Talk:Jay Bybee

Testimony About Bybee Memo
This is unnecessary and NPOV. The first sentence noting widespread criticism is sufficient, or at least, not as objectionable--considering the entire preceding paragraph on the subject. The testimony is overkill and presents no other side--though it doubtless exists. The testimony should be removed and included merely as external links. Otherwise, who cares what John Dean has to say? I mean, really.--Smashingworth 19:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Although we know the Republican-leaning members of Wikipedia would like to whitewash this article, no can do. Facts are stubborn things... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curmudgeon99 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits to this article are unnecessarily inflammatory and raise serious NPOV issues. The memo and criticisms thereof, are certainly worthy of mention -- even discussion -- here, but is it really necessary to make the last half of this article a string of thinly-veiled personal attacks? At any rate, I won't delete any of the material that concerns me, but I think it's worth discussing its notability and possibly even its relevance. I did, however, change "secret" to "closed" to reflect the nomenclature of the cited article in the Crimson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.190.182 (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the last half of the article that is a personal attack (nothing is said about Bybee's personal life or personal characteristics). The information presented is only a criticism of a legal memo. This seems extremely notable and relevant, given that this article is about a federal judge. What could be more notable than serious, nearly universal criticisms of the legal reasoning in a memo written by an federal appellate judge that had major effects on US policy, and which was kept secret until after his confirmation? 140.247.10.46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

I don't have serious problems with some of the feverish editing going on over the past couple of days, but it seems inappropriate to remove ALL references to criticism of the Bybee/Yoo memo. To "Samantha1961," I assure you that Jack Goldsmith and Bruce Ackerman -- both harsh and vocal critics of the memo whose criticism had been featured here -- have "read it," probably many times over. I do agree that this page was quite critical of Bybee before the recent edits, but when criticism is warranted, is that a NPOV problem? And moreover, the recent edits have slanted the page away from neutral towards, in the words of a previous commenter, "whitewashed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.190.182 (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In terms of whitewashing, I just want to toss in that I'm a Hillary Democrat. (I'm over it, but just barely!) I tried very very hard to maintain NPOV at all times. All references to criticism of the Bybee Memo have not been removed. The entire discussion has been moved over to the "Bybee memo" entry (which should read "Bybee Memo", but I don't know how to fix it). In "discussion" under that entry, the need to shift the content was noted. So I did. It seemed logical. Bybee's bio is about Bybee and if the reader wants to know more about the Bybee Memo, all they have to do is click on the link for what will hopefully be a thorough treatment. I did not mean to imply that Goldsmith and Ackerman (and Dean, etc.) had not read the memo. I'm sure they have. But previous content in this section indicates that the editor who wrote the content was not familiar with the memo, just the media comment on it. It was like playing post office. They were not always the same... My next goal is to clean up the Bybee Memo entry. There exists some redundancy and the paragraphs are out of order since I moved the content but have not yet integrated it with the original. I created that problem so I'll get right on fixing that one. Then I plan to take some time to slog all the way through the Bybee Memo itself and write a more comprehensive and accurate summary of it than has been thusfar provided. (Yes, I have a law degree, as I suspect you do as well.) Much as I love 24 (which is really getting into exploring these issues this season), I do not condone torture--any torture. But as an attorney I also recognize that there exists the possibility that an unpopular legal conclusion was the only one a fellow attorney could arrive at given a set of facts and the applicable laws. I want to be openminded as I read the Memo. Perhaps, for example, it is the law that is flawed, not the legal conclusion. BTW, who decides when criticism is warranted? Goldsmith himself said that he believed Bybee, Yoo, et al. were acting in good faith... I hope I have adequately addressed your concerns.Samantha1961 (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound so critical before, and was mostly trying to be constructive (the use of "whitewashing" was mostly simply in reference to an earlier comment on this page). I think you're doing a good job with the page so far, turning what had been a very narrow and non-neutral entry into a nicely full-bodied article. My only concern was that the very thing which probably directs a lot of traffic to this entry seemed only obliquely reference. I have no problem with an entirely separate "Bybee memo" entry, although perhaps you might make the link a little more explicit with one of those "Main article: Bybee Memo" links. On the whole, you're to be commended for your work; I would particularly commend you for the fact that this biographical entry now actually reads more like a real biographical portrait and is not narrowly confined to a single (albeit very notable) issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.221.58 (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your remarks. I am now done with my edits here. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, so I don't know how to create that more explicit link. I leave that to you. I am now going to turn my attention to the Bybee Memo entry. I hope to be able to do that justice--although if somebody wants to beat me to it, please feel free. While, as you pointed out, it's really the whole reason people come to this entry in the first place, the Bybee Memo entry seems to have gotten surprisingly little attention. It could really use an actual description of the memo rather than just a few select quotes! Also, if you know how, I'd appreciate it if you or somebody could change "Bybee memo" to "Bybee Memo". That lowercase m is really making me crazy!Samantha1961 (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I did not create the "Bybee memo" entry. Once I realized (rather belatedly) that the thing existed, the rest seemed obvious...Samantha1961 (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Kaleck Litigation
I removed reference to the Kaleck litigation. No sources were provided. Additionally, it is unimportant and frivolous. Germany has no jurisdiction over the actions taken by a foreign national in a foreign state, thus this litigation is of no consequence. See for example, http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1166522799501, which says "No one thinks that Donald Rumsfeld will end his days in a German prison. Or that there is any real chance he will have to face trial in Germany over allegations that he authorized policies leading to the torture of prisoners at U.S. detention facilities in Iraq and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba." This case was already dismissed once, and will probably be dismissed again.

"Iraq-gate"
This section seems out-of-step with the rest of the article, and I'm concerned that its particularity is unwarranted. I'm on the fence about whether "Iraq-gate" -- not a particularly notable scandal even in the early 90s -- is notable enough of a scandal sixteen years later to warrant its inclusion here, given that the source cited for Bybee's involvement is a rather tangential mention in a single news report of the scandal. I didn't delete the reference myself since Bybee's service in the Bush I administration probably deserves mention, and given this it may be that some reference to "Iraq-gate" is warranted. I think further discussion is warranted on both notability and neutral POV for this reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.158.10 (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Attorney-client confidentiality
Samantha1961 added the following sentence: "Because of attorney-client confidentiality, Bybee is not able to comment on the memo."

This is a conclusion presented as fact. If there are no sources, and none were given, it is original research. Moreover, the statement glosses over the issue that the "client" is the United States, yet the memo was withheld from parts of the U.S. government, such as the Congress, which is the crux of the controversy. Jonathunder (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting point. I inserted the sentence because several sources mentioned that Bybee "stonewalled" or "refused to discuss" the memo, when fact is that he can't discuss it because of attorney-client privilege. I disagree that this is not common knowledge, and it is ridiculous to call something so obvious original research. However, I am fairly new to Wikipedia and don't know the rules very well yet, so I can concede the point that the sentence should not be in the article on Bybee.


 * Do you really think the crux of the controversy is that a privileged memo was kept from Congress? I thought the "crux" was the memo's controversial content.Samantha1961 (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * By crux of the issue I meant the heart of what was claimed by attorney-client privilege. It is not at all obvious that the memo is privileged when it is withheld from its own putative client--the United States government. In any case, we agree at least the sentence does not belong here, perhaps for very different reasons. Jonathunder (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

bias
"I suggest 'Samantha1961' be taken off this entry for bias reasons." Okay, that was incredibly rude, especially coming from someone who identifies himself only by a list of numbers and has edited in no entries other than baseball players, a guitarist, and Jay Bybee. No bias there, though, right?

I researched every source I could get my hands on (okay, I googled) until I was sick of researching. Nobody said anything negative about Bybee when he was appointed to the court or about his tenure on the court. One of the sources listed some of his more prominent court cases and I was a little irked by his position on the Kamehameha case; I wanted to write about it in the entry, but figured it would be bias to write just about that one case that troubled me.

For the record, here is my definition of torture. By coincidence, I worked on it in the shower this morning:

Torture is any physical or psychological pain or distress caused to an animal or a human, notably when attempting to solicit compliance or information from that person.

I know, it's not perfect. But I was relieved when President Obama announced in his Tuesday night address, "The United States of America does not torture."

Okay, I have a joke for you. It was a comic that ran on...let's say January 8th. The set up is the standard little Martian guy landing and talking to the first Earthling he encounters. "Take me to your leader," he says. The human replies, "Uh, could you wait 12 days? It's a little embarrassing right now."

I love 24 and Jack Bauer as much as the next person. But that isn't real life. If it were up to me, "we" would be showing suspected terrorists just how human and humane we can be. These men have often been brainwashed by a youth spend receiving no education whatsoever other than memorizing the Koran and listening to lectures on how evil the U.S. is. A little kind treatment might go a long way. Look at that Saudi Arabian program where former terrorists were given a wife--and they settled right down. (Gotta feel for the wife, though.)Samantha1961 (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage
A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Jay S. Bybee was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how this works, but someone in the know should definitely merge these two articles. Which is to say, the other piece should be deleted because this one is better and there is nothing in the other piece that isn't in this one.Samantha1961 (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When everything useful from that bot-created subpage that wasn't already in this article has been merged in, you can leave a note at User talk:Quadell, since he's the human operator of that bot. Jonathunder (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. It already has been!Samantha1961 (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Charges to be filed today?
Scott Horton reported yesterday that charges were to filed today against "The Bush Six". I figure the best way to cover this material would be to a single article that dealt with the charges in detail. I started to prepare a draft here. Comments to it are welcome at its talk page. I figured the articles about the six men should each have a relatively small section that sets the context for the charges for that particular man, and then refers readers to the main article, via see or main. Geo Swan (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I am not qualified to do it, I hope to see more in this article about this man's activity as a member of "The Torture Team", now that the cat is out of the bag. Information and evidence is now available at the ACLU website, and inclusion of extracts from the memos which are now public and which implicate this man in the secret government authorization of torture is appropriate in this article NPOV of course (Some people, e.g. Mr Bybee, apparently approve of torture, although some others are opposed to it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.106.214 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 April 2009

Please add notes to the bottom, not top of talk page
I am moving the comment added to the top of this page today to its proper order, below this message, and I am removing the flag from the article itself. The non-registered user who added the flag can him or herself add whatever he or she wants added to the article. There is, so far, no dispute, just one person's idea of what should be included. Since that person did not make those changes to the article, and merely advises that other people make suggested changes, the flag is inappropriate. Skywriter (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV should address both sides of the issues equally
This article fails to express a NPOV because it does not address the criticisms from both sides of this issue. Lets face it, this is a political hot button issue between Republican and Democrats and this article mainly expresses criticisms that one would hear coming from Democrats. Shouldn't the article also articulate the criticisms that Republicans are levying against this issue? One example of bias is the inclusion of the information related to a Spanish judge considering international war crimes charges against Mr. Bybee. If you are going to include this you need to also explain what it means for Bybee (potential prosecution in an international court?) and what jurisdiction an international court has over the matter. It is also important to explain the U.S. POV on exposing U.S. citizens to trials before international tribunals. In that same section there are two quotes: one by the NYT and one by Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy. (Not sure how these quotes can be viewed as "neutral") Since this is a political issue a NPOV article should also have the quotes by the other side as well. Both sides use the "facts" in the way that is most beneficial to them. This article should reflect both sides. Fosforo18 (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add to it. BBiiis08 (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW there's more commentary from Bybee's friends
in the NPR's piece here http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103582533  ↜Just me, here, now …  02:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the 3-revert rule?
Kww has reverted my addition to this article three times in one hour. The addition is this:

''Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Nevada, my colleague, Mr. Reid, for all of the work he has done in helping us shepherd the nomination of Jay Bybee through this nomination process for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Without his help, with the way things are around here, we know this would not be happening today.''

This was summarized as follows:

The Senate confirmed Bybee's nomination by a vote of 74-19 on March 13. Without the help of Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), Bybee's nomination would not have failed, said Senator John Ensign (R-NV).

Twice Kww did not flag it for citation error but as Kww explains on my talk page, Kww considers what Ensign said of Reid "derogatory." I don't and I asked Kww to take the difference of opinion to this talk page. Kww refuses. Would someone weigh in on this? Was Ensign fairly summarized or is the entire quotation necessary? The support of now Senate Majority Leader Reid for the Bybee nomination is certainly relevant.

I think it behooves Kww to explain Kww's POV and to make use of this talk page.Skywriter (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted the addition of unsourced material to a BLP twice. No problem there in anyone's eyes, I'm pretty sure ... adding suspicious looking material with dead URLs as a reference is pretty much "shoot on sight" stuff in a BLP. Further, reverts under the BLP policy are immune from 3RR, and it actually takes four reverts to cross it event without BLP. Despite your protestation on my talk page, I find it very difficult to believe that anyone that knows how to format references that well and knows about the 3RR rule is unfamiliar with the concept of a BLP.


 * As for my third revert: I assume you meant to summarize it as "without the help of Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), Bybee's nomination would not have failed, said Senator John Ensign (R-NV)." The original comment was a pretty standard compliment to pay to a Senator that help shepherd a nomination through during a confirmation hearing. I could probably find equivalents in any confirmation hearing. Your highlighting and summarization of the material seems to be an effort to portray this as some kind of unusual use of influence. If you truly believe that Harry Reid did something notable and unusual with respect to this nomination, find some independent commentary that backs your claim.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Kww here. Right now, I just don't see how it's notable.  Specifically, per WP:NOTE, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  I don't think a verbatim transcript of every word that's spoken on the Senate floor qualifies as "significant coverage".  CarbonX (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Kww wrote-- "I find it very difficult to believe that anyone that knows how to format references that well and knows about the 3RR rule is unfamiliar with the concept of a BLP."

Thank you for complimenting my formatting. It took me a long time to do so and was done solely by imitating other references on the page. The fact that it took so long is exactly the reason your unexplained reverts came across as arrogant and ill-mannered.

