Posted on 05/05/2009 3:43:32 PM PDT by tobyhill
Justice Department officials have stopped short of recommending criminal charges against Bush administration lawyers who wrote secret memos approving harsh interrogation techniques of terror suspects.
A person familiar with the inquiry, who spoke on condition of anonymity, says investigators recommended referring two of the three lawyers to state bar associations for possible disciplinary action. The person was not authorized to discuss the inquiry.
The person noted that the investigative report was still in draft form and subject to revisions. Attorney General Eric Holder also may make his own determination about what steps to take once the report has been finalized.
The Justice Department notified two senators by letter that 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 inquiry has become a politically-loaded guessing game, with some advocating criminal charges against the lawyers and others urging that the matter be dropped.
The letter did not indicate what the findings of the final report would be. Jay Bybee, John 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 call torture.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
What were they ever going to charge them with? Since when is (allegedly) bad advice a crime?
Holder will later say that the report reflects that further investigation is required.
He will then appoint a special prosecutor and they will try to Scooter trap those involved.
They will not ever completely drop this... they must at lest pretend that it’s ongoing and ongoing and ongoing.....
Good. That makes the issue one of pure professional judgment and depoliticizes the matter.
They can all stay out of the Scooter trap by keeping their mouths closed.
The lesson to be learned here is that lawyers will think long and hard now before agreeing to help defend their country.
But then are they willing to go to jail for contempt.... and then lose their license to practice law?
The lesson to be learned here is that messing with the Company has very little upside.
I think the latest I heard is that they are going to try to disbar them instead of prosecute...
How cute...there is no law broken so they go after the politically expedient thing to do...RUIN their lives...
I hate this group of a**hats...
If they are being accused of committing a crime then they have the right to remain silent. They’re going to lose their license anyway being the ABA is run by a bunch of Libs.
Yes, but I ‘think’ that if one has not been charged and then ordered by the judge to testify, they have to testify or the judge can toss them in jail until they do.
Bottom line, this is all so un-American. None of this is fair and it makes my blood boil.
I have a growing belief that we are not going to be able to ‘vote’ our way out of this democrat abyss.
An opinion, whether done by a lawyer or not, cannot be a crime.
Unless the Constitution forbids having opinions other than the current administration....
That’s what we’re facing, and the fact that it’s even a question is very scary.
Isn't that what Beria said just before he pleaded guilty and was shot?
NY POST.com: "'TORTURE' REGRETS CHEER OUR ENEMIES" by Adam Brodsky (SNIPPET: "Our new enemies require us to adopt new standards. But never for a moment should anyone think such changes compromise our moral standing. Self-flagellation and restraint won't make us more noble. But they might just make us more ... dead.") (Updated May 1, 2009, 4:33 am)
FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE.com: "THE BUSH 'TORTURE' LAWYERS: NO BETTER THAN TERRORISTS?" by Joseph Klein (SNIPPET: "Congress adopted this definition in a 1994 law criminalizing torture committed abroad. If Congress had wished to declare waterboarding or the other specific techniques used by the CIA to be included within the law criminalizing torture, they could have done so for the past seven years but did not. This is telling, considering Nancy Pelosi was briefed upon these techniques in detail. Like the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on Torture, she is simply another in the long litany of government officials who seem to revel in their own tortuous reasoning, which invariably ends up protecting terrorists. They deserve to be ignored.") (May 5, 2009)
Experts.FOREIGN POLICY.com: "IRREPARABLE DAMAGE" by Thomas Hegghammer (SNIPPET: "Switch to the jihadi Internet forums, where thousands of radical Islamists log on every day to debate religion, politics, and the latest news from the war on terror. Last week there were debates on all kinds of topics, from swine flu to the financial crisis to the alleged capture of the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq. But there was virtually nothing about the torture memos.") (May 4, 2009, 5:10 pm)
WEEKLY STANDARD.com: "PREENING & POSTURING Throwing those who guard us while we sleep to the wolves." by William Kristol (SNIPPET: "The dark and painful chapter we have to fear is rather the one President Obama may be ushering in. This would be a chapter in which politicians preen moralistically as they throw patriotic officials, who helped keep this country safe, to the wolves, and in which national leaders posture politically while endangering the nation's security. The preening is ridiculous, even by the standards of contemporary American politics and American liberalism. Obama fatuously asserts there are no real choices in the real world, just "false choices" that he can magically resolve. He foolishly suggests that even in war we would never have to do anything disagreeable for the sake of our security. He talks baby talk to intelligence officers: "Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes. That’s how we learn."") (May 4, 2009 Issue)
WEEKLY STANDARD.com - blog: "GOSS: OBAMA DECISION "CROSSED A RED LINE"" -Posted by Stephen F. Hayes (SNIPPET: "Porter Goss, former CIA Director and past chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, blasted the Obama administration for releasing Justice Department memos on harsh interrogation techniques. "For the first time in my experience we've crossed the red line of properly protecting our national security in order to gain partisan political advantage," Goss said in an interview.") (April 23, 2009, 1:53 pm)
CNN.com: Washington - "EX-CIA CHIEF: OBAMA RISKS NATIONAL SECURITY" (SNIPPET: "A former head of the CIA slammed President Obama on Sunday for releasing four Bush-era memos, saying the new president has compromised national security.") (Updated April 19, 2009, 7:44 p.m. EDT)
Online.WSJ.com: "THE PRESIDENT TIES HIS OWN HANDS ON TERROR The point of interrogation is intelligence, not confession." by Michael Hayden and Michael B. Mukasey (April 17, 2009)
CIA.gov: "MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR: RELEASE OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OPINIONS Statement to Employees by Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Leon E. Panetta on the Release of Department of Justice Opinions" (April 16, 2009)
FOX NEWS.com: "EX-CIA CHIEF CRITICIZES RELEASE OF INTERROGATION MEMOS Former CIA Director Michael Hayden says release of the memos will give terrorists a precise guide for what to expect in a CIA interrogation if those methods are ever approved for use again" (April 16, 2009)
FOX NEWS.com: "OBAMA MAY RELEASE DETAILS OF CIA's INTERROGATION METHODS USED ON TERROR SUSPECTS" by Brit Hume (SNIPPET: "The president's decision will tell us much about him.") (April 15, 2009)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.