Impeach Jay Bybee--not just a fringe thing.

I saw this at Huffpo, and it was one of those, "As others see thee" moments. I live on the outskirts of Left Blogistan. I get pretty much all my news from the internet because the internet is updated in damn-near real-time. Because I follow something ridiculously like 20-30 blogs at any time (it's amazing I go to work or even write my own, however occasionally that may be) my acquaintance with lots of hard news topics come from Firedoglake and TPM, first, and eventually I'll see the NYT or WaPo link on Buzzflash. And I'm generally either disappointed by the MSM takes, because I feel like they've been scooped already, or, the stories are straight journo and have no tasty analysis with them, because they can't follow *good shit* like the US Attorney firings or the Abramoff corruption stuff or the wonderful Ted Stevens story, in quite the serial continuity and depth, and with the loving partisan style that blogs can.

But my heavy blog-addiction aside--

(Dudes--I don't watch cable news, I just see a lot of cable news progs from surfing Youtube, which I've found is like Tivo only later, and I don't have to program anything. Other people watch, capture, and post stuff up *for* me. I'm not even sure why I'm still paying for cable.)

I have signed a few "Impeach Jay Bybee" petitions online and e-mailed my congress-critters, and may even somehow find a minute to call somebody about this, even though I work in a telephone call center, which, if you think about it, gives me massive psychological reasons to have an antipathy towards telephonic communications outside of my workspace. Especially if I have to be put on hold or transferred, and stuff.

I don't think my objection to Judge Bybee's former legal work is necessarily a "blogistan" thng or a "left" thing. I think it's a very valid human rights thing, and I think that other people, who aren't either "left" or "blogular" would feel the same way about someone deliberately crafting a memo out of irrelevant cases (about business law and civil suits?) and faulty reasoning (if you don't intend to inflict harm, but to get information, by what--way of inflicting harm? duh?) to try and diaper the dirty behind of a program the Bush Administration was already keen to introduce. In other words--as more people acquaint themselves with what's going on, I think more outrage will be seen.

Now, I have already heard that Sen. McCain is full-on against torture, but he doesn't see what good releasing the memos serve, and Sen. Lieberman has outright said he thinks release of the memos is harmful, and that's been echoed by silly Washington, D.C. Villager=pundits like Peggy Noonan. And non-entities like retired politician Dick Cheney (who still insists upon the efficacy of torture, and demands release of a memo saying the same, along with memos only he's seen on the WMDs in Iraq and the Saddam/Osama link--I guess, since I have the same faith in the existance of all three.)

Here's the point:

We're Americans. If we really think our Constitution is for real, and that when the US signs on to a treaty, our word is bond, then we can't just play semantics and legitimize torture. We have to do the right thing. And if someone does the wrong thing in our name, we need to make it right--and try and keep it right. And that means that if somebody (even if directed to by higher-ups) penned a bad bill of goods that others used as a framework for massive injustice, that person lacks the prudence that being a judge requires. It suggests a misuse of law, and poor judgement.

Sign a petition, send an e-mail or letter, or just call up and complain to a Congressional staffer (who probably has the same telephonic hang-ups I do, come to think of it). This guy screwed up. And other people, no mater how unsympathetic some of them are, were maliciously treated. That's not how it should be.