rushmc 23 #1 February 20, 2010 Quote Friday, 19 Feb 2010 10:01 PM Justice Department lawyers showed "poor judgment" but did not commit professional misconduct when they authorized CIA interrogators to use waterboarding and other harsh tactics at the height of the U.S. war on terrorism, an internal review released Friday found. The decision closes the book on one of the major lingering investigations into the counterterrorism policies of George W. Bush's administration. President Barack Obama campaigned on abolishing the simulated drowning technique of waterboarding and other tactics that he called torture, but he left open the question of whether anyone would be punished for authorizing such methods. An initial review by the Justice Department's internal affairs unit found that former government lawyers Jay Bybee and John Yoo had committed professional misconduct, a conclusion that could have cost them their law licenses. But, underscoring just how controversial and legally thorny the memos have become, the Justice Department's top career lawyer reviewed the matter and disagreed. "This decision should not be viewed as an endorsement of the legal work that underlies those memoranda," Assistant Deputy Attorney General David Margolis wrote in a memo released Friday. Margolis, the top nonpolitical Justice Department lawyer and a veteran of several administrations, called the legal memos "flawed" and said that, at every opportunity, they gave interrogators as much leeway as possible under U.S. torture laws. But he said Yoo and Bybee were not reckless and did not knowingly give incorrect advice, the standard for misconduct. The Office of Professional Responsibility, led by another veteran career prosecutor, Mary Patrice Brown, disagreed. "Situations of great stress, danger and fear do not relieve department attorneys of their duty to provide thorough, objective and candid legal advice, even if that advice is not what the client wants to hear," her team wrote in a report that criticized the memos for a "lack of thoroughness, objectivity and candor." The internal report also faulted then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and then-Criminal Division chief Michael Chertoff for not scrutinizing the memos and recognizing their flaws, but the report did not cite them for misconduct. Yoo is now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and Bybee is a federal judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco. The decision spares them any immediate sanctions, though state bar associations could independently take up the matter. The memos authorized CIA interrogators to use waterboarding, keep detainees naked, hold them in painful standing positions and keep them in the cold for long periods of time. Other techniques included depriving them of solid food and slapping them. Sleep deprivation, prolonged shackling and threats to a detainee's family were also used. The memos have been embroiled in national security politics for years. The memos laid out a broad interpretation of executive power, one the previous administration also used to authorize warrantless wiretapping and secret prisons. Democrats say the Bush administration used shoddy lawyering to legitimize such policies. Republicans said the memos, authored by two well-respected attorneys, gave the CIA the authority it needed to keep America safe in the panic-filled months after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The memos were hurriedly put together in days, and supporters of Yoo and Bybee note that investigators have had years to dissect them. Many have criticized the Obama administration for trying to politicize legal advice. "We can only hope that the department's decision will establish once and for all that dedicated public officials may have honest disagreements on difficult matters of legal judgment without violating ethical standards," Bybee's lawyer, Maureen Mahoney, said Friday. Yoo's lawyer, Miguel Estrada, was more pointed. During the lengthy investigation, Estrada accused internal investigators of trying to be "Junior Varsity CIA" that second-guessed intelligence decisions. Friday, he said the two lawyers never deserved to be investigated in the first place. "The only thing that warrants an ethical investigation out of this entire sorry business is the number of malicious allegations against Professor Yoo and Judge Bybee that leaked out of the department during the last year," Estrada said. Obama has said CIA interrogators who relied on the memos will not face charges for their behavior. A separate criminal inquiry is under way into whether a handful of CIA operatives crossed the line, leading to the death of detainees. While Friday's decision ends the debate within the Justice Department and the Obama administration, Democrats indicated they aren't finished discussing it. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said he was "deeply offended" by the legal memos and planned hold a hearing Feb. 26. —— Associated Press Still got the tar warm and the feathers handy and still cant use them"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #2 February 20, 2010 A Justice Dept memo like this is extremely self-serving to the executive branch. There are two other branches of government, and they will be heard. This is far from over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #3 February 20, 2010 QuoteA Justice Dept memo like this is extremely self-serving to the executive branch. There are two other branches of government, and they will be heard. This is far from over.I'm sure DICK C is celebratingI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #4 February 20, 2010 The fact that one of these individuals is a professor at a highly-ranked law school and the other is a federal appellate court judge is an embarassment to the entire legal system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #5 February 20, 2010 QuoteThe fact that one of these individuals is a professor at a highly-ranked law school and the other is a federal appellate court judge is an embarassment to the entire legal system. Not really"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #6 February 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteThe fact that one of these individuals is a professor at a highly-ranked law school and the other is a federal appellate court judge is an embarassment to the entire legal system. Not really Yes. Really. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #7 February 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe fact that one of these individuals is a professor at a highly-ranked law school and the other is a federal appellate court judge is an embarassment to the entire legal system. Not really Yes. Really. Nah You just dont agree with them"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #8 February 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe fact that one of these individuals is a professor at a highly-ranked law school and the other is a federal appellate court judge is an embarassment to the entire legal system. Not really Yes. Really. Nah You just dont agree with them Thank you for impliedly insulting my (and Andy Boyd's) integrity and depth of intelligence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #9 February 20, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote The fact that one of these individuals is a professor at a highly-ranked law school and the other is a federal appellate court judge is an embarassment to the entire legal system. Not really Yes. Really. Nah You just dont agree with them Thank you for impliedly insulting my (and Andy Boyd's) integrity and depth of intelligence. No insult intended. If you took it that way then that is your problem Unless everyone is just supposed to agree with you or be considered to make an insultWFJ"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,230 #10 February 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteThe fact that one of these individuals is a professor at a highly-ranked law school and the other is a federal appellate court judge is an embarassment to the entire legal system. Not really Of course it is. Apparently you either didn't read the article in its entirety, didn't comprehend what you read, or both.