Thank you for finally providing a link to BLP. The use of unexplained acronyms unfamiliar to people who visit Wikipedia occasionally to make contributions is a communications problem. Acronyms should always be spelled out, or links provided.

Your first reverts touched slightly on your motive in the act of revert but not on any talk pages. Your first two reverts complained of the issue of temporary links to congressional sources. I did not know of the temporary nature of those links. I did however take you at your word and tried to correct the link. Twice. Then you reverted it a third time and I asked for an explanation. Finally, the deeper reason for your objection to referencing to a primary source is stated but still not explained. I would now like a fuller explanation.

I have read but am confused by your three lines of argument. In the reverts, you complain of dead links. I fixed that. In your comment on my talk page [] you assert that the fact of Senator Ensign's acknowledgment (in the congressional record) of Senator Reid's support for the Bybee nomination is "derogatory material" and, now here, you complain of it being "suspicious looking material".

Will you please define your understanding of "suspicious looking material" and "derogatory material" in the context of this article? CarbonX opines that support by these two senators is not "notable" or in other words, not germane to Mr. Bybee having a job on the bench for the rest of his life.

Addressing first the last argument, in a democracy, the actions of public officials made especially on the public record fall into the category of "notable." Senator Reid was at the time he supported Mr. Bybee for the federal bench the Senator Minority Leader. Because elections have consequences, he is now the Senate Majority Leader. By definition, his opinions carry weight. Now you both are arguing for suppression of the fact of the senators' support for Mr. Bybee.

I'd like to know why.

Without the support of home state senators, presidential nominations go nowhere.

Nevada newspapers have reported that both senators supported Mr. Bybee's nomination to a federal job with lifetime tenure. Why do you believe this information is derogatory and must be suppressed?

After nomination, judges are either supported or vetoed by their own home state senators. Without the support of his home state senators, would Mr. Bybee have a job for life? In what world is this not a notable detail?

Who do you think these facts are derogatory to? One of them individually? Or all three? In what way are these facts suspicious or derogatory?

I intend to include in this BLP that Senators Reid and Ensign sponsored Mr. Bybee's nomination, and that Sen. Ensign now does not think Mr. Bybee should be impeached and that Sen. Reid has not yet made up his mind.

Having read the material at BLP for which you graciously provided a link, I see that disputes concerning the adding or deleting of factual material is discussed at Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard

Though I tend to favor primary sources such as the congressional record, in an act of conciliation and now that I know your thoughts on this matter, I will comply with your insistence on using secondary sources for the purpose of adding this material.   

Do you agree that this material can be added, or is this dispute now a candidate for Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard ? Skywriter (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * First, please stop acting as if I did something untoward. You added material without proper referencing. I removed it. I didn't touch "slightly on the motivation" of my revert, I explained it: you gave dead links as sources, so your information could not be verified. Once you provided a source, I reviewed your material vs. the source, and decided that it was a case of improper weighting of material. You answered your own question about notability:"Without the support of home state senators, presidential nominations go nowhere." It is normal, expected, and completely unworthy of comment that the nominee has support of home state senators, because nearly every nominee has this support. The lack of it would be quite notable, and worth mentioning. Mentioning it when it is expected serves to highlight it, and make it appear as if something abnormal and untoward occurred, when in fact it did not. The next policy for you to read and understand is WP:UNDUE, which explains how it is important not to distort coverage by providing undue weight to minor details.
 * Your sources could lead to an addition of a few sentences about the Iraqi loan investigation, as that is indeed a little unusual, as long as your addition didn't make it appear to be a larger deal than it actually was. Reid's and Ensign's comments about cooperating with each other with respect to that could be included, and I wouldn't object to the inclusion of that material.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Kww and would just add that I could have been a little clearer in my previous comment. I have no doubt that Mr. Ensign made the comment that you quoted, and if it was in dispute that link would be perfectly acceptable.  However, the sentence, as originally posted, does not seem to me to meet the criteria of Wikipedia for notability. If you're implying, however, that there was something untoward going on with confirmation process, then you are going to have provide substantial references, because then you would definitely be running into CarbonX (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not mention nor imply anything "untoward" as you say and it appears as though you both are reading into facts motivation that is not present. Facts are what they are. Both CarbonX and Kww contend that what I want to add to this article-- and that is the support by both home state senators for the Bybee nomination-- is so routine that it ought not to be added. Therein lies the central disagreement for which I believe other editors ought to be weigh in. I maintain that this information is relevant, has been discussed in the congressional record, is anything but a minor detail, and is discussed in at least three newspaper articles for which I presented links.

Those newspaper links again are--  . There are other such links, if needed.

At issue in particular is this claim by Kww '''It is normal, expected, and completely unworthy of comment that the nominee has support of home state senators, because nearly every nominee has this support. The lack of it would be quite notable, and worth mentioning. Mentioning it when it is expected serves to highlight it, and make it appear as if something abnormal and untoward occurred, when in fact it did not.'''

It is not true that nearly every home state senator supports every presidential nominee. I believe the above bolded material is a bad argument for suppressing relevant material.

However, at the end of a very long comment, kww also wrote-- "Reid's and Ensign's comments about cooperating with each other with respect to that could be included, and I wouldn't object to the inclusion of that material." and CarbonX chimed in with: "I concur with Kww"

On the basis of the latter concurrences, I will add the item using the secondary references. If you decide to remove it unilaterally, as has occurred thrice before, this dispute becomes a candidate for Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard with the topic narrowed solely to what is in dispute.Skywriter (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep using that word, "suppress". I would ask that you please take a look at WP:ASSUME.  Also, it wouldn't be appropriate at this time for you to re-add the comment.  You did the right thing by moving the discussion here to try to build consensus, though right now there does not appear to be consensus on your edit.  Maybe wait a while and see if more people chime in?  I'm perfectly willing to accept that I might be wrong on my main point, that being that the sentence that added, as written, is not notable.  But please wait until consensus has been build before you unilaterally re-add disputed content.   Thanks.  CarbonX (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with CarbonX. Perhaps if you had some secondary sources saying this is a notable fact and something out of the ordinary. Jonathunder (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this a new standard? We are talking about the process for appointing an individual to a lifetime job as a federal judge. Comparatively speaking, there are very few federal jobs with lifetime tenure. Nothing routine about that. There are 100 U.S. senators when the block is full, two from each state. Nothing routine about that. The process is that a senator recommends, and a president nominates; then a senate committee investigates and either recommends or does not recommend the nomination to the full senate. Check the U.S. Constitution. A president needs the advice and consent of the senate for nominations. Nothing routine about that. CarbonX appears now to be reversing earlier position. Earlier CarbonX concurred with Kww who agreed not to revert the material that had been in dispute, specifically, the addition of a sentence or two stating that two senators had recommended and supported the Bybee nomination. CarbonX concurred to that but now appears to be reversing that earlier position in support of a new claim from Jonathunder that a new bar must be jumped and, that is a new demand that a source must state that the disputed sentence is "notable."


