| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Home Front: WoT | |||
| No charges likely over interrogation memos: early report | |||
| 2009-05-06 | |||
WASHINGTON (AP) — Bush administration lawyers who approved harsh interrogation techniques of terror suspects should not face criminal charges, Justice Department investigators say in a draft report that recommends two of the three attorneys face possible professional sanctions.
Officials conducting the internal Justice Department inquiry into the lawyers who wrote those memos have recommended referring two of the three lawyers — John Yoo and Jay Bybee — to state bar associations for possible disciplinary action, according to a person familiar with the inquiry. The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity, was not authorized to discuss the inquiry.
The inquiry has become a politically loaded guessing game, with some advocating criminal charges against the lawyers and others urging that the matter be dropped. In a letter to two senators, the Justice Department said a key deadline in the inquiry expired Monday, signaling that most of the work on the matter was completed. The letter does not mention the possibility of criminal charges, nor does it name the lawyers under scrutiny. The letter did not indicate what the findings of the final report would be. Bybee, Yoo and Steven Bradbury worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and played key roles in crafting the legal justification for techniques critics wrongly call torture. The memos were written as the Bush administration grappled with the fear and uncertainty following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Over the years that followed, lawyers re-examined and rewrote much of the legal advice. When that inquiry neared completion last year, investigators recommended seeking professional sanctions against Bybee and Yoo, but not Bradbury, according to the person familiar with the matter. Those would come in the form of recommendations to state bar associations, where the most severe possible punishment is disbarment. Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, called the decision not to seek criminal charges "inconceivable, given all that we know about the twisted logic of these memos." Warren argued the only reason for such a decision "is to provide political cover for people inside the Obama White House so they don't have to pursue what needs to be done."
Asked for comment, Yoo's lawyer, Miguel Estrada, said he signed an agreement with the Justice Department not to discuss the draft report. Lawyer Maureen Mahoney, who is representing Bybee, also declined to comment. "The former employees have until May 4, 2009 to provide their comments on the draft report," states the letter from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill. Whitehouse has scheduled a hearing on the issue next week. Now that the deadline has passed, there is little more for officials to do but make revisions to it based on the responses they've received, and decide how much, if any, of the findings should be made public. Both Whitehouse and Durbin have pressed the Justice Department for more information about the progress of the investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility. The office examines possible ethics violations by Justice Department employees. On rare occasions, those inquiries become full-blown criminal investigations. The language of the letter, dated Monday, indicates the inquiry will result in a final report. The letter notes that Holder and his top deputy will have access to any information they need "to evaluate the final report and make determinations about appropriate next steps." The results of the investigation were delayed late last year, when then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey and his deputy asked investigators to allow the lawyers a chance to respond to their findings, as is typically done for those who still work for the Justice Department. Investigators also shared a draft copy with the CIA to review whether the findings contained any classified information. According to the letter, the CIA then requested to comment on the report. | |||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #8 and most State Bar organizations are controlled by progressives. That is why Kansas, a conservative state, has a progressive Supreme Court because the candidates are choosen by the State Bar Association. |
| Posted by: bman 2009-05-06 11:07 |
| #7 I think the argument is along the lines of, a lawyer can't offer advice that is immoral, or illegal, or encourages others to bring the law. At least I think that's the argument being offered by the other side (who can tell given their hysteria?). If you've been following the story, one of the accusations is that Yoo and Bybee pretty much asked the CIA what opinion they wanted and then wrote their briefs to match. I think it's nonsense, as both men (IMHO) have too much class and intelligence to do that. If the disbarment argument goes forward, and it might, it'll be along these lines; the state bars will have to decide whether the lawyers offered immoral advice. It's a clever way to shut good, hard-working, intelligent, patriotic people up. Who wants to work for government if your opponents will come back and destroy your career in response? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-05-06 09:40 |
| #6 Hope you are correct Deacon. After Darth Cheney played the "show me card" regarding end results, things appeared to quiet down a bit. No sense in highlighting a Bush Administration success story or let Darth Cheney rant during prime network news time now is there? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-05-06 09:00 |
| #5 CF, that's why this inquisition won't go any further. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2009-05-06 08:50 |
| #4 Will this make Queen Nancy an accessory? After all she, and the rest of the Congressional leadershit knew about it. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-05-06 08:32 |
| #3 I've said it before and I'll say it again: What are you going to charge them with? Having opinions? What crime was committed here? |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2009-05-06 08:31 |
| #2 What DoJ investigators say or recommend is actually quite irrelevant. If Holder, Pelosi, and Barry think that additional political mileage can be made by pursuing this issue further, they'll do it. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-05-06 08:23 |
| #1 Help me out here. How can you prosecute a lawyer for providing advice? The advice may be wrong, but is it a crime? Does that make lower court judges criminals when their rulings are overturned by the Supreme Court? |
| Posted by: Spot 2009-05-06 08:16 |