Talk:Jay Bybee

message: 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)
thread_title: Testimony About Bybee Memo

message: 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)
thread_title: Kaleck Litigation

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Iraq-gate"

message: The reliance on Meridian Magazine, a source with an acknowledged agenda other than news reporting, is troubling. Many of the facts reported seem as though they could be sourced elsewhere. Stylistically, quoting news sources for routine recitation of facts is odd and unnecessary. Bongomatic 22:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: "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)
thread_title: bias

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bot-created subpage

message: 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  or .  Geo Swan (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Charges to be filed today?

message: 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)
thread_title: Please add notes to the bottom, not top of talk page

message: 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)
replies: text: Feel free to add to it. BBiiis08 (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV should address both sides of the issues equally

message: 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)
thread_title: FWIW there's more commentary from Bybee's friends 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Torture/War crimes

message: 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)
thread_title: Supporters' Website

message: 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)
replies: text: You are right. I put it back. MaxPont (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: John Yoo

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.—Kww(talk) 13:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.—Kww(talk) 20:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: February 2010

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Use of editorials, blogs etc. 

message: * ‘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)
replies: text: Added.    Will Beback  talk   10:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  $3.4 Million Legal Defense for Free 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified