The Bybee "torture memo": the banality of evil

This was intended as a follow-up to "the banality of evil".
On closer reading of the Bybee "torture memo" of 1 Aug 2002, it also serves as a follow-up to The conservative mind at work.

Among the first observations in the Bybee memo is the following:

"The interrogation team is certain that he [Abu Zubaydah] has additional information that he refuses to divulge."

"The interrogation team is certain...". Where have I heard this before?

Oh, yeah:

“You search in the student’s pack, you search the student’s outer garments, and you have a reasonable suspicion that the student has drugs,” he said. “Don’t you have, after conducting all these other searches, a reasonable suspicion that she has drugs in her underpants?”

“You’ve searched everywhere else,” Justice Scalia said. “By God, the drugs must be in her underpants.”
[Court Debates Strip Search of Student, NYT, 21 Apr 2009]

The willingness of conservatives to accept their prejudices and suspicions as fact is simply awe-inspiring!

But - as noted above, that was not the original intent of this post.
The original intent was to provide a commentary on "the banality of evil".

Bybee's opinion is written in neutral legal prose. It sounds reasoned and rationale.

After noting the ten (10) proposed interrogation techniques, Bybee comments drily:

"The interrogation team would use these techniques in some combination to convince Zubaydah that the only way he can influence his surrounding environment is through cooperation."

I'll note that Bybee very subtly places the blame for any adverse effects squarely on Zubaydah: all he has to do is cooperate to "influence his surrounding environment"!

The memo is replete with this seemingly innocuous prose. In describing "walling", Bybee notes that:

To further reduce the probability of injury, the individual is allowed to rebound from the flexible wall.

Note: the chance of injury is not eliminated - only its probability is reduced! The implication is that there is a real, non-neglible chance that the technique will, in fact, cause real physical injury... but that's okay.

There is a lengthy discussion that the proposed techniques derive from the military's SERE ("Survival Evasion Resistance Escape") training - without noting the limitations on their use during this training, which WERE noted in the Senate Armed Service Committee's INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY.
Nor is there mention of the fact that:

"SERE training is "based on illegal exploitation (under the rules listed in the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of
Prisoners of War) of prisoners over the last 50 years." The techniques used in SERE school,
based, in part, on Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean war to elicit false confessions...
[Senate Report; emphasis added]

Finally, Bybee fails to note that:

There are fundamental differences between a SERE school exercise and a real world interrogation. At SERE school, students are subject to an extensive medical and psychological pre-screening prior to being subjected to physical and psychological pressures. The schools impose strict limits on the frequency, duration, and/or intensity of certain techniques. Psychologists are present throughout SERE training to intervene should the need arise and to help students cope with associated stress. And SERE school is voluntary; students are even given a special phrase they can use to immediately stop the techniques from being used against them.

He had previously stated that:

Our advice is based upon the following facts, which you have provided to us. We also understand that you do not have any facts in your possession contrary to the facts outlined here, and this opinion is limited to these facts.
[Bybee memo, page 1]

He seems to feel no need to inquire whether in fact all relevant facts have been provided, and there is no evidence that he asked any questions about the SERE training protocols, the answers to which might suggest that SERE techniques were NOT appropriate interrogation methods.

This is long enough already.
Read the memo!

It is an extraordinary exemplar of "the banality of evil"!

Is Jay Bybee an evil monster? No - he was just doing his job: giving his client an opinion to support a pre-determined position. Lawyers do it all the time. The difference is, MOST legal opinions are subject to review which can invalidate spurious arguments, or note insubstantial or incomplete factual bases.

Were the acts resulting from Bybee's opinion evil? Yes!

Bybee's careerism paid off: he's now a Federal Judge!

p.s. "The interrogation team is certain...".
Did Bybee inquire into the independent facts supporting this certainty?
Given his lack of inquisitiveness evidenced elsewhere, my guess is, "No, he did not!"