 * I cite as my source the U.S. Constitution requiring the advice and consent of the Senate for all such presidential nominations. I contend that advice and consent is not automatic, and that it is, by definition, notable when gained by the executive branch. In other words, Congress is not an afterthought in the U.S. Constitution. It is an equal branch of government. I now refer this matter to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard with the topic narrowed solely to what is in dispute.Skywriter (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please argue your position here Skywriter (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As Bastique pointed out, wp:blp is probably not the appropriate place to elevate this discussion. However, before you elevate it to wp:rfc I would suggest again that you maybe let the issue rest a little more time for other editors to comment and try to build consensus.  I believe Kww basically laid out a roadmap for you of what he thought would be an appropriate way for the information to be added back into the article?  Have you considered drafting something that might fit in with his suggestion and posting it first here in the talk page?  CarbonX (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What about something like, "Bybee's nomination was supported in the Senate by all the Republicans and a majority of the Democrats, including his fellow Nevadan, Senator Harry Reid (then the Minority Leader). Bybee was confirmed by a vote of 74-19."  I'm just guessing about the party breakdown.  Assuming the sources confirm my guess, the reader benefits from knowing that most Democrats went along.  It's less important to add how one particular Democrat voted, but I could see a case for including it here, given that Bybee had lived for a while in Nevada and that Reid was Minority Leader.  Ensign's remark is the kind of political fluffery that can't be given much weight. JamesMLane t c 22:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Torture/War crimes
I added back into the introduction the fact that Bybee approved of techniques which are regarded as torture by the Obama administration and that he is furthermore the target of a war crimes investigation. These are facts, and highly important ones. Writing that "enhanced interrogation practices" are merely controversial is New Speak. He is accused of war crimes because he supported practices viewed as torture. We have to be balanced, so we shouldn't say that waterboarding IS torture (although the wikipedia page for waterboarding specifically refers to it as a form of torture). However, we can't obscure the facts. He is a target of a war crimes investigation, and the practices he endorsed are viewed as torture by the current Justice Department, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the European Court of Human Rights, and of course, Mancow. If we say that waterboarding (and putting someone with a fear of insects in a box with a caterpillar) is torture, this would be perhaps too much. But if we refuse to even acknowledge that so many reputable sources view waterboarding as torture, and that the crimes he is accused of are not regular crimes, but in fact war crimes, we are being just as biased. Use of the words "torture" and "war crimes" are absolutely necessary in this article, so long as we are quoting current Justice Department or Human Rights Watch or whomever, and not just reporting it as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.132.6 (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Most likely you will be challenged here by the Wikipedia establishment. They view the priniciple of NPOV as an excuse for a pro-establishment, political right-wing, inside the beltway, US-centric, pro military bias.MaxPont (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

He is accused of war crimes. This is a fact. The interrogation tactics he promoted are regarded as torture by many observers. This is also a fact. A neutral observer with NPOV will acknowledge these facts. There is a huge difference between saying someone is accused of war crimes and saying someone is a war criminal; the first is a fact, the second is a point of view. There is a huge difference between saying something is regarded as torture by Amnesty International and the Justice Department then saying something IS torture; the first is a fact and the second is a point of view. If we keep out these facts, we aren't being unbiased; we're being biased in defense of Jay Bybee's actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.132.6 (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Supporters' Website
Please explain the rationale for deleting this sentence. It is under Reactions, which is where it belongs, since the recent creation of this website is part of the REACTION to the Bybee Memo. Seriously, please explain. I'm new enough to Wikipedia that I might be violating some rule without knowing it. But if you're just deleting the sentence because you don't like the implication that Bybee has supporters, then you have bias. Incidentally, you might want to take a look at the website before you delete the sentence (hint, hint); you will probably find then that you will want to let the sentence stand!Samantha1961 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

Bybee memo
I reinserted the paragraph that is primarily about Bybee (not primarily about the memo). "Bybee signed that legal memorandum which defined "enhanced interrogation techniques" in ways that are regarded as torture by the current Justice Department,[10] Amnesty International,[11] Human Rights Watch,[12], medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[13][14] intelligence officials,[15] military judges,[16] and American allies.[17] This memo has been the source of controversy and calls for his impeachment. Bybee is currently the subject of a war crimes investigation in Spain,[18] as well as the subject of an investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility.[19]"Dr.enh (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think you get to have it both ways here. You recently took out some favorable remarks about Bybee's admission to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals citing "unbalanced NPOV" concerns. As discussed previously in this discussion section, if you have a problem with unbalanced NPOV, then add something to balance it! Don't just delete the content! If everybody did that, Wikipedia would be empty. That's part of the point of it being a work in progress, right? So now you add back in a highly unfavorable indisputably unbalanced NPOV paragraph! That paragraph is clearly not designed to inform but just to dig dig dig at Judge Bybee. And don't forget that Spanish Inquisition! Yeah, let's all take THAT seriously. If you are going to put in that material, YOU could attempt to provide some balance. You know full well that not everyone out there feels negatively about these memos.

Right now, I am actually in the process of reading the infamous Bybee Memo, which will probably make me about the third person on the planet to have done so. My objective is to provide a detailed summary of the Memo in the Bybee Memo article so perhaps others out there who choose not to read it can gain a greater understanding of what they are talking about. Well, I am of course also hoping to gain a greater understanding of what I am talking about. Anyway, I have finished reading the first (and I think probably the core) section of the memo. Not only was the word "waterboarding" not mentioned anywhere in there, but thus far I have found the legal analysis flawless. Yes, I bring a law degree to this task. I also bring a liberal viewpoint to it. Personally, I not only oppose torture, I oppose anything even remotely akin to it. My take on all of this would be to be NICE to these people so that they see our good side, like us, change their view of us, and then cooperate willingly. That said, with a very bad taste in my mouth, if I had written the memo, thus far it would have reached the same conclusions. The attorneys' job was to interpret the law, not create it. They could only work with what was already there.

I should hopefully have my summary of the Bybee Memo proper completed within two or three days, for anyone who might be interested.

For the time being, until this unbalanced NPOV business is resolved, I have deleted your negative comments and reinserted the positive ones. While hacking away at a man's reputation, let's err on the side of caution, shall we? He's already getting pilloried in the press. Let's keep it decent and balanced here. It's the human thing to do. (Besides, the negative material is still in the Bybee Memo article, which is at least on its way to attempting to illuminate both sides of the issue.) Samantha1961 (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bybee's notability comes from his signing of the torture memo and the uproar that resulted in the media. We cannot simply remove valid criticisms just because we feel bad for the guy. I've tried to balance the positive comments with some negative criticism. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Bybee's notability comes from his signing of the torture memo." Agreed. My "unbalanced NPOV" concerns have been allayed by Nishkid64's contributions. I have not found a WP:RS reliable source that backs up the assertion that "not everyone out there feels negatively about these memos." "I should hopefully have my summary of the Bybee Memo proper completed within two or three days." Please read WP:OR (no original research). "He's already getting pilloried in the press." Everything in Wikipediat must be backed up by a WP:RS reliable source. If all reliable sources say he did bad things, then Wikipedia will, too.Dr.enh (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally bogus. You tried to balance positive comments with some negative criticism? Perhaps I didn't read carefully enough. Seems like all you did was reinsert text.

