Bybee "ought to be impeached."

An 18-page interrogation memo Bybee signed in August 2002 that gave the Central Intelligence Agency legal go-ahead to use harsh interrogation on a "high value" detainee "was not an honest legal memo. It was an instruction manual on how to break the law," Nadler said.

It was among four legal memos on the interrogation program released Thursday by the Obama administration.

The others were written in 2005 by Steven G. Bradbury, a Bybee successor as head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

Bybee previously has been associated with another August 2002 legal memo on interrogations, that one addressed to then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. It opined that the president as commander in chief has broad authority to approve harsh interrogations and that tactics short of "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" might be defended as acceptable.

Human rights advocates and other Bush critics have charged that legal opinions written by the Office of Legal Counsel, a little known but influential band of lawyers within the Justice Department, provided the legal underpinning for waterboarding and other severe methods of interrogation.

Bybee was a professor at the Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas before he was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Justice Department in 2001. He was confirmed to a lifetime seat on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003, before any of the controversial documents came to light.

"Any special prosecutor on torture would have to look at the authors of those torture memos," Nadler said. "And certainly you have real grounds to impeach him once the special prosecutor took a good look at that. I think there ought to be an impeachment inquiry looked at in any event. Which should happen first, I'm not sure."

Nadler was quoted in an interview with the online Huffington Post. Nadler was not available for comment Monday, but his spokesman Ilan Kayasky confirmed the accuracy of the comments.

Kayasky said Nadler, who is chairman of the Constitution, civil rights and civil liberties subcommittee, was not prepared to introduce articles of impeachment against Bybee. The House member is scheduled to meet with Attorney General Eric Holder to discuss his call for a special prosecutor.

It was not clear how far impeachment calls would carry. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said on Sunday that President Barack Obama will not pursue prosecution of Bush officials who devised torture policies.

On Monday, Obama visited CIA headquarters where he told employees not to be "discouraged that we have to acknowledge personally we've made some mistakes."

Obama banned harsh interrogation techniques as one of his first moves after taking office.

Obama has indicated he wanted to move forward rather than prolong the rancor caused by the interrogations.

"This is a time for reflection, not retribution," the president said in a statement Thursday.

The New York Times on Sunday also called for Bybee's impeachment in an editorial, increasing pressure on the Las Vegas-based judge.

"These memos make it clear that Mr. Bybee is unfit for a job that requires legal judgment and a respect for the Constitution," the newspaper opined. "Congress should impeach him. And if the administration will not conduct a thorough investigation of these issues, then Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the executive branch accountable."

Bybee had no comment, according to a court spokesman.

The legal memo made public last week was signed by Bybee and directed to John Rizzo, the CIA's acting general counsel.

The CIA was seeking input to increase pressure on detainee Abu Zubayda, who was believed to be a high ranking al-Qaida figure with knowledge of terrorist cells in the United States and plans for impending attacks on the U.S. or its interests overseas.

The Justice Department already had conveyed an oral OK, with the Bybee memo memorializing that advice.

The memo goes into detail on 10 methods the CIA wished to use on Zubayda, including slamming him against a wall, slapping his face, confining him in a small space, depriving him of sleep, and subjecting him to waterboarding meant to simulate the sensation of drowning.

Believing that Zubayda had a fear of insects, the CIA proposed to tell the detainee it was putting a stinging bug into his confined space, although in reality it would be a caterpillar or another harmless insect.

Bybee in the memo told Rizzo that the Justice Department concluded the interrogation procedures would not constitute illegal torture under U.S. law.

"We wish to emphasize that this is our best reading of the law; however, you should be aware that there are no cases construing this statute, just as there have been no prosecutions brought under it."

