One detects a political witch hunt here. The only moral people in this mess are those who confronted the evil of terrorism at all and got their hands dirty in the process a la Bybee, Yoo, Cheney and yes Bush.

From the piece,

But the Obama administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard

Sad. He doesn’t get a pass, Mark. I voted for him in office so he could end these practices. Power corrupts even the very best, sadly.

I’m wondering why Obama gets a pass, that’s all.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,4661244.story

Rendition is a practice that should be abolished and never be used. Because rendition basically says, “Look, we Americans don’t practice torture, but we think torture will get what we want out of detainees, so we’re going to send them off to Syria and let them get their hands dirty.” Of course, that just makes us even more filthy than the Syrians.

You think I care who is in office, Mark? You think I care who does what? If something is abhorrent, I really don’t care who is in office. That Clinton practiced rendition means nothing to me. He is guilty too.

I’m trying to understand why conservatives keep harping the “well Clinton did it” argument. I thought you guys were supposed to bring back civility and dignity to the White House! Why the heck would you lower your standards to that of Bill Clinton!?!?! So what if he practiced rendition? Does that in any way shape or form excuse George W. Bush?

Since rendition often results in death by torture, I think it is worse than waterboarding.

It’s clear you and others now disagree with Bybee’s earlier positions, but you need a lot more than political disagreement to establish that there was anything objectively wrong with Bybee’s conduct. That’s why the impeachment threat will probably not get past the headline stage.

But there is far more than political disagreement to establish that there was anything objectively wrong with Bybee’s conduct! There’s a heck of a lot more.

1. The US justice system prosecuted and convicted Japanese soldiers of waterboarding American soldiers during World War II. Note that Bybee said nary a word about that when trying to assess the legality of waterboarding.

2. Waterboarding was used by Pol Pot’s regime. Nary a word from Bybee on how it would look for America to be using the same technique used by Pol Pot!

3. Waterboarding comes from the Spanish Inquisition, and was meant to force false confessions out of recalcitrant lay members.

4. The combination of the techniques most certainly induced pain and suffering far beyond any allowed limits under the Geneva Convention and the UN Convention on Torture, which are both quite clear in their language and the Law of the Land. Nary a word from Mr. Bybee about the language found in both those conventions.

5. Nothing in the memos shows that Mr. Bybee even considered where the SERE techniques came from (that would be the Chinese during the Korean War—see, the Chinese captured American soldiers, applied these techniques to them to force FALSE CONFESSIONS out of the American soldiers and reduce morale among the Americans), and why the US military uses SERE on American soldiers in case they are captured by countries that do not adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Odd isn’t it, that we would train our soldiers with techniques not allowed by the Geneva Conventions, but somehow using those same techniques not allowed by the Geneva Conventions somehow magically become allowed just because they are now used against hardened terrorists! Funny, I don’t recall any exception being given in the Geneva Convention.

6. Lastly, if you read the memos carefully, you’ll note the circular logic in Mr. Bybee’s memo. He states that the CIA wants to know whether the techniques constitute torture or not, but the ONLY, I repeat, ONLY, thing Bybee uses to judge whether or not the techniques constitute torture are the words of the CIA! That’s circular reasoning. It’s not torture, according to Bybee, because the CIA tells him it isn’t torture!

What Bybee should do is come clean. Reveal who authorized him to write those memos. Who was it that told him to provide this cover for CIA operatives. That’s who the real bad guy is, in this scenario. Doing so would of course mean Bybee loses his judgeship. Does he want to do that? That’s the proper thing to do. He should not be vilified. But the more he hides, or defends his pretty weak memos, the more he becomes the focal point.

If he does reveal who the real bad guy is, we all know who it is. George W. Bush. and Dick Cheney. They are the real bad guys. What’s it gonna hurt Bybee to give America the real enemy? Like America has the guts to actually prosecute George W. Bush for war crimes. Or Dick Cheney. No, those two will get away with it. Their legacies won’t though.

So “legalizing what is normally illegal” is simply a description of what happens rather frequently in legal practice, and there is always debate over where, in grey areas, the line should be drawn. One may disagree with decisions taken by judges or positions taken by attorneys on close issues, but turning disagreement into a clearcut case that a judge or attorney was objectively “wrong” in their decision or position is much trickier. It’s clear you and others now disagree with Bybee’s earlier positions, but you need a lot more than political disagreement to establish that there was anything objectively wrong with Bybee’s conduct. That’s why the impeachment threat will probably not get past the headline stage.