StopZion Bridsingtruth Citiesofpeace

 The LDS Leader's Connection to the CIA(LDS) MKUltra Mind Control Program brought before Congress in the 1977 Congressional Hearings by Senator Frank Church of Idaho.  Senator Church was then politically destroyed for exposing this ongoing, "justified" atrocity. A live footage of this Congressional Hearing can be seen at Mind Justice in a link provided on Item 13. "Best video documentaries": http://www.mindjustice.org/index.htm in a 1979 ABC News Special "Mission Mind Control". This 1979 ABC News Special "Mission Mind Control" provides witnesses and documented evidence of abuse and even the murders of innocent, unknowing individuals caused by the CIA and other secret intelligent organizations by the use of drugs for experimentation for mind control experiments.  When the government was sued for the wrongful deaths, there was massive cover-up by the CIA.  The National Security Act protects murderers, thefts, sexual abusers, pedophiles, etc. in the quest and justification for mind control of the masses. Please read the documented, valiant quest for justice from a mind-controlled victim who experienced atrocities from the tender age of 4; all for "National Security" funded with our tax dollar and carried out by the CIA, and other "patriotic perverts" at:  http://www.wanttoknow.info/nationbetrayed10pg  LDS Judge Bybee endorsed by LDS (Mormon) Members Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon and Senator Micke Crapo of Idaho - Torture and Mind Control is never justified!

It was the "CIA (many LDS members are recruited into the CIA because of their generational "blind obedience" and language skills) that brought in the 'Age of Aquarias'" by the expansive use and distribution of LSD to innocent teenagers and the masses for the CIA's experiments.

(see our exposure of the MKUltra Mind Control in this site) http://www.mormon.citymax.com/page/page/536387.htm

and at this very important site: http://www.wanttoknow.info

BYU law grad prepared torture memo By Adam Liptak
The New York Times
    The Bush administration is distancing itself from a memorandum prepared two years ago by a government lawyer asserting that the president's power to use torture to extract information from suspected terrorists is almost unlimited.
    Some of the officials who received the memorandum worked diligently to elevate the lawyer, Jay S. Bybee, to the federal bench.
    Nominated by President Bush in 2002 and confirmed by the Senate last year, the graduate of Brigham Young University and its law school now sits on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in San Francisco.
    Former colleagues say the judge, whose chambers are in Las Vegas, is a serious, soft-spoken, reflective man. They say it is difficult to reconcile his discussion of torture in clinical, dispassionate detail with his background.
    Bybee, a former legal academic, told Meridian, an LDS Church online magazine, last year that he hoped to be remembered for his integrity. "I would like my headstone to read, 'He always tried to do the right thing,' " Bybee said.
    The memorandum, dated Aug. 1, 2002, defined torture narrowly under a federal law that prohibits it. Only pain like that accompanying "death, organ failure or the permanent impairment of a significant body function" qualifies, Bybee wrote. It went on to say torture is unlawful only if the infliction of pain is the offender's specific objective. "Even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent," Bybee wrote.
    The memorandum also discussed various potential defenses to criminal prosecutions for torture, including necessity and self-defense. Finally, it asserted that the president was free under his authority as commander in chief to order torture, notwithstanding treaties and laws barring it.
    The memorandum said it was addressed to Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel, in response to his questions. At a briefing on Tuesday, Gonzales specifically disavowed the part of the memorandum discussing the president's authority as commander in chief, saying it was "irrelevant and unnecessary."
    Senior Justice Department officials took a broader view, saying the entire memorandum would be withdrawn.
    Bybee, 50, worked as a law clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va.; in private practice in Washington, D.C.; as a lawyer in the Justice Department and the White House in the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush.
    Bybee served as assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, a unit of the Justice Department that advises the executive branch on the law, from 2001 until he joined the appeals court last year.
    On Feb. 27, 2003, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-6 to approve Bybee's nomination; all negative votes were cast by Democrats.
**********************

Justifying torture is out, House panel says Associated Press
      WASHINGTON — A House committee voted Wednesday to bar the Justice Department from issuing legal justifications for the U.S. use of torture in the latest congressional reaction to government memos that seemed to permit the practice.
      The Republican-led House Appropriations Committee approved the provision by voice vote after sponsor Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., said the Justice Department has acted in "outlandish fashion" in the episode, which has involved detainees in Iraq and elsewhere.
      The panel used another voice vote to approve nonbinding language by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., aimed at getting the department to report on all documents it has written supporting practices that would violate the Geneva Convention or other treaties. The report would also have to state how much time the Justice Department spent preparing each document.
      In a sign of the breadth of the congressional uproar over torture and the administration's condoning of the practice, Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., released a recent letter he wrote to Justice officials seeking similar information.
      Wolf, chairman of the subcommittee that controls the Justice Department's budget, asked department officials to investigate the Aug. 1, 2002, memo they sent to the White House that critics say helped lead to the mistreatment of Iraqis held at Abu Ghraib prison.
      "The thought of the United States condoning torture is abhorrent," Wolf wrote.
      The provisions were added to a $39.8 billion bill for the Justice, Commerce and State departments for 2005. The overall bill was approved by voice vote.
      The Senate has yet to write its version of the measure.
*****************************