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #11 February 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe fact that one of these individuals is a professor at a highly-ranked law school and the other is a federal appellate court judge is an embarassment to the entire legal system. Not really Yes. Really. No more than having Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court justice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #12 February 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe fact that one of these individuals is a professor at a highly-ranked law school and the other is a federal appellate court judge is an embarassment to the entire legal system. Not really Yes. Really. No more than having Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court justice. You're right; it's as bad as that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #13 February 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe fact that one of these individuals is a professor at a highly-ranked law school and the other is a federal appellate court judge is an embarassment to the entire legal system. Not really Of course it is. Apparently you either didn't read the article in its entirety, didn't comprehend what you read, or both. I read it I just over looked the cometary and political comment But you didnt cause you agree with it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #14 February 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe fact that one of these individuals is a professor at a highly-ranked law school and the other is a federal appellate court judge is an embarassment to the entire legal system. Not really Yes. Really. No more than having Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court justice. You're right; it's as bad as that. Poster exposed"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #15 February 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe fact that one of these individuals is a professor at a highly-ranked law school and the other is a federal appellate court judge is an embarassment to the entire legal system. Not really Yes. Really. No more than having Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court justice. You're right; it's as bad as that. Poster exposed Gosh, you're so brilliant. Expose this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #16 February 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe fact that one of these individuals is a professor at a highly-ranked law school and the other is a federal appellate court judge is an embarassment to the entire legal system. Not really Yes. Really. No more than having Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court justice. You're right; it's as bad as that. Poster exposed Gosh, you're so brilliant. Expose this. And, that makes you?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #17 February 21, 2010 QuoteAnd, that makes you? The kissee. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #18 February 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteAnd, that makes you? The kissee. Hmmmm Never herd it called that...."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #19 February 21, 2010 Quote Quote And, that makes you? The kissee. LOL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #20 February 21, 2010 Quote*** Friday, 19 Feb 2010 10:01 PM Justice Department lawyers showed "poor judgment" but did not commit professional misconduct when they authorized CIA interrogators to use waterboarding Everything I saw or read pertaining to waterboarding indicated that the practice produces the intense fear of drowning. It does not create physical pain. How is fear equated with torture? Creating fear to motivate or modify someone's behavior is an everyday occurrence. Fear, in some form, was emphasized in every position I ever held. If you choose to respond, base your response on the concept that fear equals torture.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #21 February 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Friday, 19 Feb 2010 10:01 PM Justice Department lawyers showed "poor judgment" but did not commit professional misconduct when they authorized CIA interrogators to use waterboarding Everything I saw or read pertaining to waterboarding indicated that the practice produces the intense fear of drowning. It does not create physical pain. How is fear equated with torture? Creating fear to motivate or modify someone's behavior is an everyday occurrence. Fear, in some form, was emphasized in every position I ever held. If you choose to respond, base your response on the concept that fear equals torture. To me, it seems obvious; but I realized that we could get bogged down in defining "torture". So, to help lay a foundation, and since we're discussing actions done by or on behalf of the United States, here's the definition under United States law: *** TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340 § 2340. Definitions As used in this chapter— (1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality... If I was a judge (and with 25 years of practice I think I'm qualified to be one), I would rule that waterboarding constitutes torture under US law under several aspects of this legal definition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #22 February 21, 2010 QuoteQuote*** Friday, 19 Feb 2010 10:01 PM Justice Department lawyers showed "poor judgment" but did not commit professional misconduct when they authorized CIA interrogators to use waterboarding Everything I saw or read pertaining to waterboarding indicated that the practice produces the intense fear of drowning. It does not create physical pain. How is fear equated with torture? Creating fear to motivate or modify someone's behavior is an everyday occurrence. Fear, in some form, was emphasized in every position I ever held. If you choose to respond, base your response on the concept that fear equals torture. I do not think that concept of creating fear is torture! The only caveat would be if it was done for an long period of time where the fear would start manifesting itself physically. I posted this to show that the JD agreed that the Bush era lawyers did nothing wrong"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #23 February 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Friday, 19 Feb 2010 10:01 PM Justice Department lawyers showed "poor judgment" but did not commit professional misconduct when they authorized CIA interrogators to use waterboarding Everything I saw or read pertaining to waterboarding indicated that the practice produces the intense fear of drowning. It does not create physical pain. How is fear equated with torture? Creating fear to motivate or modify someone's behavior is an everyday occurrence. Fear, in some form, was emphasized in every position I ever held. If you choose to respond, base your response on the concept that fear equals torture. To me, it seems obvious; but I realized that we could get bogged down in defining "torture". So, to help lay a foundation, and since we're discussing actions done by or on behalf of the United States, here's the definition under United States law: *** TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340 § 2340. Definitions As used in this chapter— (1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality... If I was a judge (and with 25 years of practice I think I'm qualified to be one), I would rule that waterboarding constitutes torture under US law. If you would use the list you posted to make the determination, I think the SC would over turn your ruling"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #24 February 21, 2010 QuoteIf you would use the list you posted to make the determination, I think the SC would over turn your ruling And in my professional opinion, I would predict that a majority of the SC would uphold it. Oh- and it's more than just a list - it's United States law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #25 February 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteIf you would use the list you posted to make the determination, I think the SC would over turn your ruling And in my professional opinion, I would predict that a majority of the SC would uphold it. And all we can do is leave it at that"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
