Bybee Memo

Wow. From Turley (emphasis mine, makes your skin crawl):

The memo by Jay Bybee seems designed to supply interrogators in advance with a criminal defense by instructing them on the requirement of specific intent. It also indicates how Administration officials expected to face potential criminal charges. They probably did not anticipate the extent to which Democratic leaders would intervene to protect them and the President from any serious investigation.

“Because specific intent is an element of the offense, the absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture,” he instructed.

Because the Democrats refused to block him, Bybee is now a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

So does this mean that since they were knowingly defending something that could be viewed as unlawful upon review even before they committed the act, doesn't that negate any other intent, or lack thereof, that they're trying to claim after the fact and doesn't that make them culpable? Does that make sense? I mean I honestly don't know.

----------------
Now playing: Cat Power - Babydoll
via FoxyTunes