LDS Judge, BYU Graduate Writes Memo Justifying Torture 

Memo on torture stokes ethics-versus-faith debate  By Peggy Fletcher Stack and Pamela Manson     The Salt Lake Tribune

    Dan Burk doesn't see how anyone with a conscience could tolerate, let alone defend, the use of torture -- even in extreme cases.
    But Burk, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, was especially incensed to discover that just such a defense was launched by a member of his own LDS faith.
    Jay Bybee, a devout Mormon who in 2002 was head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, signed an August memorandum that year that said certain interrogation techniques could be used legally as long as the pain involved was less than that accompanying "serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death."
    If the intent is to gain information, not just to cause harm, the memo reasoned, these techniques fall outside the legal definition of torture forbidden by international law.
    The controversial memo, since disavowed by the White House, has sparked a lively Internet debate among LDS lawyers about whether Bybee violated his professional and religious ethics while writing it.
    Burk started the conversation last month when he posted a stinging critique on http://www.timesandseasons.org, which has frequent comments by lawyers who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
    "I cannot believe that the practice of torture is acceptable to anyone who claims to be a disciple of Jesus Christ," wrote Burk. "At what point does a Latter-Day Saint governmental official have, like Mormon of old, the moral obligation to resign his position rather than participate in the conduct of his superiors?"
    Burk's incendiary comment produced more than 100 responses, with pro and con arguments built on everything from New Testament mandates and Book of Mormon stories to the philosophers Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill.
    Fred Gedicks, a Brigham Young University law professor who has known Bybee for 30 years, doesn't necessarily agree with the memo's conclusions, but he believes the bloggers misunderstand Bybee's motives. The timing of the memo indicates it was aimed at dealings with al-Qaida in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and the Afghanistan war, he said.
    The anti-torture comments mirror earlier discussions about the problem of unilateral disarmament, Gedicks says. "It's fine to talk about the teachings of the Savior about peace, but when the other side is not living those teachings, there are real risks by living them unilaterally."
    He adds: "I don't think my answers about torture would have been the same as his, but the idea that the memo shouldn't have been written at all is not compartmentalization. It ignores the new reality." Nationally, lawyers have decried the memo as chillingly narrow. While acknowledging his exact assignment is unknown, critics assail Bybee for failing to include ethical, moral and even practical context.
    Michael K. Young, George Washington University law professor who is the incoming president of the University of Utah, said he took such a broader approach when he was a deputy legal adviser in the State Department during the first Bush presidency. He not only told government officials what they could do legally, he said, but also told what they should do morally.
    "You can often go beyond that and say that while technically one is prepared to do this, there are a whole lot of reasons you don't want to do this, some of them morally based," said Young, who is also LDS.
    It is not unethical for a lawyer to ignore the religious or ethical implications when giving advice to clients, says Professor Michael Ariens of St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio, Texas. "The real question is, are you sacrificing something in the relationship by ignoring those values? Would advice be better by saying this decision has profound legal and moral consequences?"
    For Mormon lawyers the memo is more than theory. It's personal.
    Bybee, now a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, earned his undergraduate and law degrees from LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University. He served a two-year mission for the church in Chile.
    He's had a fascination with biblical laws, he told Meridian Magazine, an independent LDS online magazine.
    "People in the Old Testament were absolutely devoted to the law of Moses and required exact obedience to it," he said. "While we should admire their zeal to follow the rule of law, we nevertheless have to recognize that without understanding the spirit or purpose of the law, there aren't enough rules in the world to make a person be good."
    Bybee has declined to comment on the memo. Young says he doesn't pass judgment on Bybee's motives or arguments, but at a BYU conference last year suggested Mormon lawyers would be better off if they connected their professional and religious selves.
    "It does matter that we are LDS and academics at the same time," he told a roomful of BYU lawyers in his keynote address.
    And that is what many of the Mormon bloggers were looking for, too. They appealed to LDS scriptures to build their arguments.
    There's Jesus' admonition that "inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me," Burk wrote to The Salt Lake Tribune.
    The Book of Mormon, which Latter-day Saints believe is the record of an ancient civilization in the Americas, tells of the destruction wrought by "warfare and genocide," Burk wrote. "The record repeatedly warns against the human propensity to develop a taste for violence and atrocity."
    Others argue worst-case scenarios. Suppose there is a ticking time bomb set to go off in an orphanage and troops capture the bomber. Wouldn't physical torture be worth it if you get information to abort the tragedy?
    "Does the Gospel commit us to a particular ethical approach?" wrote attorney Nate Oman on the timesandseasons blog. "For example, torturing the guy with the information in the ticking-bomb case may well be morally justifiable if we are utilitarians. It is probably not morally justifiable if we are Kantians. Dan seems pretty confident that good Mormons must be Kantians. On the other hand, one can point to fairly utilitarian moral claims in scripture."
    Kaimipono David Wenger, a New York City lawyer who regularly participates in the Mormon blog, found himself in the middle of the debate.
    "I would personally be uncomfortable writing a memo on how the administration could legally justify torture of people, but I don't think it's against the tenets of our faith," Wenger told the Tribune. "One might believe that the value of ready access to torture-obtained intelligence outweighed the negative."
    For Wenger, "it's something you would have to work out with God."
    pstack@sltrib.com
    pmanson@sltrib.com

