Which judge made the sua sponte request for an en banc review of the 9th Circuit panel's decision in the Trump immigration case?

Power Line wants to know:

The Ninth Circuit per curiam opinion authorizing the continued injunction prohibiting enforcement of President Trump’s executive order is a farrago of nonsense. The court should be embarrassed by its decision. Indeed, it appears that at least one of the Ninth Circuit judges may actually be embarrassed by it.

The court filed an order this afternoon stating: “A judge on this Court has made a sua sponte request that a vote be taken as to whether the order issued by the three judge motions panel on February 9, 2017, should be reconsidered en banc.” In other words, no party moved for the rehearing; one of the court’s many judges did so on his own (i.e., sua sponte). I’m guessing it might be Judge Kozinski or Judge Bybee. I would love to hear from a knowledgeable court watcher on this point....

The Ninth Circuit is insanely liberal. Evidence of its insanity is all over the oral argument of the case and the opinion on which the vote for rehearing has been called. The Ninth Circuit gets a lot wrong in its 29-page opinion, but can it be rectified by this court? Not bloody likely....

Yes, but it keeps the subject in play and forces us to keep looking and taking different perspectives on it.

Even the New Yorker is conceding "The Vulnerabilities of the Ninth Circuit's Executive-Order Opinion." It's a modest little piece by Jeffrey Toobin, but the important thing is that it exists at all. For the "farrago of nonsense" take, we'll have to look elsewhere.

("Farrago" is a great word. It just means a medley, mixture, hotchpotch.)

John Yoo and Jay Bybee are cleared of anything but "poor judgment" in a report that was "softened" by a senior Justice Department official.

Newsweek reveals the findings of the report from the Office of Professional Responsibility:

While the probe is sharply critical of the legal reasoning used to justify waterboarding and other “enhanced” interrogation techniques, NEWSWEEK has learned that a senior Justice official who did the final review of the report softened an earlier OPR finding. Previously, the report concluded that two key authors—Jay Bybee, now a federal appellate court judge, and John Yoo, now a law professor—violated their professional obligations as lawyers when they crafted a crucial 2002 memo approving the use of harsh tactics, say two Justice sources who asked for anonymity discussing an internal matter. But the reviewer, career veteran David Margolis, downgraded that assessment to say they showed “poor judgment,” say the sources. (Under department rules, poor judgment does not constitute professional misconduct.) ...

A Justice official declined to explain why David Margolis softened the original finding, but noted that he is a highly respected career lawyer who acted without input from Holder....

So it wasn't a political decision, we're being told. It wasn't that the Obama administration would like  the "torture memo" issue to go away. But consider this new development in the larger context:

For weeks, the right has heckled Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. for his plans to try the alleged 9/11 conspirators in New York City and his handling of the Christmas bombing plot suspect. Now the left is going to be upset...

And the 9/11 trial isn't going to be in NYC anymore.

Did CIA interrogators stage mock executions and brandish a gun and a drill to frighten detainees into giving up information?

WaPo:

The tactics -- which one official described Friday as a threatened execution -- were used on Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, according to the CIA's inspector general's report on the agency's interrogation program....

Three months before Nashiri's capture, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel -- Jay S. Bybee, now a federal judge -- advised the CIA in an August 2002 memo that threats of "imminent death" were not illegal unless they deliberately produced prolonged mental harm. Independent legal experts have called that interpretation too hedged and thus too lax....

A ... former U.S. official who has read the full, classified report said that it contained an entire section listing ways in which the CIA and contracted interrogators had "gone beyond what they were authorized to do -- a whole variety of deviations." The official said that what struck him most strongly was that the report suggested these techniques were "really not effective."

He said he concluded that "there has to be a better way to do this" but that the CIA resisted suggestions then that it should back away from the program. Asked why, the official said he could not say for sure, but he added that "maybe it was that if you change, then it means you were wrong" in pursuing the harsh interrogation methods in the first place.

"The central question for lawyers was a narrow one..."

"... locate, under the statutory definition, the thin line between harsh treatment of a high-ranking Al Qaeda terrorist that is not torture and harsh treatment that is. I believed at the time, and continue to believe today, that the conclusions were legally correct."

Judge Jay S. Bybee defends himself.

"I've heard him express regret at the contents of the memo."

"I've heard him express regret that the memo was misused. I've heard him express regret at the lack of context -- of the enormous pressure and the enormous time pressure that he was under. And anyone would have regrets simply because of the notoriety."

Jay S. Bybee regrets.