12 Bush lawyers face disbarment complaints

[danarhea]

Granted, this is a Liberal group that has filed the complaints in 4 states and Washington DC, so many here are going to take this with a grain of salt, as they should - Innocent until proven guilty.

That being said, what do you think the results of the hearings will be? Answer the poll.

Also, if the defendents are found guilty, or if they are acquitted, what will be your reaction? Remember, the ABA is strictly non-partisan, so complaints of "witch hunt" from one side or "cover up" from the other side won't cut the mustard here.

Article is here.

 

[Lerxst]

I have no clue. If they're guilty, hopefully they will disbarred. If they are innocent hopefully they will be acquitted. :shrug:

 

[TheNextEra]

Can't say for certain, depends on the evidence against them.

 

[Redress]

Interesting read, thanks alot for linking that. I am not a lawyer, and am not even qualified to suggest if the people involved have either done anything illegal, or worthy of disbarment. It will be fascinating to see what happens with this.

I maintain that I think it is a bad idea to prosecute in any way those involved in the torture mess. I think the negatives outweigh the positives when it comes to this. However, if it is proven that the lawyers offered intentionally bad legal advice, I will certainly not protest their disbarment. I go back to my comment on not being a lawer, so really cannot speak to whether or not that is the case though.

In addition, the group says that evidence surrounding the Bush administration’s legal wrangling shows the lawyers engaged in “moral turpitude.”

That statement scares me. I don't think "moral turpitude" is a crime in this country. Is it appropriate in the legal arguments surrounding this?

 

[celticlord]

A lot of smoke and heat, very little light.

I didn't see where specific violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct were articulated. The "repudiation" of the DoJ under the new Administration is meaningless--it means other lawyers formed different opinions, no more. Dear Leader saying waterboarding is "torture" is the same thing, one lawyer's opinion. No more and no less.

Before an attorney is disbarred, he or she must be shown to have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. An alleged violation would necessarily have to be specific as to the date of the violation, the rule violated, and the substance of the violation. All of that is missing from the referenced article.

For reference:
Model Rules of Professional Conduct Table of Contents - Center for Professional Responsibility

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

What should happen is the lawyers who filed the complaints should be disbarred.

Definitely every attorney who successfully defends against these non-sense lawsuits should sue the filing attorney for defamation and emotional suffering and all the other good BS lawyers have invented to harass real Americans with over the years, and if that doesn't work, knee-cap 'em.

 

[Shadow Serious]

This is just more of the bad winner syndrome that the liberals that support Obama have. Enough already, when the Repubs come back in in 4 or 8 years do you want them to have a political reason to begin a retaliatory strike back? If you do continue make sure that this is not just a harassing campaign and make sure that every "t" is crossed and every "i" is dotted. And given the nature and scope of the attack you might also make sure every "j" is dotted and every "q" is barred.

 

[WillRockwell]

Dear Leader saying waterboarding is "torture" is the same thing, one lawyer's opinion. No more and no less.

You do realize we have executed prisoners of war for conducting waterboarding against US troops? You do realize the practice is illegal under the Geneva Convention, which the US agreed to? So where do you get this crap about "one lawyer's opinion", did you just pull it out of your rear end like most of your "opinions"?

 

[celticlord]

You do realize we have executed prisoners of war for conducting waterboarding against US troops? You do realize the practice is illegal under the Geneva Convention, which the US agreed to? So where do you get this crap about "one lawyer's opinion", did you just pull it out of your rear end like most of your "opinions"?

Department of Justice lawyers prepared legal opinions that held that waterboarding was not torture.

Dear Leader decided to use his own legal expertise to issue a different opinion.

This much is undeniable fact (although I confess a perverse anticipation in your expected denial of the same).

What is also undeniable is that this is all the fact that there is. Bush DoJ lawyers held one set of opinions. Dear Leader and AG Holder have devised another set of opinions. All the rest of this debate is interpretation, and essentially conjecture. Even a judge's ruling would not be fact, but interpretation (as all judicial rulings are).

There is no foundation in US law for arguing that Dear Leader's opinion today has the capacity to criminalize opinions formed yesterday. There is, in fact, a clear statement to the opposite, in the Constitutional prohibition upon Congress against legislating ex post facto.

Denied such pontifical power, there is no foundation for regarding Dear Leader's publicly proclaimed opinion on waterboarding to have any more legal significance in this debate than the opinions of the Bush DoJ lawyers whose disbarment is now being sought.

Dear Leader can--and has--instruct his administration to refrain from waterboarding in the future. Dear Leader cannot criminalize waterboarding done in the past. No President has the competence to make such a decision. That is not within the text of the Constitution. It is not a necessary and proper exercise of government power.

Dear Leader can make pious pronouncements all he wants, but no amount of speechifying can render his opinion ineluctable law. In this debate he is one lawyer holding an opinion, and no more.

 

[jamesrage]

Any reasonable judge will toss the cases out. Court rooms should be no place for political bickering or anti-war *****fist trash nonsense.

 

[Birdzeye]

I'm on the fence on this one. On one hand, I'd like to see heads roll, in order to get the message out that we, as a country, do not condone torture.