Contact Stephens Washington Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault at stetreault@stephensmedia.com or 202-783-1760.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	74 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. rusty wrote on April 21, 2009 09:09 PM: If we are gonna start punishing folks for crimes lies and any other polictical witch hunt lets start with all politicians. all you people that think torture is wrong you are the ones that would say do anything to get some one to talk if it came to your family. so dont be so high and mighty. or lets just have morning coffee with the enemy that will get them to talk. please BobbyG wrote on April 21, 2009 06:11 PM: @Jimbo - You raise a proper point, I suppose. But, impeachment is overtly a "political" process. I would think Congress would be within its power to impeach and remove Bybee, particularly given that had they been aware of his pro-torture writings at the time of his confirmation hearing, he'd have never gotten confirmed. He withheld information directly bearing on "misconduct in office" -- the office he'd held at OLC. I'd prefer that the man be indicted for explicit subornation of war crimes. Conviction there would render the impeachment issue moot. Jimbo wrote on April 21, 2009 05:28 PM: Article III of the U.S. Constitution provides that a judge shall hold office "during good behavior". You cannot impeach a federal judge for something he or she did before taking office. The Article II provision for impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't apply to a federal judge. Also, the Constitution does not require a federal judge to be a lawyer, although today they all are. Therefore, disbarment will not disqualify a federal judge from remaining in office. Mr. X wrote on April 21, 2009 04:27 PM: "Why bother with the opinion at all then?" PR and to protect Bush from impeachment. S. Summerlin wrote on April 21, 2009 04:17 PM: patrick - I appreciate your perspective, and it is nice to have a back and forth debate on the issue without insults unlike some... I recognize that it is your belief that Bybee was pressured or suggested into writing an opinion that advanced or brought "cover" to criminally offensive actions. If I was to support your view that there was intention to provide cover at the urging of the government then I would fully support your opinion. The problem I have with your assertion is that there is no empirical evidence to support your theory other than your strong beliefs that there was a pre-meditated desire to torture. Again, I ask what the motivation would be to pre-meditate torture? You also state that the opinion has no basis in the law, but what I read was a very clear indication of what the statute said, and what the legal interpretation of the statute meant... I honestly felt that Bybee took great steps to outline and interpret what could be considered torture and what couldn't. Let me recap what I think you are saying... Bush Adminstration needed to torture for their own gains (motive) Bush sought out 3 attorneys for advice and told the 3 attorneys what to write rather than giving a clear indication of what the law actually said. All of it was premeditated and criminal... Why bother with the opinion at all then? How would you have written the interpretation of the statute any differently than Bybee without naming specific methods? Big joe's ex-wife wrote on April 21, 2009 04:10 PM: Big joe isn't really that big . . . if you know what I mean. Big joe wrote on April 21, 2009 04:06 PM: Bobbyg It sickens me hiss hiss that big bad man hiss hiss Bobbie g the liberal doesn’t like someone who isn’t a liberal at his school Farg u goor sir UNLV is a liberal fraud of a school and deserves the budget cut BobbyG wrote on April 21, 2009 04:04 PM: @"Mustafa" A juvie waste of bandwidth. Selfish partisan politics as usual from S. Summerlin wrote on April 21, 2009 04:02 PM: S. Summerlin's suggestion that Bybee simply provided an objective "opinion" demonstrates: (1) how utterly naive Summerlin is; or (2) how much of a partisan parrot she is (except, of course, when the Republicans' POV adversely affects HER, i.e., Republicans' stance on gay marriage). It is obvious that Bybee was directed to author memos providing legal justification for torture that was inevitable. Are we really expected to believe that Bybee was to approach this assignment with an open mind (leaving open the possibility that he conclude that the torture was unconstitutional)? Give me a break. He was an accomplice to torture. Time to impeach. Mustafa wrote on April 21, 2009 04:01 PM: Miss Patrick why do you hide behind your white slave name Islam is glorious do not hide your true identity You speak of the reparations white man must pay and the forgiveness that only Allah can give, we must send all capitalists to meet him with the tip of our spears Capitalism, Jews, and religious freedom must be concurred then only then will Allah grant salvation Preach and pave the way my Islamic queen… just stay away from Iran they don’t take kindly to your kind. Read All Comments