2008 Woodie Awards
Protest of "Torture Memo" Rocks Pound Hall
Katie Mapes
Issue date: 3/16/06 Section: News
- < prev Page 2 of 2
Cooper denies that the event cancellation was motivated by anything other than an attempt to "avoid controversy and have an orderly meeting where [they] could have a meaningful interaction with Judge Bybee about his views on the Constitution." A closed meeting with the Federalist Society officers was the original plan, explained Cooper; it was expanded so that "the entire student body would benefit from hearing Judge Bybee," and then drawn back when the Federalist Society learned that there was a confrontational protest planned to disrupt the talk. He added that the Dean of Students was consulted and kept informed throughout the process. Dean Ellen Cosgrove confirmed that she was informed of the changes in the scheduling of the event.
Student activists argue that the cancellation was an attempt to stifle dissent and free discussion. In Monday's Crimson, Daniel Li of the Alliance for Justice in the Middle East harshly criticized the Federalist Society for this change of plans, stating "[I]n ordinary usage, when you say an event has been 'cancelled' that does not mean that the same sponsors host the same speaker at the same event in the building next door." Others criticized Judge Bybee and the Federalist Society for avoiding the issue of torture altogether. "[W]hy not stand tall and face dissenting voices?" asked HLS Advocates member Deborah Popowski, "Is [Judge Bybee] ashamed of what he's done?"
Cooper, though, argues that this event had nothing to do with Judge Bybee's service at the Department of Justice. The Federalist Society, he says, has no position on the "torture memo," and hosting Bybee's talk on constitutional interpretation does not constitute the Federalist Society's endorsement of his other actions. Furthermore, Judge Bybee was already present on campus as the guest of another organization. "Instead of trying to silence speech," he says of the protestors, "they should focus on bringing engaging and provocative speakers sharing their views to campus."
The memo, dating to August 1, 2002, has been hotly debated. In its original form, it stated that only physical pain "of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure" constitutes illegal torture. Alberto Gonzales, now Attorney General, commissioned the memo, and it was signed by Judge Bybee, who then headed the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Gonzales has defended the memo, saying he was only seeking "objective legal advice." The Justice Department officially rescinded the memo in December 2004.
The memo has come under widespread criticism from human rights activists and legal scholars. Dean of Yale Law School Harold Koh has denounced it as "the most clearly erroneous legal opinion [he has] ever read," and "a stain upon our law and national reputation."
Andrea Saenz contributed to the reporting of this article.
Student activists argue that the cancellation was an attempt to stifle dissent and free discussion. In Monday's Crimson, Daniel Li of the Alliance for Justice in the Middle East harshly criticized the Federalist Society for this change of plans, stating "[I]n ordinary usage, when you say an event has been 'cancelled' that does not mean that the same sponsors host the same speaker at the same event in the building next door." Others criticized Judge Bybee and the Federalist Society for avoiding the issue of torture altogether. "[W]hy not stand tall and face dissenting voices?" asked HLS Advocates member Deborah Popowski, "Is [Judge Bybee] ashamed of what he's done?"
Cooper, though, argues that this event had nothing to do with Judge Bybee's service at the Department of Justice. The Federalist Society, he says, has no position on the "torture memo," and hosting Bybee's talk on constitutional interpretation does not constitute the Federalist Society's endorsement of his other actions. Furthermore, Judge Bybee was already present on campus as the guest of another organization. "Instead of trying to silence speech," he says of the protestors, "they should focus on bringing engaging and provocative speakers sharing their views to campus."
The memo, dating to August 1, 2002, has been hotly debated. In its original form, it stated that only physical pain "of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure" constitutes illegal torture. Alberto Gonzales, now Attorney General, commissioned the memo, and it was signed by Judge Bybee, who then headed the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Gonzales has defended the memo, saying he was only seeking "objective legal advice." The Justice Department officially rescinded the memo in December 2004.
The memo has come under widespread criticism from human rights activists and legal scholars. Dean of Yale Law School Harold Koh has denounced it as "the most clearly erroneous legal opinion [he has] ever read," and "a stain upon our law and national reputation."
Andrea Saenz contributed to the reporting of this article.