Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

USING A LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW TO FACILITATE TORTURE SHOULD RESULT IN DISBARMENT

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 09:22 AM
Original message
USING A LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW TO FACILITATE TORTURE SHOULD RESULT IN DISBARMENT
Posted in full with permission of Kevin Zeese, Attorney filing complaints for groups seeking disbarment of Cheney torture lawyers. I hope President Obama is reading this, as should Congress, and our neighbors around the world. We the people do NOT support torture. Torture is NOT an American value. This is the actual statement made when the complaint was filed.

"...the people must act to face up to this issue and restore morality and Rule of Law to the United States." - Kevin Zeese, attorney, Voters for Peace




USING A LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW TO FACILITATE TORTURE SHOULD RESULT IN DISBARMENT

Statement Made Upon the Filing of Complaints Seeking Disbarment of Bush-Cheney’s Cadre of Torture Lawyers


Kevin B. Zeese

Executive Director, VotersForPeace.US and

Board Member of Velvet Revolution


My name is Kevin Zeese, I am an attorney licensed to practice law in Washington, DC and before the U.S. Supreme Court. I serve as the executive director of VotersForPeace.US and on the board of VelvetRevolution.US. Today, we filed complaints with the District of Columbia Bar and with four other states seeking the disbarment of 12 Bush-Cheney torture lawyers. These lawyers misused their license to practice law to provide legal cover for the war crime of torture. This misuse of their license requires the bar association to disbar them or the bar will become complicit in torture.

Complaints have been filed against: John Yoo, Judge Jay Bybee, and Stephen Bradbury who authored the torture memoranda. As well as attorneys who advised, counseled, consulted and supported those memoranda including Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft, Michael Chertoff, Alice Fisher, William Haynes II, Douglas Feith, Michael Mukasey, Timothy Flanigan, and David Addington. These detailed complaints, with over 500 pages of supporting exhibits, have been filed with the state bars in the District of Columbia, New York, California, Texas and Pennsylvania, and they seek disciplinary action and disbarment. Copies of the complaints and exhibits are available on-line at DisbarTortureLawyers.com and VotersForPeace.us.

This cadre of torture lawyers colluded to facilitate the abuse and torture of prisoners (detainee) that included, evidence suggests, deaths at overseas U.S. military facilities. Human Rights Watch reports 98 deaths of people in custody of the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. Making torture even worse in this case is that it was used to try and get information to tie Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda – a relationship that did not exist – as well as information about non-existent weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.


We have asked the respective state bars to revoke the licenses of these attorneys for moral turpitude. They failed to show “respect for and obedience to the law, and respect for the rights of others,” and intentionally or recklessly failed to act competently, all in violation of legal Rules of Professional Conduct. Several attorneys failed to adequately supervise the work of subordinate attorneys and forwarded shoddy legal memoranda regarding the definition of torture to the White House and Department of Defense. These lawyers further acted incompetently by advising superiors to approve interrogation techniques that were in violation of U.S. and international law. They failed to support or uphold the U.S. Constitution, and the laws of the United States, and to maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers, all in violation state bar rules.

Torture is illegal under United States and international law. It is illegal under the U.S. Constitution, domestic law and international treaties to which the United States is a party.

This includes:

1. The United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), Articles 1, 2, 3 and 16 (ratified in October 1994). Article 2(2) of the Convention states that:

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

2. The Geneva Conventions, Article 3, (ratified in August 1955). Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), held that the Geneva Conventions are applicable to accused members of al-Qaeda. Thus, due process protections apply to all detainees in U.S. custody, including those in military prisons.

3. The Eighth Amendment against “cruel and unusual punishment.”

4. The United States Criminal Code, Title 18, Prohibitions Against Torture (18 USC 2340A) and War Crimes (18 USC 2441).


Torture is a clearly defined term under international and U.S. law. The Convention Against Torture defines torture as any act by which: “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; is intentionally inflicted on a person . . .”


The torture memoranda did not provide objective legal advice to government decision-makers, but instead twisted the state of the law so that it was unrecognizable. They were so inaccurate that these memoranda are more justifications about what the authors and the intended recipients wanted the law to be, rather than assessments of what the law actually is.