Reliable sources are over in the Bybee Memo article, which is where all of the relevant discussion belongs, anyway. It will not be ORIGINAL research. I considered that issue carefully. It will be a section-by-section summary. And, hello, what is Wikipedia but a summary? Not all reliable sources say "he did bad things". We also need to adhere to the rules concerning biographies of living persons, right?

Enough of this. I'm going to the Magic Kingdom. Feel free to rip on me in my absence.Samantha1961 (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't even wait to read my comments, could you? How about DISCUSSING???Samantha1961 (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I still stand by the inclusion of the Bybee memo summary that you reverted. WP:UNDUE - the Bybee memo plays a major role in the subject's notability, and as such, it deserves more than a paragraph mention in this article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise. I took out the second reference because it really has absolutely nothing to do with the material in question. If you think I'm misreading something, please let me know. Maybe I scanned right past it. I also took out the second "also" to make it read better; I wanted to change the second "criticized", but I couldn't off-hand think of a reasonable synonym. I'm sure it'll come to me. Or you. I fixed a typo. That was the sum total of my changes. I would, however, feel more comfortable about this quote if we would locate original source material. This is a secondary source. I mean, who are "they". I don't dispute that they exist, but it seems sloppy not to find a better citation quoting "them" rather than the secondary source.Samantha1961 (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I also wanted to point out that a summary of the Bybee Memo already exists in the Bybee Memo article. It's just not a particularly good one. I think its author probably just read the introductory two pages of the memo.

I still find that one paragraph extremely unbalanced POV. I mean, there ARE definitely people who support the memo to this day, notably Dick Cheney. And, honestly, it hardly does our cause any damage to quote Dick Cheney! (Personally, what I'd really like to see happen is Bush, Cheney, and Rummy brought up before an International War Crimes Tribunal. A girl can dream...) And I agree that the Bybee Memo warrants attention. Hence the redirection to an entire article devoted to it. In fact, the more information given in the Jay Bybee article about the Bybee Memo, the less incentive there will be for a reader to zip over to the Bybee Memo article and read the more detailed and complete version of events. Since a paragraph or two in JB's article can hardly begin to do the issue justice, I think we'd want to encourage readers to head over to the other article. Finally, while JB is in the news because of this one Memo, it is hardly the sum total of the man's life. He is, after all, a federal appellate judge. His entire life shouldn't be reduced to this one issue. No one's should.Samantha1961 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody else get the feeling that Samantha1961 is friends or family with Bybee? Haha she's an awfully sympathetic liberal. (haha this is a joke by the way) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.132.6 (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a Libra. (And a lawyer.) I'm into truth and fairness. Yes, I am truly also a liberal. I still wear my 3yo "Hillary in 2008" shirt. Sigh. But as a lawyer (and a skeptic) something about this situation has grated on me from the beginning. Why are we blaming the lawyers instead of the people who actually engaged in reprehensible acts or, more significantly, those who authorized them? All lawyers do is interpret the law for their clients. If you come to me and say, "I want my son to shoot the family dog. Is that legal?" and I go and research it and discover that it is, in fact legal, and I tell you that it's legal, but um... And then you tell your son to shoot the dog and he does, in whose universe am I then the guilty party? Oh, yeah. First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers!Samantha1961 (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

James B. Comey
Yes, Samantha1961, I read the source. We could fix your distorted summary of it, and then add in another perspective for WP:NPOV, which would make the whole thing WP:UNDUEly long for speculation about a soon-to-be released report, or we could just wait for the report.


 * Recently revealed information indicates that while the use of the interrogation methods in question was a subject of serious contention, even some in the Bush Administration who believed that using tough tactics was a serious mistake agreed that the methods themselves were legal. Following its nearly half-decade-long inquiry, the Office of Professional Responsibility is expected to release its findings regarding the Bybee Memo and other related memos this summer. These recent findings tend to indicate that Jay Bybee will be absolved of any wrongdoing for his role in the production of these memos.


 * However, Philip D. Zelikow, former State Department adviser to Condoleezza Rice, testified, "It seemed to me that the OLC interpretation of U.S. Constitutional Law in this area was strained and indefensible. I could not imagine any federal court in America agreeing that the entire CIA program could be conducted and it would not violate the American Constitution." Zelikow also alleged that Bush administration officials not only ignored his memos, but attempted to destroy them.


 * Outside of the Bush administration, the memo has been widely criticized. Yale law school Dean and former Assistant Secretary for Human Rights Harold Koh called it "perhaps the most clearly erroneous legal opinion I have ever read" which "grossly overreads the president's constitutional power." Former Nixon White House counsel John Dean, whose name was cemented in the national consciousness by his involvement in the Watergate scandal, concludes that the memo is tantamount to evidence of a war crime. On March 9, 2006, after emerging from a closed talk at Harvard Law School sponsored by the student chapter of the Federalist Society, a legal organization, Bybee was confronted by around thirty-five protesters.


 * Moreoever, in June 2004, the memo was rescinded by Jack Goldsmith, who had taken over OLC in 2003. He called the memo "deeply flawed" and "sloppily reasoned." Nevertheless, Goldsmith has asserted that he "hadn't determined the underlying techniques were illegal." He continues, "I wasn't in the position to make an independent ruling on the other techniques. I certainly didn't think they were unlawful, but I couldn't get an opinion that they were lawful either."

--Dr.enh (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My distorted summary?? How can you even remotely claim NPOV? The current first paragraph in that section is neutral. The second paragraph is scathingly negative. And now that an opposing POSITIVE viewpoint has cropped up (in the guise of that NYT article), you say that in order to BALANCE it out, you have to add a negative paragraph and then lift two additional negative paragraphs from the Bybee Memo article. You call that unbiased NPOV? It became balanced as soon as I put IN that one positive thing that's surfaced. Incidentally, this article is not only the most recent word on the subject, but hinting strongly at the final direction this will take... which appears will oddly match my viewpoint that the lawyers are not the ones to be blamed here.