Former Utah prison boss defends his rebuilding mission in Iraq By Greg Burton      The Salt Lake Tribune

    The subject of a New York congressman's repeated criticism and a Department of Justice internal investigation into U.S. prison policy abroad, Utah prison executive O. Lane McCotter on Thursday defended his record on inmate rights and the process by which he was selected by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to help rebuild Iraq's prison system.
    "I have always acted in fairness and have done nothing that would even begin to constitute inhumane treatment to anyone or the violation of inmate constitutional rights," McCotter said in a series of written answers to questions submitted by The Salt Lake Tribune.
    For the first time, McCotter outlined how he says the Bush administration picked him for the rebuilding mission in Iraq.
    He also clarified his role in securing spots for two of three other Utahns selected to join the small team of U.S. prison officials who reopened Iraqi prisons such as Abu Ghraib.
    McCotter and former Utah prison boss Gary DeLand spent the fall of 2003 opening Abu Ghraib, but they left Iraq days before the military took control of the facility and a month prior to the torture of prisoners there.
    While McCotter and DeLand were in the United States when the torture began, two other former Corrections officials from Utah, Terry Bartlett and Richard Billings, were just arriving in Iraq. None of the four Utahns, however, has been implicated in the military orders or actions that were exposed when photographs taken inside Abu Ghraib were published by American journalists.
    Of several ongoing Abu Ghraib-related investigations in Congress, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., is focusing his attention on Ashcroft's selection of McCotter, DeLand, Terry Stewart, formerly of the Arizona Department of Corrections, and John Armstrong, the former head of Connecticut's Corrections Department. Schumer believes the four, because of their roles in prior prisoner abuse scandals, should have been disqualified from the mission in Iraq.
    Around the time of the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, U.S. Department of Justice officials began assembling a list of people who were willing, and had the expertise, to install Western-style courts and judiciary, police squads and prisons while working in a war zone.
    McCotter's name appeared on two lists, he says he was told: one prepared by the Justice Department's Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the other by the National Institute of Corrections, which is an agency under the BOP and its director is appointed by Ashcroft. There were 10 names altogether on the lists, he said.
    "I have no direct knowledge of specifically why I was recruited by the DOJ, other than the fact my record of military service in the field of corrections, coupled with my leadership of three state prison systems following my military career is well-known and highly respected by my professional colleagues around the country," said McCotter, a former Corrections director in Texas, New Mexico and Utah, where he now is employed by the country's third-largest private prison company, Centerville-based Management & Training Corporation.
    During the end of McCotter's military service, he spent two years as commandant of the military's maximum security prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. McCotter was at the facility in the early 1980s, which was the same time U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell was deputy commander of the Kansas Army base. Also working at Fort Leavenworth at the time, as McCotter's security director, was Bartlett, who followed McCotter to Utah as his second-in-command and then to Iraq, where Bartlett continues to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq's prison system and the training of civilian Iraqi guards, just as McCotter had.
    "Terry Bartlett was recruited [to Iraq] at my request by DOJ for the replacement team that arrived in Iraq in late September 2003," McCotter said. "He presently still serves on the DOJ team in Iraq, to date."
    Billings was McCotter's SWAT commander at the Utah Department of Corrections but he did not recruit Billings for Iraq, he said. "[H]owever, I was asked and gave a positive recommendation to DOJ for his selection." Billings, now in Greece working on the 2004 Summer Olympic Games, says he did not witness prisoner abuse while in Iraq. Bartlett has been unavailable for comment.
    gburton@sltrib.com

Hatch under pressure

    Trying to run a worldwide war on terror unfettered by Congress and the courts or the wisdom of the Constitution is clearly more than the Bush administration and its defenders can handle. Utah's Orrin Hatch is not the only one who is clearly starting to crack under the pressure.
    Hatch has yet to crumble to the depths reached Tuesday by Vice President Dick Cheney, who summed up an informal Senate floor argument with a Democratic critic by uttering the witty riposte, "f--- yourself." But he's getting close.
    Last week, confronted by previously docile Senate Democrats who are finally taking seriously their constitutional duty "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces" (Article One, Section Eight), the normally decorous Hatch derided a motion to subpoena relevant documents from the Justice Department as "a dumbass thing to do."
    Thursday, the cognitive dissonance of ignoring more than 200 years of constitutional principles, American statutes and international treaties apparently fused a few more of Hatch's circuits. The senator expected his colleagues to simply accept his word that interrogations he recently witnessed at a newly se