An internal Justice Department inquiry has concluded that Bush administration lawyers committed serious lapses of judgment in writing secret memorandums authorizing brutal interrogations but that they should not be prosecuted, according to government officials briefed on its findings.
That's the good news.
The report by the Office of Professional Responsibility, an internal ethics unit within the Justice Department, is also likely to ask state bar associations to consider possible disciplinary action, which could include reprimands or even disbarment, for some of the lawyers involved in writing the legal opinions, the officials said.
That's the bad news.
The findings, growing out of an inquiry that started in 2004, would represent a stinging rebuke of the lawyers and their legal arguments.
But they would stop short of the criminal referral sought by some human rights advocates, who have suggested that the lawyers could be prosecuted as part of a criminal conspiracy to violate the anti-torture statute. President Obama has said the Justice Department would have to decide whether the lawyers who authorized the interrogation methods should face charges, while pledging that interrogators would not be investigated or prosecuted for using techniques that the lawyers said were legal.
Maybe I'm confused. If asked for my legal opinion as a lawyer, and I render it based upon my understanding of the law at the time, and a third party chooses to order, and then another third party implements it in a manner which may or may not be consistent with my original analysis . . . the best case scenario I may be facing is disbarment and the worse case is criminal charges?
So, then, why not also go after the judges and politicians who brought about the case law and statutes upon which I based my opinion?
0 comments:
Post a Comment