In the view of John Parry, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Ore., who has written extensively on torture, Bybee's legal reasoning was suspect and the memos "unbalanced."
"They do not consider any arguments that might detract from their conclusions, and they cite irrelevant or misleading authority," Parry said. "Perhaps worse, they fail to provide sound legal advice. Instead, they read as if they were meant to provide cover for decisions that had already been taken."
University of San Diego law professor Shaun Martin, who follows and analyzes Western appeals courts, said he was confident Bybee wouldn't leave the bench of his own accord.
"My sense is that Judge Bybee thinks what he did was right but that it was expressed poorly. That's not something you resign over," Martin said.
Marjorie Cohn, a law professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, disagreed.
"He can't ignore it," Cohn said of the growing storm around the judge. "Bybee has liability on several different levels. There may well be criminal investigations and prosecutions, if not by the United States, by other countries."
A Spanish judge has announced a criminal investigation on behalf of foreign terrorism suspects, including five Spaniards.
Bybee, John C. Yoo and Steven G. Bradbury, all former Bush administration lawyers, are under investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility.
--
carol.williams@latimes.com