I think the COMPROMISE here is that you acknowledge that there is already plenty of negative information in this section and that my one paragraph does, in fact, balance that out a bit. Again, if you want to fuss with the text, be my guest. No, be wikipedia's guest. But just deleting it outright is violating NPOV.Samantha1961 (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The distortion is leaving out "some," thereby implying "all." If you want to include defense of the memo by some of those in the Bush administration, then we need to include criticism of the memo, too. Or, we could just wait until outside, third-party investigators draw their conclusions. --Dr.enh (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I read "some" to mean specifically THOSE lawyers who were questioning the methods at all. This is borne out by the sentence further on in the article which states, "None of the Justice Department lawyers who reviewed the interogation question argued that the methods were clearly illegal." NONE. However, I can concede the "some" point--even though it is inaccurate--if you stop arguing that (1)it takes four negative paragraphs to somehow balance one positive paragraph and (2)you stop lifting paragraphs from the Bybee Memo article.Samantha1961 (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I read "some" but that is not how your wrote. E.g. Zelikov. you stop lifting paragraphs from the Bybee Memo article Of course, these paragraphs were originally in the Bybee article, but you cut and pasted them to the Bybee memo article. I think all four paragraphs are WP:UNDUE in the Bybee article, and that they belong in the Bybee memo article. But if you are going to include the misleadingly slanted pro-Bybee paragraph, we've got to balance it.  --Dr.enh (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Eliminante passive voice. The OPR is expected by whom? These recent findings tend to indicate according to whom? --Dr.enh (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

1) "The e-mail messages are now in the hands of investigators at the department's Office of Professional Responsibility, which is preparing a report expected to be released this summer on the Bush administration lawyers who approved waterboarding and other harsh methods." That addresses your by whom question somewhat. Although, I agree, not adequately. The author of the article? Everyone in D.C.?

2) "These recent findings tend to indicate..." Can be inferred from the contents of the article.

3) OMG, how many times am I going to have to go over this? Perhaps a graphic. Without your additional paragraphs: NEUTRAL NEGATIVE POSITIVE

With your additions: NEUTRAL NEGATIVE POSITIVE NEGATIVE NEGATIVE NEGATIVE

Let me say this loud and clear so maybe you will hear me this time: THIS SECTION IS ALREADY BALANCED WITHOUT YOUR ADDITIONS. IT WAS UNBALANCED BEFORE I PUT IN THE POSTIVE REMARKS. YOU ADDING MORE NEGATIVE REMARKS UNBALANCES IT AGAIN. You could, you know, STOP.

If it would please your majesty, we could move the bulk of this over to the Bybee Memo article where it belongs. BUT then the Bybee Memo section under the Bybee Memo article needs to contain only the neutral paragraph. You know, the one that's actual informative. AS SOON AS YOU PUT IN THAT HE IS UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR THIS, THAT, AND THE OTHER THING, YOU ALSO MUST PUT IN THAT RECENTLY RELEASED INFO INDICATES HE IS GOING TO BE EXONERATED. And why, in God's name, would you want to do anything less???

Gee, I sure wish I knew how to bold.Samantha1961 (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your say "NEUTRAL NEGATIVE POSITIVE," indicating that your perspective is completely POV. Instead, try looking at it as, "facts without opinions, opinions attributed to neutral third parties, and opinions attributued to either the Bush administration or to no one at all." --Dr.enh (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I took your advice, which on the face of it sounded very reasonable, and realized that the entire second paragraph, consisting as it does/did of that list of people's opinions, was, well, OPINIONS. So I took it out.

And here I thought you were going to teach me how to bold.Samantha1961 (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And what are you quoting?Samantha1961 (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Compromise wording
If the James B. Comey info is to be included at all, here is the wording I suggest. If we are going to include Bush administration sources who say that they agreed that the methods in the memo were legal, then we have to include Bush administration sources who say that they agreed that the methods in the memo were not legal. To do otherwise falsely implies unanimity within the Bush administration. If we are going to include the contested statement that "These recent findings tend to indicate that Jay Bybee will be absolved of any wrongdoing for his role in the production of these memos," then we have to include the sources who disagree. I have made my suggestion for wording. Rather than simply deleting it, why don't you suggest an improvment? --Dr.enh (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

During Jay Bybee's tenure at the OLC, the CIA requested legal advice on detainee interrogation. That request was routed to the OLC by then White House General Counsel Alberto Gonzalez who desired the "ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors."[9] The CIA inquired whether, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it could aggressively interrogate suspected high-ranking Al-Qaeda members captured outside the United States. In effect, the CIA was asking for an interpretation of the statutory term of "torture" as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2340. That section implements, in part, the obligations of the United States under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Bybee signed that legal memorandum which defined "enhanced interrogation techniques" in ways that are regarded as torture by the current Justice Department,[10] Amnesty International,[11] Human Rights Watch,[12], medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[13][14] intelligence officials,[15] military judges,[16] and American allies.[17] This memo has been the source of controversy and calls for his impeachment. Bybee is currently the subject of a war crimes investigation in Spain,[18] as well as the subject of an investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility.[19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantha1961 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Recently revealed information indicates that while the use of the interrogation methods in question was a subject of serious contention, even some in the Bush Administration who believed that using tough tactics was a serious mistake agreed that the methods themselves were legal. Following its nearly half-decade-long inquiry, the Office of Professional Responsibility is expected to release its findings regarding the Bybee Memo and other related memos this summer. These recent findings tend to indicate that Jay Bybee will be absolved of any wrongdoing for his role in the production of these memos.


 * However, Philip D. Zelikow, former State Department adviser to Condoleezza Rice, testified, "It seemed to me that the OLC interpretation of U.S. Constitutional Law in this area was strained and indefensible. I could not imagine any federal court in America agreeing that the entire CIA program could be conducted and it would not violate the American Constitution." Zelikow also alleged that Bush administration officials not only ignored his memos, but attempted to destroy them.


 * Outside of the Bush administration, the memo has been widely criticized. Yale law school Dean and former Assistant Secretary for Human Rights Harold Koh called it "perhaps the most clearly erroneous legal opinion I have ever read" which "grossly overreads the president's constitutional power." Former Nixon White House counsel John Dean, whose name was cemented in the national consciousness by his involvement in the Watergate scandal, concludes that the memo is tantamount to evidence of a war crime. On March 9, 2006, after emerging from a closed talk at Harvard Law School sponsored by the student chapter of the Federalist Society, a legal organization, Bybee was confronted by around thirty-five protesters.


 * Moreoever, in June 2004, the memo was rescinded by Jack Goldsmith, who had taken over OLC in 2003. He called the memo "deeply flawed" and "sloppily reasoned." Nevertheless, Goldsmith has asserted that he "hadn't determined the underlying techniques were illegal." He continues, "I wasn't in the position to make an independent ruling on the other techniques. I certainly didn't think they were unlawful, but I couldn't get an opinion that they were lawful either."

RESPONSE: A couple of thoughts off the top of my head as I muddle through this--and I am going on the assumption here that you are interested in the integrity of the article, not in propagating a particular viewpoint.

1) Shouldn't the recent article matter MOST just because it is most recent and the latest word? Much of this drama has played out in the forum of the NYT. This article could prove the turning point in this entire thing.

2) I want to emphasize again where I think the flaw lies. From my reading of the memo thus far (and I have not finished because I'm trying to do that summary simultaneously and, you know, life gets in the way), I have found the lawyers' interpretation to be absolutely spot on. If I had been in their position, I would have written substantively the same memo. But I would not have been happy to do it. I think the real flaw lies in the statutes that don't go further in spelling out just what constitutes torture. Personally, I would not want to be waterboarded. Why is this not spelled out, codified in law, as being wrong? That's the real flaw that I see. The lawyers were just interpreting what was there. They really had no choice. It's not like they could just make up the law. What I'd really like to see is the underlying law fixed. Well, that and my dream of an International War Crimes Tribunal for Bush, Cheney, and Rummy. A girl can dream. They lost me back at the "enemy combatant" designation...

