Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A coalition of progressive groups sought Monday to have 12 Bush administration lawyers disbarred for their roles in crafting the legal rationale for so-called enhanced interrogation techniques that many view as torture.

"It is time to hold these lawyers accountable for violating their legal oath," Kevin Zeese, an attorney for the coalition, said in a written statement.

"Just as the bar would suspend an attorney who advised a police officer to torture and brutalize a detained immigrant or criminal defendant, the bar must suspend these attorneys for advocating and causing the torture of war detainees. The disciplinary boards that hear these complaints must act or they will be seen as complicit in the use of torture."

Zeese called disbarment "an important step toward the ultimate accountability of criminal prosecution."

The group registered formal complaints against David Addington, John Ashcroft, Stephen Bradbury, Jay Bybee, Michael Chertoff, Douglas Feith, Alice Fisher, Timothy Flanigan, Alberto Gonzales, William Haynes II, Michael Mukasey and John Yoo.

Ashcroft, Gonzales and Mukasey served as attorney general in former President George W. Bush's administration. Chertoff served as homeland security secretary.

The complaints, filed with the bars in California, the District of Columbia, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas, also seek other forms of disciplinary action in addition to disbarment.

A preliminary internal report on the Justice Department investigation into the authors of the Bush administration's "torture memos" indicated that the federal government might also urge state bar associations to take sanctions against the memo writers, according to two government sources.

The draft, which has been sent to Attorney General Eric Holder for approval or revisions, reportedly does not call for criminal prosecutions.

Sources said investigators for the Justice Department's ethics unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility, have focused heavily on internal communications involving Bradbury, Bybee and Yoo.

The three former Office of Legal Counsel lawyers were top officials who provided legal guidance, including permissible interrogation procedures to the CIA and other executive branch agencies. Guidance written by Bybee and Yoo in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks allowed for harsh interrogation techniques that later were withdrawn.

The draft report is said to be critical of Yoo and Bybee in particular.

dbackjon wrote:Yet Cleets, many long for the return of Bush - right Z?

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Yet Cleets, many long for the return of Bush - right Z?

Absolutely not. I long for the return of McCain.

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Absolutely not. I long for the return of McCain.

He was blathering on like an idiot this morning on Good Morning Arizona today

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
He was blathering on like an idiot this morning on Good Morning Arizona today

As opposed to Obama blathering on at Notre Dame yesterday?

Same shit, different day Jon. Only difference is, McCain's blathering was withOUT the aid of a teleprompter.

Cleets Part 2 wrote:The U.S. attorneys appointed by President Bush - in what I find to be one of his most suspicious acts - and he has a lot of suspicious acts under his administration...

Anyway:
The U.S. attorneys appointed by Bush, after firing perfectly qualified lawyers -then- hiring replacement lawyers from third rate programs with little to no experience so he and his administration could subvert legal precedence and influence change without resistance is ridiculous...

Hysterically many of his replacement appointees were effectively C- grade lawyers with failing practices...
all so he could solicit favors with no resistance and effect change without consequences...

How any American could be "proud" of that Administration is puzzling

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
As opposed to Obama blathering on at Notre Dame yesterday?

Same shit, different day Jon. Only difference is, McCain's blathering was withOUT the aid of a teleprompter.

Obama READ a very good speech at Notre Dame...

Cleets Part 2 wrote:The U.S. attorneys appointed by President Bush - in what I find to be one of his most suspicious acts - and he has a lot of suspicious acts under his administration...

Anyway:
The U.S. attorneys appointed by Bush, after firing perfectly qualified lawyers -then- hiring replacement lawyers from third rate programs with little to no experience so he and his administration could subvert legal precedence and influence change without resistance is ridiculous...

Hysterically many of his replacement appointees were effectively C- grade lawyers with failing practices...

all so he could solicit favors with no resistance and effect change without consequences...

How any American could be "proud" of that Administration is puzzling

SeattleGriz wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:The U.S. attorneys appointed by President Bush - in what I find to be one of his most suspicious acts - and he has a lot of suspicious acts under his administration...

Anyway:
The U.S. attorneys appointed by Bush, after firing perfectly qualified lawyers -then- hiring replacement lawyers from third rate programs with little to no experience so he and his administration could subvert legal precedence and influence change without resistance is ridiculous...

Hysterically many of his replacement appointees were effectively C- grade lawyers with failing practices...

all so he could solicit favors with no resistance and effect change without consequences...

How any American could be "proud" of that Administration is puzzling

I might be confusing facts, but aren't Presidents allowed to replace the US Attorneys at will? Didn't Clinton get rid of all of them and then replace them with a new bunch? Once again, I might be mixing facts here.

danefan wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
I might be confusing facts, but aren't Presidents allowed to replace the US Attorneys at will? Didn't Clinton get rid of all of them and then replace them with a new bunch? Once again, I might be mixing facts here.

Yes, US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. However, the issue Cleets is referring to is in 2006 when a bunch of US Atty's were fired mid-term, which was unprecedented.

The Wiki page on the issue is pretty accurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_ ... ontroversy

danefan wrote: Anyone who has ever had any experience in the legal profession knows the truth about law school - where you go to law school has very little to do with the quality of your legal work. The law school people go to is by and large due to how well they performed on one single day of their life (the LSAT test). It speaks little to the intelligence or legal ability of any lawyer.

Wedgebuster wrote:What the F is the name of that hack Jesus based law school that all his ass minions got their degree from?

Wedgebuster wrote:What the F is the name of that hack Jesus based law school that all his ass minions got their degree from?

However, training in legal skills alone is not enough. What makes Regent unique among law schools approved by the American Bar Association is that we thoroughly integrate a Christian perspective in the classroom. We are committed to the proposition that there is truth--eternal principles of justice--about the way we should practice law and about the law itself. We believe character matters. We talk openly about how an attorney can have integrity and humility in a profession that challenges both. And we discuss not only what the law is, but also its origin and what it ought to be.