Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A group called Velvet Revolution is targeting 12 Bush administration attorneys for disbarment for their role in justifying and providing legal cover for the torture of detainees.
Torture is illegal under both United States and international law. The Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, and it states that treaties signed by the U.S. are the "supreme Law of the Land" under Article Six. The Geneva Convention and The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment both prohibit torture and have been signed by the United States. 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.Despite this well-established law, under the Bush administration, torture was authorized by George Bush and kept secret using classified designations. The White House requested legal memoranda to support its use of torture and it received those authored by a host of attorneys, including John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Stephen Bradbury. Attorneys who advised, counseled, consulted and supported those memoranda included Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft, Michael Chertoff, Alice Fisher, William Haynes II, Douglas Feith, Michael Mukasey, Timothy Flanigan, and David Addington.
And they've filed complaints with the relevant bar associations seeking to have those 12 attorneys disbarred.
Several of these memoranda have recently been released, and clearly demonstrate that these attorneys conspired to violate laws against torture and that their actions resulted in torture and death. Accordingly, these attorneys must be held accountable. We have asked the respective state bars to revoke the licenses of the foregoing 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.On Monday, May 18, 2009, a broad coalition of organizations dedicated to accountable government, and representing over one million members, filed disciplinary complaints with state bar licensing boards against the above named twelve attorneys for advocating the torture of detainees during the Bush Administration. 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 below.
The individually tailored complaints allege that the named attorneys violated the rules of professional responsibility by advocating torture. The memos written and supported by these attorneys advocating torture have now been repudiated by the Department of Justice, the White House, the Department of Defense and other experts in the field. The recently released Senate and Red Cross reports on detainee treatment provide uncontroverted evidence that the torture techniques advocated by the attorneys were used on human beings over an extended period of time. We have also sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, asking that he initiate impeachment proceeding against Jay Bybee, who is now a sitting federal judge. The evidence is clear that, during his confirmation hearings, Mr. Bybee misused the classified status of his torture memos to portray a false picture of his legal history. Several Senators have stated publicly that Mr. Bybee would not have been confirmed if they had been aware of his torture memos.
At the link above you can read the full complaints filed with each bar association and the supporting documents filed with each complaint.
Politics
Comments
No one involved in this shameful blot on the country's moral character should escape unpunished--and that includes Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
Posted by: gary l. day | July 1, 2009 9:52 AM
Back when I had piles of money, I gave a fair amount to the ACLU. Now, if I had disposable piles of money, I'd give it 75% to the ACLU, 25% to these guys.
Posted by: steve s | July 1, 2009 11:25 AM
Awww. I just skimmed the title and initially only read, "Torture Lawyers." I thought, "Oh, this is interesting." Imagine my disappointment.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | July 1, 2009 11:38 AM
I've been waiting a very long time to hear the term "moral turpitude" used as a reference to behavior that actually deserves the gravitas of the term.
A quick inquiry to Answers dot com gives yields this, emphasis mine:
I note particularly that "in general" part; certain behaviors are expected of all citizens without respect to station or office.
Steve S, I'd match your 25% if I could just find a pile of money needing disposal.
*now, where did I put that durned heap o' cash?*
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 1, 2009 11:49 AM
Troublesome Frog stated:
Heh, heh. My first reaction to this story was that if this effort is successful prior to the Justice Dept. bringing down any elected officials for war crimes, then fair play may require we up our inventory of jokes deriding politicians and decrease the lawyer jokes accordingly. A quick, decisive reaction by the respective Bars would certainly go a significant ways in bringing some respect back to the legal profession with many people. Still funny though. ;)
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 1, 2009 1:06 PM
While you are at the torture issue, we should also try these same people for treason for taking us to war falsely and killing (not torture but worse) 4000+ US Soldiers. Yes, try them for treason for taking the country to war illegally and on false premise, also war crimes in this country and violations of Title 18 crimes. These crimes continue every day our boys are in harms way in a country we illegally invaded and occupy.
Torture is bad but murder is worse and these again our are own boys, good kids of military heritage, of honor, we must save them too.
Eliot Bernstein
iviewit@iviewit.tv
Posted by: Eliot Bernstein | July 1, 2009 4:00 PM
Somebody is actually trying to see what the word "accountability" means? Incredible.
The Obama Govt'ment should be ashamed to leave it to some lawyers to do what it cowardly avoids to do.
Posted by: peter | July 1, 2009 7:13 PM
Funny, I just heard a story on NPR about Abramoff where they said it's usually the little fish who get caught first. I wonder which way this one will go?
I still hope to see Cheney at the end of a rope.
Posted by: BaldApe | July 1, 2009 7:18 PM
Eliot Bernstein,
War crimes I see, but treason? Treason is defined in the Constitution.
While I would agree that Bush, Cheney, et. al are in some respects betrayers of America, what actions would count as treason?
Posted by: James Hanley | July 1, 2009 7:56 PM
If the problem is that the lawyers are claiming innocence... ie not confessing... well, there are ways to get a confession, aren't there?
Posted by: BAllanJ | July 3, 2009 11:15 AM
@ James Hanley While I am far from a lawyer, The general goals of 'the terrorists' (to use an ambiguous blanketing term) were pretty much in line with the strategies of guerrilla insurgency as outlined by the Maoists decades ago. Namely hiding aggressive actors in civilain populations to carry out very cheap military attacks that pay large dividends in the fear and dissent they create within the targeted populous, which then responds in the manner that rich militant countries always have, with extremely expensive occupation and oppression of the civilian populous that the violent actors are hiding in. This creates hate for the occupiers which translates in to recruitment for the guerrillas. The goal of economic efficiency in irregular war is to bankrupt a wealthy enemy using very cheap attacks that drain disproportionate amounts of wealth from that enemy both through the damage caused, and then through the enormous costs associated with maintaining their regular army vs guerrillas who are supported cheaply by the population they move through like a river, as Mao put it. Bin Laden even released video that the long term goals of his movement, ie the removal of US military presence from lands he considers religiously important was to be brought about via bankrupting the United States.
Now to George Bush, in the pursuit of his Global War on terror, he acted in exactly the way that his enemy projected he would. His intelligence gathering apparatus (read torture) created huge resentment in the Muslim world, which increases the number of potential guerrilla fighters opposing the United States. His war waging methods of No Bid Contracts and near limitless war budgeting with privatized logistics insured terrible logistics at stratospheric costs. Domestically, his administration worked tirelessly to make sure any laws limiting the usury going on through the finance channels that were skimming huge amounts of productive monetary energy off of the entire economic system were blocked at all cost, which arguably played a great part in the financial catastrophe now underway, and has the potential to remove the United State's financial ability to maintain the hundreds of military bases staffed all over the globe.
In closing, if an enemy declared they will attack you, then state the aims of such attacks, and then tell you step by step how they believe you will respond and outline how those responses will weaken you and further them in the accomplishment of their goals, is it not giving aid and comfort to this enemy to then pursue this exact strategy which they have already explained to you will ensure the victory of their aims?
Posted by: Anon | July 13, 2009 4:18 PM