3) What we really need for balance here is a well-cited list of individuals and organizations who did NOT believe that as defined the "enhanced interrogation techniques" constituted torture. They exist. It's just a matter of digging through the voluminous info and ferreting them out. As written, it is definitely not NPOV... That said, I would have to, just off the top of my head, say that I think waterboarding is torture. It would certainly be torture if it were happening to me. But what I think or feel based on common consensus or dictionary definitions or even my own personal viewpoint is not what the law currently defines torture to be.

4) I think a priority has to be that this section is getting too long. Most of this discussion should be in the Bybee Memo article. So whatever else we do, we should take a machete to it.

5) "If we are going to include the contested statement that "These recent findings tend to indicate[who?] that Jay Bybee will be absolved of any wrongdoing for his role in the production of these memos," then we have to include the sources who disagree." -- The findings are less than a week old. We have to wait for NEW people/opinions to disagree with them. If they are OLD opinions, they are given without the participants having knowledge of the recent developments.

OKAY. I have read and reread and reread this section. I would like to suggest the following: We delete everything starting with "These recent findings..." through the end of the section. The info, of course, will still be in the longer article. You left it there, right?

If we make that change, which I can live with, I still have the following problems with this section:

1) I strongly believe it should be "those" and not "some" based on my reading of the article. I think that some lawyers refers to THOSE who were opposed. I can let this go, but not happily.

2) As discussed above, that list needs to be balanced. This is not a new concern; it's one I've had for a while.

3) That Spanish War Crimes investigation is a joke. I wish there were an easy way (like a footnote) to spell out what it really going on there without being too verbose, but I can't see my way clear to it.

4) I have a problem with the second and third sentences in the third paragraph solely based on accuracy. Which is to say possible inaccuracy.

That's pretty much it. I shall for the time being do nothing in this section. I await your remarks.Samantha1961 (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Got tired of waiting.Samantha1961 (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't even try to discuss. You didn't even try to attain NPOV. You are too close to this subject matter. You need to recuse yourself and stick to your gay and anti-Mormon web pages. Unless, of course, that's the whole point and your big contribution to Prop 8 is trying to make Bybee's Wikipedia article as negative as possible so you can do your bit to trying have him removed from the bench before the Prop 8 appeal comes before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.Samantha1961 (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your 02:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC) addition to the talk page is incoherent. Please clarify.


 * Again (with the part you compromised on struck through): If the James B. Comey info is to be included at all, here is the wording I suggest. If we are going to include Bush administration sources who say that they agreed that the methods in the memo were legal, then we have to include Bush administration sources who say that they agreed that the methods in the memo were not legal. To do otherwise falsely implies unanimity within the Bush administration. If we are going to include the contested statement that "These recent findings tend to indicate that Jay Bybee will be absolved of any wrongdoing for his role in the production of these memos," then we have to include the sources who disagree. I have made my suggestion for wording. Rather than simply deleting it, why don't you suggest an improvment? --Dr.enh (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

My "addition to the talk page" was perfectly coherent, and your defensive response indicates that you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Your comment, on the other hand, makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. I thought we were attempting compromise. Perhaps it was just a stalling technique or you were attempting to waste my time, which worked, because you have at no point given an inch.Samantha1961 (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless, of course, that's the whole point and your big contribution to Prop 8 is trying to make Bybee's Wikipedia article as negative as possible so you can do your bit to trying have him removed from the bench before the Prop 8 appeal comes before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. WTF? --Dr.enh (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

John Yoo
What is the rationale behind deleting the "see also John Yoo" reference? It's totally relevant, since he actually wrote the Bybee Memo, discussed in this article.Samantha1961 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right. I put it back. MaxPont (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

February 2010
Given the fact that Bybee has now been cleared of all professional misconduct allegations, which I think editor "Reconsider the static" may have missed, a tense change is now in order. The investigation is done. Bybee WAS the subject of an investigation.

Furthermore, given recent developments, I think the discussion of the pros and cons and various opinions concerning the Bybee Memo itself should now be shunted over to the Bybee Memo article. In fact, they always belonged there. It was merely overzealousness on the part of certain editors who were probably convinced that the investigation would turn out differently (guilty until proven innocent!) that led to this discussion being included under the Jay Bybee article when it always belonged in the Bybee Memo article. Obviously, given the noteriety that ensued from the Bybee Memo, it is relevant to the Jay Bybee article. No argument there. But the main discussion really needs to be in the Bybee Memo.

Please note that I have opened this point for discussion rather than just deleting the related text. Actually, I deleted it with intention of getting back to it and inserting it into the Bybe Memo article.Samantha1961 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Our article should note that the report prepared by the OPR staff concluded that Bybee had engaged in professional misconduct, but that the higher-ups at OPR overruled the drafters of the report and softened its conclusion. Our article should also note that even the softened version found that Bybee had exercised "poor judgment". JamesMLane t c 12:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should it note that? Internal versions of a memo are of no particular importance. They happen all the time, and frequently have different conclusions than the final version. The output of an organization is what the management of an organization approves, not drafts created by staff.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a significant point of view that the OPR staff's work reflects an accurate assessment of Bybee's conduct, and that the revision by the higher-ups reflects the Obama administration's policy of trying to appear moderate by not engaging in "recriminations" about Bush-era events. We can provide the information to our readers about what the staff found.  Readers who agree with you that such drafts are essentially meaningless will also have the information about what was in the final, released version of the report.  I believe that the change was made for political reasons but obviously the article shouldn't assert that. JamesMLane t c 20:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The only way I could see mentioning the draft would be if you could provide strong, reliable sourcing that the pressure wound up corrupting an accurate report. Properly sourced, that would be a legitimate addition. Without that, mentioning the draft wouldn't be reasonable, because the draft wouldn't have been shown to be important.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not the role of Wikipedia editors to say either "Yes, the draft is correct, Bybee violated ethical canons, therefore we'll report that he did," or "No, Bybee's errors didn't go beyond "poor judgment", therefore we'll suppress the opinion to the contrary." We should mention the draft not because we can prove it was accurate -- for that matter, we can't prove that the whitewashed final version was accurate.  We should mention both of them because both of them represent significant viewpoints and both have been reported in the corporate media.  Some readers may conclude that Bybee did indeed commit professional misconduct.  Others may conclude that his stalwart defense of torture was a great service to his country and didn't even represent poor judgment.  We should provide the facts (including facts about notable opinions) so that readers can make up their own minds. JamesMLane t c 21:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Mr. Lane. To the extent that the OPR investigation is worth discussing in greater detail (and I'm not sure it is), the history of the internal development of this final memo might well be relevant. It took them over half a decade to arrive at a conclusion. YEARS. So it might be worth noting that first it was going to go one way, then it ultimately went another. I think Bybee and Yoo may even have appealed the original result. I think all of that is on the Justice Department website. I haven't waded through all of that. The fact that ongoing developments in the investigation were periodically in the news would tend to indicate greater relevance of the original draft...

