• Home
  • News
  • Bybee a No-Show at ‘Circus’ Hearing on Interrogation Memos

Legal Ethics

Bybee a No-Show at ‘Circus’ Hearing on Interrogation Memos

Posted May 14, 2009 6:59 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., says he doesn’t blame U.S. Appeals Judge Jay Bybee for being a no-show at a congressional hearing yesterday on Justice Department memos approving harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists.

Graham questioned why Bybee would want to appear in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee "circus,” the National Law Journal reports. "If I were his lawyer, I would tell him no," Graham told reporters.

Bybee, now a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco, isn’t the only former Justice Department official who stayed away. Others who have declined appearances were John Yoo, now a law professor, and Steven Bradbury, the story says.

Democrats had another view, according to the story. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the committee could assume the information Bybee would have provided was not helpful to his cause. "I assume he had no exonerating information to provide," Leahy said.

Democrats and Republicans also clashed over whether the former lawyers should be investigated for writing the memos. And witnesses appearing before the committee differed on the propriety of the lawyers’ conduct in writing the opinions.

Georgetown University law professor David Luban said the lawyers made "frivolous arguments" that were designed to get the results they wanted, the story says. Robert Turner, associate director of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia, said the arguments were legitimate under the Geneva Conventions.

Other coverage:

New York Times: “Bitter Start to a Hearing on Interrogation Tactics”

Washington Post: “Ex-Official Testifies About Efforts to Halt Harsh Tactics”

Comments

1.

J.D.
May 14, 2009 9:24 AM CST

At one point the Declaration of Independence was considered to be made up of “frivolous arguments” by the red coats.

Flag this comment

2.

T.R.
May 14, 2009 11:16 AM CST

This issue is fascinating and upsetting at the same time.  Fascinating in that it asks whether the executive is off the hook so long as he follows his lawyer’s advice.  And if so, can the lawyer render any advice to the executive without repercussion?  If that is so, then it would seem that the White House counsel actually holds the keys to the kingdom, so to speak, with absolute impunity—counsel who are not elected by the people.

Flag this comment

3.

JR
May 14, 2009 1:03 PM CST

I am not surprised that three war criminals failed to show up at the hearing.  I am surprised that Mr. Turner thought the arguments in the memo legitimate.  The Assistant Attorney General for Legal Counsel in 2004, in the Bush Administration, repudiated Yoo’s junk law. I wonder about Turner’s objectivity and who pays for the Center for National Security Law.  Many partisan groups adopt such innoucuously sounding names.

Flag this comment

4.

B. McLeod
May 14, 2009 5:41 PM CST

Redcoats did not draft the Declaration of Independence.

Flag this comment

5.

J.D.
May 15, 2009 8:05 AM CST

You are confused, McLeod.

Flag this comment

6.

B. McLeod
May 15, 2009 10:14 PM CST

No, I am pretty sure I have it right.

Flag this comment

7.

J.D.
May 19, 2009 12:30 PM CST

Um, no.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.