OTOH, I'm not completely convinced that disbarring a few lawyers will convey a lasting message.

 

[ADK_Forever]

The article said:

“We have asked the respective state bars to revoke the licenses of the foregoing attorneys for moral turpitude,” they write. “They failed to show ‘respect for and obedience to the law, and respect for the rights of others,’ and intentionally or recklessly failed to act competently, all in violation of legal Rules of Professional Conduct.”

The individual state bars is one place these issues need to be resolved. Of course, if any of those groups vote to disbar any of those unethical lawyers I'm sure we will then hear from the neo-cons here labeling them as... uhh... liberal. :roll:

While I believe the Justice Dept should be more active on these issues, I will accept whatever those bars decide.

Will you right wingers accept what those bars decide?

 

[celticlord]

While I believe the Justice Dept should be more active on these issues, I will accept whatever those bars decide.

Will you right wingers accept what those bars decide?

YOU will "accept"????

:rofl:rofl:rofl

That's mighty magnanimous of you, considering that bar associations are private entities wholly separated from political or other pressures, and not answerable to anyone but themselves.

As for whether anyone else will "accept" their decisions.....same principle applies. Government we can petition and compel them to listen. Bar associations listen only when they want to, and they only hear what they want to.

Which makes me think that this is Holder's way of tossing a bone (albeit a meatless one) to the rank and file Anti-Republicans: offer the hope of exacting some morsel of flesh while letting the whole thing get pushed to the back burner.

 

[ADK_Forever]

That's mighty magnanimous of you, considering that bar associations are private entities wholly separated from political or other pressures, and not answerable to anyone but themselves.

Exactly. I believe them to mostly non-political. Although I know that is not 100% the case.

Yes, I will accept their decision to disbar or not those lawyers. Who better to judge lawyers than their peers? That's all dependent upon it getting to them, that is.

Will you accept their decision? Or will you dance around the question?

 

[celticlord]

Exactly. I believe them to mostly non-political. Although I know that is not 100% the case.

Yes, I will accept their decision to disbar or not those lawyers. Who better to judge lawyers than their peers? That's all dependent upon it getting to them, that is.

Will you accept their decision? Or will you dance around the question?

There's nothing to accept or reject. Bar associations are not answerable to me or to you. I certainly hope they don't to a damn thing to the 12 lawyers.....but there's not a damn thing I could do about it even if they did. Holder kicked the can down the road and off the playing field.

Using your rather laughable language of "acceptance", yes, I would "accept" their decision....because there is no second option available.

 

[Goobieman]

Granted, this is a Liberal group that has filed the complaints in 4 states and Washington DC, so many here are going to take this with a grain of salt, as they should - Innocent until proven guilty.

That being said, what do you think the results of the hearings will be? Answer the poll.

You can be disbarred for a lot of things -- but giving what you believe to be sound legal advice isnt one of them. This is a bunch pf liberals trying to disbar lawyers not for comitting some crime or ethical violation, but for doing their job to the best of their ability.

This should absolutely scare everyone.

 

[Redress]

You can be disbarred for a lot of things -- but giving what you believe to be sound legal advice isnt one of them. This is a bunch pf liberals trying to disbar lawyers not for comitting some crime or ethical violation, but for doing their job to the best of their ability.

This should absolutely scare everyone.

Caveat up front: I am not a lawyer.

I believe you hit upon what the allegation actually is. Did the lawyers give sound legal advice, or create documents that ignored important precedent. The way I heard it explained is that none of the opinions these guys offered mentioned the WW2 prosecution of torture as war crimes, when even if they felt this was not relevant, should have at least been addressed.

Again, I am not a lawyer, and am just repeating something I heard on one of the news channels. I am not claiming it as absolutely true.

 

[ADK_Forever]

yes, I would "accept" their decision....

That's what a straight answer would look like. :doh

So, we shall see if any of those state bar associations decide to disbar any of those attorneys if we see you whine about them being a biased group and their decision being a liberal conspiracy. :roll:

 

[celticlord]

That's what a straight answer would look like. :doh

So, we shall see if any of those state bar associations decide to disbar any of those attorneys if we see you whine about them being a biased group and their decision being a liberal conspiracy. :roll:

Seriously, catch a clue, dude.

There's no liberal, dumbocrat, or Anti-Republican "conspiracy". As the caterwauling on Capital Hill over whether or not the Anti-Republicans knew about waterboarding and were or were not down with it shows, the Anti-Republicans are only united in despising President Bush. At all other times, they not only are not on the same page, they're not even reading the same playbook.

Will the bar associations take action? I tend to think not. One action against Yoo was already declined (last year), and I suspect the legal profession is far too self-serving a group to wantonly disbar lawyers for dispensing legal advice. Unlike Dear Leader and his Anti-Republican "teammates" in Congress, most lawyers grasp the concept of precedent, and are generally deliberate about what sort of precedent they set; I have a hard time seeing lawyers in a hurry to set a precedent for witch-burning, because there's no telling when they'll be cast in the role of the witch.

However, if they do take action, it will be because they have their heads up their collective (and collectivized) asses, not because they are in cahoots with Dear Leader and the amateurs in Congress playing at running a country.