These laws provide no exception for torture under any circumstances. Moreover, the United States Criminal Code prohibits both torture and war crimes, the latter which includes torture. The Army Field Manual prohibits the use of degrading treatment of detainees. The individually tailored complaints allege that the named attorneys violated the rules of professional responsibility by advocating torture.


We decided to take action today because the federal government seems unable and unwilling to act. The Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility has taken nearly five years to complete its report, as some of the memoranda at issue became public in June 2004. Further, this OPR investigation is focused only on two lawyers, John Yoo and Jay Bybee rather than all those involved. This inexcusable delay is unfair to the public because the consequences of any wrongdoing are diminished. The delay has already benefited the two men under investigation, John Yoo now has tenure at Berkeley law school and Jay Bybee now has a lifetime appointment as a federal court of appeals judge. If OPR had completed its duties in a timely manner it is unlikely that either appointment would have been made.

In addition to inaction by OPR, the Congress where select Members were briefed 40 times by the CIA, seems unable to take action because of fear of its own complicity being exposed. And, Attorney General Eric Holder, has now testified that he approved renditions – which results in prisoners being tortured by other countries at the behest of the United States – during the Clinton administration. And, sadly, the President of the United States has now decided to hide evidence of war crimes by refusing to release photographic and video evidence despite a court order to do so. Finally, the administration is appointing General McChrystal to be the head of operations in Afghanistan despite being responsible for commanding Fort Nama in Iraq as well as special forces involved in torture:

“An interrogator at Camp Nama described locking prisoners in shipping containers for 24 hours at a time in extreme heat; exposing them to extreme cold with periodic soaking in cold water; bombardment with bright lights and loud music; sleep deprivation; and severe beatings. When he and other interrogators went to the colonel in charge and expressed concern that this kind of treatment was not legal, and that they might be investigated by the military’s Criminal Investigation Division or the International Committee of the Red Cross, the colonel told them he had “this directly from General McChrystal and the Pentagon that there’s no way that the Red Cross could get in.”

Nicolas J S Davies, “Suspected War Criminal, General McChrystal, to Lead U.S. Forces in Afghanistan ” http://votersforpeace.us/press/index.php?itemid=1576.

The unit's slogan, which set the tone for its practices, was "If you don't make them bleed, they can't prosecute for it." Reportedly prisoners died in the custody of troops in General McChrystal’s command and five officers were convicted of prisoner abuse.

Therefore, the people must act to face up to this issue and restore morality and Rule of Law to the United States. In addition to filing these complaints we are starting a campaign for disbarment, public torture hearings and for the appointment of an Independent Prosecutor. People who want to get involved are urged to go to DisbarTortureLawyers.com and VotersForPeace.us.

Only by taking torture out of politics and allowing an independent prosecutor to pursue the facts and apply the law will the United States recover from these war crimes. Application of the rule of law, beginning with disbarment, is a necessary part of the process of healing the nation.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. While we're at it, the "doctors" and "psychologists" who worked as enablers...
should also be investigated.

In some ways, they're even worse than the lawyers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
2. Using a license to practice law to facilitate torture should result in imprisonment.
Did we let them get away with mere disbarment at Nuremburg?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. How many of the Nuremburg defendants were
lawyers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. A few of them were judges.
And they put up the same defenses that Bybee and Yoo are putting up now - "It was legal, we were following the law..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyfromNC Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
3. This is a horrible idea
let's say I represent a person charged with rape. The evidence against my client is shakey at best, so I get teh prosecutor to drop the charges as a result of my legal advice and work to and for the client. Then the client rapes another woman, should I be held responsible? The rapist followed my advice and was therefore able to rape again.

Presidents need open and honest legal adivce from their attorneys. If you punish the Bush attorneys because you don't like Bush, know that Pres Obama's attorneys will be threatened with the same for any advice that doesn't work out in the future. This is not a good thing. If you want to punish someone for the torture then go to Bush or Cheney, but leave the hired help alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Your argument doesn't wash.
Edited on Mon May-18-09 09:45 AM by MineralMan
As a defense attorney, you are required to present the most effective defense you can for your client. It's a completely different matter. Now, if you advised your client that he could go out and rape someone without breaking the law, then you should be disbarred.

