You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘water boarding’ tag.
Criminal Prosecutions of Bush Lawyers not likely, But Justice is Suggesting Bar Sanctions for 2 of them; Career Destruction because we are Safe!
May 5, 2009 in Campaign 2008, Campaign 2010, Campaign 2012, Capitalism, Economy, Family values, Politics, socialism, Terrorism, Uncategorized | Tags: Bar Association, Barack Obama, enhanced interrogation techniques, Eric Holder, Justice Department, Pres. Barack Obama, water boarding | 5 comments
As anyone in the legal profession will tell you, sanctions or disciplinary action from the state Bar Association is most feared. Thus, in its investigation of the legal memos that authorized enhanced interrogation techniques, the Justice Department is not going to pursue prosecuting these attorneys. Instead, however, Attorney General Eric Holder will recommend that at least two of them be reported and recommended for sanctions and disciplinary action from their respective Bar associations:
WASHINGTON – Bush administration lawyers who approved harsh interrogation techniques of terror suspects should not face criminal charges, investigators say in a draft report that recommends two of the three attorneys face possible professional sanctions.
The recommendations come after an Obama administration decision last month to make public legal memos authorizing the use of harsh interrogation methods but not to prosecute who followed advice outlined in the memos.
That decision angered conservatives who accused President Barack Obama of selling out the CIA for releasing the memos, and liberals who thought he was being too forgiving of practices they — and Obama — call torture. The president’s rhetoric, if not actual policy, shifted on the matter as the political fallout intensified.
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 , according to a person familiar with the inquiry. The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity, was not authorized to discuss the inquiry.