SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Strike up the band and bring on Edith Piaf: we now have Jay Bybee’s theme song. The former White House counsel who headed the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and oversaw what is now the most notorious legal memorandum of all time submitted to questioning by the House Judiciary Committee, and a transcript was released late last week. Bybee had avoided making public statements about his role in the issuance of the notorious torture memoranda, but a Washington Post account by Karl Vick appeared on April 25, 2009, quoted friends who said he was not exactly proud of this chapter of his life. Now Bybee corrects the record:
I have regrets because of the notoriety that this has brought me. It has imposed enormous pressures on me both professionally and personally. It has had an impact on my family. And I regret that, as a result of my government service, that that kind of attention has been visited on me and on my family.
So, he regrets the fact that the memos, intended to be secret, became a matter of public knowledge. He regrets the damage to his reputation that resulted from this process. But he apparently has no reservations whatsoever about the substance of the memos:
In terms of the analysis, I am going to stand by the memo.
The major “news” item that emerges from the Bybee interview is not surprising. Bybee agrees that the CIA apparently used practices that were beyond the scope of what the OLC authorized. That’s the same as the conclusion reached by the CIA’s Inspector General, by Attorney General Eric Holder, and by senior professional staff at the Justice Department. And it forms the basis for the decision to appoint John Durham, a career Justice Department prosecutor from Connecticut, to do a preliminary review of the matter and decide whether any of the roughly ten cases identified in the CIA IG report merited a separate criminal investigation.
But overall Jay Bybee’s comments to the committee could all have been predicted. We know from papers Bybee filed with the Judicial Council that he hired a criminal-defense lawyer to advise him in possible proceedings dealing with legal ethics issues. We don’t of course know what advice he received. But I have discussed his dilemma with several legal ethicists and have a good idea of what that advice would have been. He would have been told that for the best chance to avoid bar ethics charges or a criminal investigation he should insist that the memos actually reflect his best legal analysis and that he believes in good faith that the analysis is right—even if it is in fact outrageously wrong. Not surprisingly, Bybee’s testimony clings to that slender reed.
Remember that the Justice Department’s own professional ethics office concluded that Bybee had probably breached serious ethics rules and recommended that the matter be referred to a bar ethics committee for review and disciplinary action. The referral did not occur because David Margolis—a high-level Justice official who has built his entire career on protecting political appointees from disciplinary action—intervened to overturn the ethics experts’ recommendations on political grounds. But the story doesn’t end there. The bar associations in the District of Columbia and Nevada are free to take up the Bybee case and take action on it, so he’s still in some jeopardy.
But Bybee’s other worry has to do with his judgeship. The record is clear that Bybee, on departing the White House’s legal counsel’s office, told Alberto Gonzales that he wanted a federal judgeship. Gonzales responded to him that that would take some time, and meanwhile he had another appointment in mind—at the OLC, from which Gonzales was commissioning the torture memos. The facts suggest a clear-cut quid pro quo, under which Bybee got his judgeship in exchange for delivering the most outrageous legal memoranda ever uttered by the Justice Department—memoranda that in fact gave a green light to carefully orchestrated criminal conduct.
Although calls have issued for Bybee’s impeachment, the House Judiciary Committee, while obviously troubled by Bybee’s testimony and seeing in it evidence of criminal wrongdoing, so far shows no signs of initiating the formal removal process. On the other hand, Bybee’s legal problems are far from over. He figures as a target in criminal investigations in Spain, and faces possible arrest if he leaves the country. He’s the only member of the federal judiciary with the threat of arrest hanging over his head.
More from Scott Horton:
Conversation — March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm
Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.
In Havana, the past year has been marked by a parade of bold-faced names from the north — John Kerry reopening the United States Embassy; Andrew Cuomo bringing a delegation of American business leaders; celebrities ranging from Joe Torre, traveling on behalf of Major League Baseball to oversee an exhibition game between the Tampa Bay Rays and the Cuban national team, to Jimmy Buffett, said to be considering opening one of his Margaritaville restaurants there. All this culminated with a three-day trip in March by Barack Obama, the first American president to visit Cuba since Calvin Coolidge in 1928. But to those who know the city well, perhaps nothing said as much about the transformation of political relations between the United States and Cuba that began in December 2014 as a concert in the Tribuna Antiimperialista.
Amount traders on the Philadelphia Stock Exchange can be fined for fighting, per punch:
Philadelphian teenagers who want to lose weight also tend to drink too much soda, whereas Bostonian teenagers who drink too much soda are likelier to carry guns.
Nuremberg’s Neues Museum filed a criminal complaint against a 91-year-old woman who completed a crossword puzzle that was in fact a $116,000 piece of avant-garde Danish art.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Matt was happy enough to sustain himself on the detritus of a world he saw as careening toward self-destruction, and equally happy to scam a government he despised. 'I’m glad everyone’s so wasteful,' he told me. 'It supports my lifestyle.'”