Those attorneys who wrote legal opinions in their official capacities are not in the same category at all. They advised the President that he could break the law with impunity. Advising a client in advance that an illegal activity is OK is far from the same thing as defending a client who might be guilty of a crime. Everyone gets a defense in the USA. Bad legal advice is actionable.

But, hey, thanks a whole pile for your concern...and, oh yeah...welcome to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. I agree that "Presidents need open and honest legal advice."
I also believe that the advice Bush got about torture was neither open nor honest, nor was it given in good faith (as the fact that the reports completely neglected to mention the entirety of US case law regarding waterboarding would attest), nor was it given in a courtroom setting.

I think a part of ensuring that Presidents get open and honest legal advice is to provide repercussions for attorneys who choose to give the political cover Presidents request for illegal acts, rather than give open and honest legal advice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varkam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Wow. Bad analogy.
The evidence against my client is shakey at best, so I get teh prosecutor to drop the charges as a result of my legal advice and work to and for the client.

You don't get the charges dropped as a result of your legal advice to the client. You get the charges dropped because you're able to convince the prosecutor that they cannot meet the burden of proof necessary in order to convict, and so going to trial would be a fool's errand.

Then the client rapes another woman, should I be held responsible? The rapist followed my advice and was therefore able to rape again.

What? Your client didn't follow your advice, unless you advised your client to go ahead and keep raping people or that rape was not, in fact, against the law. If you did advise your client of that, then you would be disbarred (and might potentially face criminal charges - e.g. conspiracy to commit rape).

Presidents need open and honest legal adivce from their attorneys. If you punish the Bush attorneys because you don't like Bush, know that Pres Obama's attorneys will be threatened with the same for any advice that doesn't work out in the future. This is not a good thing. If you want to punish someone for the torture then go to Bush or Cheney, but leave the hired help alone.

I agree - but that's what executive privilege is for. However, as courts have consistently ruled ever since Madison v Marbury, no one is above the law - not even the President. Nixon also tried to use the guise of executive privilege to cover up his criminal activity, but the courts weren't buying. Moreover, we're not advocating the punishment of Bush attorneys because we don't like Bush. Rather, we're advocating people who broke the law to be held to account - which would include Executive Department officials such as Bush and Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maru Kitteh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
5. The law is about arguing at least one unpopular position in every matter. This is dumb.
And it's not going to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. The DOJ giving opinions on how it will interpret and enforce the law
is a mite bit different than a defense lawyer representing his client, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyfromNC Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. Yes and no
obviously there are difference is defense after an action has been taken, and giving prospective advice. However, the fact that going after the lawyers for decisions made by Bush/Cheney still stands.

You guys may be right, we need a better analogy.

Let's assume a lawyer represents a corporation, say an electric utility. The are going to build a project. There are thousands of safety codes between NEC and OSHA. A lawyer might advise his client that taking certain actions absolutely required by law, that some could be doen but are not required, and that some are in the grey area. The client may listen to the advice, look into the cost, and take all the required actions and some of the grey area actions, but not others. Later, a person gets killed in an accident taht could have been prevented. Does the company get sued, sure. But should the lawyer get disbarred? No.

Going after the lawyers through the state bars is just petty. If the torture is illegal, the the people who ordered it are responsible - go after them. Now, I understand that some claim that it isn't politically expedient to go after Bush. If it can't be done, then it can't.

One thing is sure, if the Dem's go after the Bush lawyers with this weapon, they will use it against Pres. Obama's counsel in the not too distant future. Remember Ken Starr? Guess who passed the law to make Ken Starr possible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. If it could be proved that lawyer
Edited on Mon May-18-09 11:21 AM by Occam Bandage
willfully and deliberately ignored the law in order to provide legal counsel he knew was fraudulent and knew was specifically requested to enable the commission of crimes endangering the lives of others, then I would say that disbarring that lawyer is appropriate. I would also say that conviction on conspiracy charges is appropriate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
9. K&R in support of disbarment //nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
10. It's a start of a journey that should conclude in a jail cell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
13. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
15. K&R
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC