Charges Seen as Unlikely for Lawyers Over Interrogations

Renae · May 5, 2009

WASHINGTON — An internal Justice Department inquiry into the conduct of Bush administration lawyers who wrote secret memorandums authorizing brutal interrogations has concluded that the authors committed serious lapses of judgment but should not be criminally prosecuted, according to government officials briefed on a draft of the findings.

The report by the Office of Professional Responsibility, an internal ethics unit within the Justice Department, is also likely to ask that state bar associations consider possible disciplinary action, including reprimands or even disbarment, for some of the lawyers involved in writing the legal opinions, the officials said.

The conclusions of the 220-page draft report are not final and have not yet been approved by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. The officials said it is possible the final report might be subject to revision, but they did not expect major alterations in its main findings or recommendations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/us/politics/06inquire.html?_r=1&hp

Political witch hunting continues.

TheNextEra · May 5, 2009

If Lawyers advised interrogations being legal that weren't then the should be brought up on charges.

It is much like a lawyer saying to a client that doing something is legal, when it isn't. The lawyer should be brought up on charges.

ADK_Forever · May 5, 2009

At issue are whether the Justice Department lawyers acted ethically in writing a series of legal opinions from 2002 to 2007. The main targets of criticism are John Yoo, Jay S. Bybee, and Steven G. Bradbury, who as senior officials in the department’s Office of Legal Counsel were the principal authors of the memos.

The opinions permitted the C.I.A. to use a number of interrogation methods that human rights groups have condemned as torture, including waterboarding, wall-slamming, head-slapping and other techniques. The opinions allowed many of these practices to be used repeatedly and in combination.

Several legal scholars have remarked that in approving waterboarding — the near-drowning method that President Obama and his aides have described as torture — the Justice Department lawyers did not cite cases in which the United States government had prosecuted American law enforcement officials and Japanese interrogators in World War II for using the procedure.

Justice delayed... is still justice. :2usflag:

And another notch is scratched in Bush's legacy. Will Lady Justice get to him... ?

We shall see what we shall see.

Renae · May 5, 2009

If their actions were illegal, that Obama and Co. cannot bring them to court means... that's right folks, it's a disagreement of policy, not law.

And you two are just DRINKING that kool aide ain't ya?

Dav · May 5, 2009

ADK_Forever said:
Justice delayed... is still justice. :2usflag:

And another notch is scratched in Bush's legacy. Will Lady Justice get to him... ?

We shall see what we shall see.

The passion with which some people want to imprison those who were trying to protect their country disgusts and disturbs me.

ADK_Forever · May 5, 2009

Dav said:
The passion with which some people want to imprison those who were trying to protect their country disgusts and disturbs me.

Yet, attorneys working for our president twisting words, omitting history, to try to make it look legal to do what is clearly illegal goes down swimingly, ehh? Those people were not trying to protect us. President Bush was not trying to protect us. He only wanted to be looked on as a War President.

None of that disgusts or disturbs you, ehh? :roll:

ADK_Forever · May 5, 2009

MrVicchio said:
If their actions were illegal, that Obama and Co. cannot bring them to court means... that's right folks, it's a disagreement of policy, not law.

And you two are just DRINKING that kool aide ain't ya?

Man, talk about dense. Those lawyers are looking at being disbarred. Do you have any idea how hard it is to disbar a lawyer? It is an action that is not taken lightly. Those lawyers intentionally advised Bush, probably under his order, that torture could be legal when they knew it was illegal. They are always supposed to be agents of the court.

So much for all you know-it-alls claiming that a lawyer can't be held responsible for giving bad "advice", ehh? :2wave:

Renae · May 5, 2009

ADK_Forever said:
Man, talk about dense. Those lawyers are looking at being disbarred. Do you have any idea how hard it is to disbar a lawyer? It is an action that is not taken lightly. Those lawyers intentionally advised Bush, probably under his order, that torture could be legal when they knew it was illegal. They are always supposed to be agents of the court.

So much for all you know-it-alls claiming that a lawyer can't be held responsible for giving bad "advice", ehh? :2wave:

Why disbar them? Well, they cannot be prosecuted, because they broke no laws, and really it boils down to people like yourself needing to be excited about Obama, so they pursue these circus events that have no real baring on anything.

Those lawyers will not be disbarred, and in the end people like yourself will just be more behind "those TRYING to bring evil to justice!" instead of ya know.. thinking for yourselves.