Lawrence Wilkerson: Disbar The Bush Lawyers And Get A Special Prosecutor For The Rest

[BlueJessamine]

Source: Huffington Post

By Sam Stein

Colin Powell's former chief of staff called on Friday for a special prosecutor to be appointed and "armed to the teeth" to investigate the authorization of torture by Bush administration officials. He also stated that the lawyers involved in drafting the "torture memos" should be disbarred, but he held out little hope that the political will exists for either course of action to take place.

In an email exchange with the Huffington Post, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson did not shy away from describing what he thought would be an apt punishment for the Bush officials involved in implementing controversial detainee interrogation programs:

"First, the lawyers," he wrote. "I feel that Gonzales, Addington, Yoo, Bybee, Haynes and Feith should be, at a minimum, disbarred... That, in my view, is punishment enough for them..."

"Second, the decision-makers and their closest advisors (particularly the ones among the latter who may, on their own, have twisted the dagger a little deeper in Caesar's prostrate body -- Rumsfeld and Feith for instance). Appoint a special prosecutor such as Fitzgerald, armed to the teeth, and give him or her carte blanche. Play the treatment of any intermediaries -- that is, between the grunts on the ground and the Oval -- as the law allows and the results demand."


Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/27/lawrence-wilkerson-disbar_n_191755.html

[glitch]

1. Why is disbarring punishment enough? They get the same treatment PLUS

as lawyers they really really should have known better.

[groovedaddy]

4. That's just Wilkinson's opinion. Maybe his opinion will help to set it in motion. If that happens

AND the truth is allowed to come out, I believe the public reaction will call for more than disbarment. But defendants make plea deals all the time. That could happen with some of these folks too. If simple disbarment will gain cooperation from a few of these rats to enable indictments of higher ups, it may be worth it.

[glitch]

5. If that's the carrot that gets things going I suppose so.

Still. :mad:

[24601]

9. I'm not counting on it. CBS reports that public opinion

does not even favor congessional hearings on detainee treatmnt. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/27/opinion/polls/main4972844.shtml

[sabrina 1]

10. I think that poll would change if the questions didn't focus

mostly on waterboarding, which many people don't see as all that bad and most don't see it as life-threatening, even if they do believe it is torture.

Even people I know don't react all that much to water-boarding, but when you tell people that over 100 detainees were tortured to death, many of them guilty of nothing, certainly none of them ever charged with any crimes, the response is very different.

When you inform people that their country tortured teens, children and women, their attitude changes fast.

The media has presented all this in a very clinical way and implied that all those who were tortured WERE the bad guys, the ones who plotted 9/11 or other terrorist acts to be carried out here in the US.

The media doesn't inform people that over 500 of the Guantanamo detainees eg, were released without charges, many having been held without access to any judicial system and tortured for years.

So, that poll is not surprising at all considering the way this whole issue has been framed by the media.

[groovedaddy]

17. Remember the U.S. soldier sent undercover to Gitmo, dressed in detainee garb?

He ended up with a concussion at the hands of the guards there and became very bitter over it. Haven't heard much from him. What did he do to deserve this?

[NewJeffCT]

15. There is a difference between a Congressional hearing

and a special prosecutor, though.

[Lance_Boyle]

6. writing a legal opinion, even if its blatantly wrong, is not a crime.

Authorizing torture is a crime - that gets Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales. Torturing is illegal - that gets all of those who did the deeds. But providing an opinion on whether or not illegal torture is illegal - that doesn't get anyone anything, except maybe disbarred.

[No Elephants]

12. That is one opinion, but not the

only possible one. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/02/yoo/index.html

Accountants are held liable because it is reasonably foreseeable that people would invest based upon the financials they prepared. I believe that is civil liability. However, if it is reasonably foreseeable that people intend to authorize torture based upon your saying it is ok, why aren't you liable as an accessory, accomplice, conspirator, or whatever? Not as a torturer if you never laid a hand on anyone, but one some other theory.

There has to be some way of getting out of this Catch 22: The lawyers are not liable because giving an incorrect legal opinion about a crime is not a crime, but no one who acts in reliance on a legal opinion can be convicted either.

Holding lawyers liable for misinterpreting areas of law where there are few to no judicial opinions is a very slippery slope, but we need a way out of the Catch 22 as well. Tough issue.

[Bette Noir]

16. Conspiracy to commit a felony.

Or war crime, if you prefer. That should be good for 20 years. That, plus disbarment, would be "punishment enough."

[Hassin Bin Sober]

23. I think you are missing one aspect of this conspiracy....

From what I understand, the memos bounced back and forth between the WH and OLC make it quite clear the "legal opinion" was specifically CRAFTED to meet the goal of torture. I think a conspiracy case can be made on the memos.

[harun]

20. It makes it less likely it will happen again in the future.

[Captain Hilts]

2. The wrong people - the military and some CIA people - are taking the rap for this. nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. exactly. Let's go after those who made policy. with malice aforethought.

[DCKit]

7. "Aforethought"? You give them far too much credit.

Remember, it was all about the gut feeling.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

8. sorry. UR right, IM wrong.

[No Elephants]

13. They had no hint whatever that this was torture, no matter what the lawyers said?

They never read a newspaper, etc.?

[No Elephants]

11. Special Prosecutor is the only way to go on this. Contact your

representative, your Senators, the Department of Justice and the White House and tell them that.

www.house.gov

www.senate.gov

http://www.usdoj.gov/contact-us.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/



Diane Feinstein is NOT the one to investigate . She was probably getting briefings on it all along.

[pjt7]

14. Getting them disbarred for life

is better than nothing.

[wordpix]

18. yes, let's get them disbarred so they can find out what unemployment is like

:evilgrin:

[sofa king]

19. Appoint a special prosecutor other than Fitzgerald, please.

Had Mr. Fitzgerald pursued his investigation of the Bush Administration with the same vigor with which he ran down Chicago politicians both before and after the Plame-Wilson case, this wouldn't be an issue now.

I'm pretty sure Wilkerson knows that quite well.

[LeFleur1]

21. Support of People

Does it really matter whether or not the people support the decision to go after the torturers in court?
If a law has been broken we don't usually decide whether or not to prosecute on public opinion. Or do we?

[BlueJessamine]

22. agreed. n/t.