Las Vegas News, Sports, Business, Entertainment and Classifieds

Las Vegas Review-Journal - News

Thursday
Mar 18, 2010
Mostly Cloudy
Mostly Cloudy 67° Weather Forecast

RECENT EDITIONS
Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu

sponsored by
News


Attorneys weigh in on Bybee's torture memos

Opinion called OK, repugnant

Attorney Mary Perry specializes in resolving family disputes in a civil manner, but when the topic turns to the nation's security, she clearly believes situations exist when harsh treatment, even torture, are warranted.

The 48-year-old might be 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jay S. Bybee's most outspoken fan.


Most Popular Stories
  1. Police seize items at Hells Angels clubhouse
  2. Agassi, Sampras get sorry reviews
  3. Rhodes rides again at Red Rock
  4. 'Phantom' made it to Final Four
  5. Tea Party activists say candidate uninvited
  6. Student arrested for bringing gun to school
  7. Wal-Mart probing racist NJ store announcement
  8. Chamber poll: Voters favor Titus changing health bill vote to no
  9. Testing scandal ensnarls Agassi principal
  10. GOP committee gets subpoena in Ensign probe




Bybee was Perry's favorite professor as she made her way through UNLV's William S. Boyd School of Law before graduating in 2001. Now, she flinches as her mentor is lambasted for signing off on a legal memo authorizing the use of harsh interrogation techniques on imprisoned terrorists.

"I agree with him 100 percent," Perry said.

Post 9/11, Perry said it was imperative to determine if and when the country would be attacked again. "Do you want to sleep at night or do you want to live in terror like they do in the Middle East?"

Bybee has not returned repeated calls from the Review-Journal. He sent a statement to the New York Times this week saying he stands by the decision he made in 2001 when he served as the head of the Office of Legal Counsel for the White House.

"The legal question was and is difficult," Bybee's statement to the Times said. "And the stakes for the country were significant no matter what our opinion. In that context, we gave our best, honest advice, based on our good-faith analysis of the law."

The legal document in question was released by President Barack Obama's administration. The memo allowed interrogators to use controversial techniques such as "waterboarding," which simulates drowning, on al-Qaida terrorists.

Bybee told the New York Times that a fine legal line exists "between harsh treatment of a high-ranking al-Qaida terrorist that is not torture and harsh treatment that is. I believed at the time, and I continue to believe today, that the conclusions were legally correct."

Perry, Bybee's former law student, served in the U.S. Air Force for nearly nine years and recalled their conversations about President Bill Clinton's decision to close military bases and the Republicans' support of the armed forces. But she and Bybee never discussed interrogation methods. There was no reason to do so in the time before 9/11.

"Something like that would never even cross our minds as a possibility," she said.

Perry said she truly believes Bybee's statement that he stands by the memo, adding, "He's not a flip-flopping, wishy-washy type of person.

"I'm proud of him and I sympathize with him," she said. "This is a witch-hunt. Obama should be tried for treason for letting these security secrets out."

Bybee was a law professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas from 1999 until 2001. He was named Professor of the Year in 2000. He is the reason attorney Brian Bradford ended up at the university.

Bradford said the law school was new and he was unsure how the programs would be assembled.

Bybee convinced him the leadership team was solid. Bradford also praised Bybee as a professor. But he was taken aback to learn that he signed off on the memos now stirring nationwide controversy.

"I was somewhat surprised his name was attached to the memos because they certainly don't espouse a view that I agree with," said Bradford, who specializes in civil law. "Knowing him, I'm somewhat surprised, but I do understand it is a difficult issue."

Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, condemned the "torture memo," saying it contradicts the ideals held by the United States.

"The ideas expressed in that memo are particularly bad law, bad reasoning and totally repugnant to the ideals this country was founded on," Lichtenstein said. "Torture is torture, no matter how you dress it up."

Waterboarding is torture when it's done to U.S. soldiers and it's excessive cruelty when the technique is used on al-Qaida members, Lichtenstein said.

"I can't get into his (Bybee's) mind and I'm not going to attempt to get into his mind," he said. "I just think it's disgraceful in this country that we are having a discussion about these actions."

Contact reporter Adrienne Packer at apacker@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Leave Your Comment 32 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.
Current Word Count:

Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

Report abuse

Brad Lord-Letuwyler wrote on April 30, 2009 11:30 PM: After reading Mary Perry's comments, I am heartened. I think it is great that UNLV law school admits the mentally deficient and idiot savant. The legal profession has sorely underrepresented the ranks of these people, and I applaud Mary for carrying the stave for all of them. Sure Boyd is a bottom-tier school, but they certainly turn out erudite graduates! Need a brilliantly cogent argument? Turn to the little-bussers like Mary!