 

[ADK_Forever]

the Anti-Republicans are only united in despising President Bush.

Nah, just in bringing him and his goons to justice or at least exposing them for the treasonist, criminals they are.

Will the bar associations take action? I tend to think not.

They may not.

However, if they do take action, it will be because they have their heads up their collective (and collectivized) asses, not because they are in cahoots with Dear Leader and the amateurs in Congress playing at running a country.

Ahh yes. There we have it. If they don't take action it's because ... they shouldn't. If they do... it's a left wing conspiracy. thanks for the honesty.

Ya know, those lawyers just might want to take a stand and defend the integrity of their profession. (I had to grimace when I said that.) So, if they do disbar any of them, and there is lots of pressure for that, it will show that those lawyers were indeed acting unethically as judged by their peers.

By the way clueless one, those unethical lawyers were not simply providing advice. They made very clear attempts to advise their client that he could commit a crime but, do it in such a structured manner that it wouldn't fall under the illegal guidelines. That is not only illegal but, highly unethical.

Sniff the glue more often. It'll help clear those cobwebs. :2wave:

 

[celticlord]

By the way clueless one, those unethical lawyers were not simply providing advice. They made very clear attempts to advise their client that he could commit a crime but, do it in such a structured manner that it wouldn't fall under the illegal guidelines. That is not only illegal but, highly unethical.

Of course, your rant ignores the very basic fact that no one has established that either the guidelines or the advice was illegal. Despite the pious pontifications of Dear Leader, neither he nor AG Holder, in all of their research into the memos on interrogation techniques, found the cojones to indict even the proverbial ham sandwich. Despite all the Anti-Republican blatherings about illegality and crimes against humanity, the nation's chief prosecutor and his highly esteemed boss, the famous Constitutional law scholar Dear Leader 2razz, lack the evidence to charge anyone for so much as criminal use of commas.

As a practical matter, that means no illegality, and if there was no illegality, then the only conclusion that can be drawn about the advice given is that it was damn good.

As for what is ethical.....lawyers are paid to advise their clients on how to skirt the edges of the law. That is their job, and their ethic.

Which is the biggest reason the bar associations should do nothing. You don't disbar the other guy because he out-lawyered you. Even Anti-Republicans generally have a split hair's breadth greater integrity than that.

 

[Redress]

Of course, your rant ignores the very basic fact that no one has established that either the guidelines or the advice was illegal.

Leaving out the ranting and insult parts to your post, but a comment on the above quoted part. Won't that be what the bar association will be determining, answering the question once and for all? In that way, this is a good thing I guess.

 

[celticlord]

Leaving out the ranting and insult parts to your post, but a comment on the above quoted part. Won't that be what the bar association will be determining, answering the question once and for all? In that way, this is a good thing I guess.

No, it won't. Bar associations are not government bodies. They can and may rule on the ethical dimensions of attorney conduct, but that is all.

Even if the state bar associations said that each and every one of the lawyers mentioned were guilty of unethical conduct and should be disbarred, that still would say not a damn thing about the alleged criminality of the conduct in question.

 

[Redress]

No, it won't. Bar associations are not government bodies. They can and may rule on the ethical dimensions of attorney conduct, but that is all.

Even if the state bar associations said that each and every one of the lawyers mentioned were guilty of unethical conduct and should be disbarred, that still would say not a damn thing about the alleged criminality of the conduct in question.

Fair clarification. Question for you: if the bar association finds the lawyers acted unethically, would you consider that as making a strong case to investigate the legality of what they did? Given that scenario, how about if we added immunity to prosecution, just using the investigation to find out how the ethical and legal problems came to be...would you consider it a strong argument for investigation?

 

[celticlord]

Fair clarification. Question for you: if the bar association finds the lawyers acted unethically, would you consider that as making a strong case to investigate the legality of what they did? Given that scenario, how about if we added immunity to prosecution, just using the investigation to find out how the ethical and legal problems came to be...would you consider it a strong argument for investigation?

No, I would not. Mainly because there's nothing to investigate. The Bush administration authorized techniques of interrogation that some argue as torture. They asserted an interpretation of US law and international treaty that defined the techniques as not being torture and therefore permissible. This was done to extract information from terrorist detainees.

Folks can argue whether the actions or interpretations were right or wrong, and the Anti-Republicans no doubt will continue to wail about how wrong the Bush administration was to have done these things. They have the right to do that, regardless of how silly or asinine they sound.

But there's no real debate about the facts. CIA interrogators waterboarded detainees for the purpose of gaining actionable intelligence. They got actionable intelligence from those detainees.

Reality is the substantive debate about this ended the moment Dear Leader told the CIA not to do these things any more. He changed the protocol and the policy, as he has every right to do. Wateboarding was authorized. Dear Leader has rescinded the authorization. Waterboarding will not be used until Dear Leader decides actionable intelligence to save US lives is more meaningful than how terrorist sympathizers the world over view the US (which, if I had to guess, will be sometime in January of next year, as the Anti-Republicans gear up for the mid term elections and need to fool people into thinking they're serious about national security).