On the other hand, perhaps it is really only relevant to report the final result and not get bogged down in details that were ultimately irrelevant precisely because they were reversed. I wonder if there is a Wikipedia policy on this? If this were a boxing match or a baseball game, would it be relevant who won--or worth noting that they almost didn't?

Perhaps you should propose some language. As long as it doesn't go along the lines of "the initial report found Yoo and Bybee GUILTY and it should have because they were and then the higher ups reversed it because they were evil", I can support the addition. Again, assuming it falls within Wikipedia policy to elaborate in that direction. I mean, KWW makes a really good point that the internal drafts were ultimately irrelevant... I don't know. Tough call. But regardless, NPOV!--Samantha1961 (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, one more thought. This is a living person we're dealing with here. Somewhere out there exists the flesh-and-blood Jay Bybee, who must be greatly relieved that he has been vindicated, exonerated, or whatever. I don't want to whitewash history, but we shouldn't flirt with defamation, either...--Samantha1961 (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of editorials, blogs etc.
WP:BLP requires reliable sources for any claims made - especiallyt contentious ones. I reverted a large edit based on such, and including some substantially non-neutral language not supported by the cites given. Collect (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That was my edit you reverted. There wasn't anything contentious about what I put, and the language was neutral and quoted from mainstream articles. Everything was sourced from the Washington Post and New York Times (not blogs and editorials) except for: 1) the sentence I added about critics calling for his impeachment which was linked to a Huffington Post article by Sam Stein who is a reporter and not an editorialist 2) another sentence where I said some felt he was given the nomination as a reward for his political loyalty which was linked to a New York Times, granted, op-ed, but I'm not stating as fact that he was given it, but that some people think that (specifically the New York Times though many others could be listed). Was this your problem with my edit? Or were there others?Dutchman57 (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone else can read what you considered "neutral." As for the sources, I suggest you read WP:RS and WP:BLP for starters.  Examples: who merely accused him of exercising "poor judgement" adds an adverb which is POV.  Some saw his nomination by President Bush as a reward for his political loyalty while at the Office of Legal Council where in August 2002 he signed the Torture Memos and other memos favorable to the Bush administration is cited to an NYT editorial (thus only usable for cited opinions, and not for "facts) which does not support the claim.  You use The Beast as a ref for a claim that the OPR reversed an OPR decision ... and forget that the actual OPR report is what counts - not an earlier preliminary report.  The HuffPo blog is about a NYT editorial - which is two steps from being utile in a BLP.   And so on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Daily Beast (actually Newsweek) citation. It was there before, and I had left it in there when I added my first edits, but it confused things (I think it was the first article that broke this story which is why it was probably here in the first place). There seems to be a little confusion about the whole OPR report in general: as it is currently written the paragraph is inaccurate. Bybee was "not completely cleared of professional misconduct allegations" by the OPR, and the OPR did not find that he had exercised "poor judgement." In July 2009, the OPR released its final report (there had been two previous drafts) of its investigation into the Bybee memos. In this final report they found that Bybee and Yoo had committed "professional misconduct," so it is true to say that this was the final report by the OPR and these were their official findings. The OPR is not an independent agency. It reports directly to the Attorney General and the Department of Justice. So the OPR sent its final report and findings to David Margolis, the Associate Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice, who reviewed it. He did not write a new draft for the OPR investigation (to be clear, Margolis was not even in the OPR). He then wrote a memo to the Attorney General saying that it was his decision not to adopt the findings of the OPR which again were that Bybee and Yoo had committed professional misconduct and should be referred to the bar associations in the states where they were licensed for possible sanctioning or even disbarment. It was Margolis writing for the Department of Justice who said that they had exercised poor judgement. These are important distinctions. In his memo, Margolis writes "OPR's findings and my decision are less important than the public's ability to make its own judgements about these documents and to learn lessons for the future." I have rewritten this paragraph and tried to make it as clear as possible citing both the OPR's final report and David Margolis' memo. I also added pertinent information about Bybee from the OPR's final report.Dutchman57 (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please self-revert and edit - the only OPR report which counts is the final version as approved by the gpvernment.  Until it was released in that final form, it was a "work in progress" and should not be presented to WP readers as being of great import.   By the way, the length of the section likely violates WP:UNDUE in the first place.  Can you reduce it to a couple of simple sentences?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the only OPR report which counts is the final version, and I make no mention of the previous drafts of the report in the edit. Go to http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_OPRReport.html and you can read what the final report says, this is the report from which I cite. If there is going to be a section on this page about the OPR Investigation then the findings of this final report should be mentioned. This is the "final version." David Margolis, the Associate Deputy Attorney General, did not write a new "government approved" final report. His duty was to determine if the Department of Justice would refer the findings of this final OPR report to the respective bar associations where Bybee and Yoo were licensed as lawyers. He decided not to do this in a memo he wrote to the Attorney General which I also cite. I did shorten the paragraph a little so now it's 2 sentences about the OPR final report, and 2 sentences about Margolis' memo.Dutchman57 (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

$3.4 Million Legal Defense for Free

 * ‘Torture’ Judge Gets $3.4 Million Legal Defense for Free wired.com October 24, 2011.91.39.103.68 (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Added.    Will Beback    talk    10:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jay Bybee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080628151433/http://www.meridianmagazine.com:80/people/030708jayprint.html to http://www.meridianmagazine.com/people/030708jayprint.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jay Bybee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090410163940/http://www.law.unlv.edu/faculty/jay-bybee.html to http://www.law.unlv.edu/faculty/jay-bybee.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728023918/http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/DAGMargolisMemo100105.pdf to http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/DAGMargolisMemo100105.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://64.38.12.138/News/2006/011980.asp?print=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jay Bybee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100606125336/http://www.law.unlv.edu/files/Bybee_publications.pdf to http://www.law.unlv.edu/files/Bybee_publications.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091125074258/http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Jay_S._Bybee to http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Jay_S._Bybee
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090526162854/http://washingtonindependent.com/42763/philip-zelikow-olc-interpretation-would-allow-waterboarding-of-us-citizens to http://washingtonindependent.com/42763/philip-zelikow-olc-interpretation-would-allow-waterboarding-of-us-citizens
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728023830/http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/OPRFinalReport090729.pdf to http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/OPRFinalReport090729.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101206020409/http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/bin/caselaw/us_v_craighead.htm to http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/bin/caselaw/us_v_craighead.htm
 * Added tag to http://ensign.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Media.FloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=f610e31c-a221-414a-9faf-03930c8f96ce&Region_id=&Issue_id=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jay Bybee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301090557/http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_12256286 to http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_12256286

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jay Bybee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161104001408/https://www.propublica.org/special/the-men-behind-the-memos to https://www.propublica.org/special/the-men-behind-the-memos
 * Added tag to https://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS261101+05-Feb-2008+PRN20080205
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/OPRFinalReport090729.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/DAGMargolisMemo100105.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)