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, Mary.


Report abuse

BobbyG wrote on April 30, 2009 03:31 PM: One salient point: the focal word "torture" ("is/is not") has become a distractive Bright Shiny Thing. A Red Herring.

Read the statute, 18.USC.2340. Read Common Article 3, etc. They proscribe "torture" and other forms of abuse/degrading acts -- even threats of them. Consequently, those of you out there suffering from convenient Latter Day "Definition-of-'IS'" disease are wasting your time.


Report abuse

PU-LEAZE wrote on April 30, 2009 01:50 PM: I'll be happy to demonstrate how Bybee's definition is so ridiculous.

Come over to my house tonight. I'll heat up an iron for a few minutes . . . get it nice and hot . . . and press it against your back for a few seconds. While I'm holding it there, I want you to tell me whether you're in severe pain.

Then, I'll get a knife . . . stick it under your fingernails . . . and lift each of them until they are perpendicular to your fingers. While I'm doing this, I want you to tell me whether you are in severe pain.

Don't worry, according to Bybee's definition, you won't be.


Report abuse

Michael wrote on April 30, 2009 01:16 PM: I can see there is no point to continuing to argue with someone who thinks he knows it all, doesn't bother to check his facts, berates those who try to correct him, and then, the coup de grace, claims that I only had one correct post, when I was correct all along.

I win the debate -- you win the flame war.


Report abuse

PU-LEAZE wrote on April 30, 2009 01:15 PM: I'll be happy to demonstrate how Bybee's definition is so ridiculous.

Come over to my house tonight. I'll heat up an iron for a few minutes . . . get it nice and hot . . . and press it against your back for a few seconds. While I'm holding it there, I want you to tell me whether you're in severe pain.

Then, I'll get a knife . . . stick it under your fingernails . . . and lift each of them until they are perpendicular to you fingers. While I'm doing this, I want you to tell me whether you are in severe pain.

Don't worry, according to Bybee's definition, you won't be.


Report abuse

PU-LEAZE wrote on April 30, 2009 12:56 PM: Congrats, Michael. You actually posted a correct comment for once. It had been a while since I looked at the memos. I was wrong about the use of the word "prolonged".

Unfortunately for you, Bybee's definition of severe physical pain is even more outrageous than I remembered: it "must rise to a . . . level that would ordinarily be associated with a sufficiently serious physical condition or injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions. . . ."


Report abuse

Michael wrote on April 30, 2009 12:44 PM: @PU-LEAZE: I have read and re-read the memo. On the contrary, it is obvious that you have either: (1) not read the memo of which you speak (found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf); or (2) do not wish to engage in honest debate. The word "prolonged" cannot be found in section I(B) in any form of the word.

You cannot quote the section where severe physical pain is required to be prolonged simply because it does not exist.

Now, having proven you wrong yet again, I could legitimately resort to name-calling (e.g., idiot, genius, IQ of 16), but I don't need to, as your assertions/responses speak for you quite adequately.


Report abuse

Michael wrote on April 30, 2009 12:31 PM: @PU-LEAZE: I have read and re-read the memo. On the contrary, it is obvious that you have either: (1) not read the memo of which you speak (found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf); or (2) do not wish to engage in honest discussion. The word "prolonged" cannot be found in section I(B) in any form of the word.

You cannot quote the section where severe physical pain is required to be prolonged because it does not exist.

Now, having proven you wrong yet again, I could legitimately resort to name-calling (e.g., idiot, genius, IQ of 16), but I don't need to, as your assertions/responses speak for you quite adequately.


Report abuse

give me a break wrote on April 30, 2009 11:58 AM: "You friend commits a robbery, you were there, you did nothing, you both run away. Who is going to jail "give me a break"?"

The only one who committed the crime (THAT is the issue - not "who is going to jail") is the friend.

Keep going. I enjoy proving you wrong.


Report abuse

PU-LEAZE wrote on April 30, 2009 11:56 AM: It is obvious that you did not read the memos prior to posting your first comment defending Bybee. This is the only time that I'm going to help you keep up with this discussion. Look at subsection (I)(B) of his 50 page memo.

Read the entire subsection before you reply to my comment. I'm not going to keep arguing with the uninformed.

I'm not resorting to ad hominem attacks to "flame [my] way to victory." I'm resorting to them because you are an idiot.

If you haven't read the memos in their entirety (and I'm sure that you haven't), don't respond until you do.


Read All Comments