Treament of Lawyers Who Drafted Torture Memos Divides Opinions
Opinions are divided after the U.S. Department of Justice chose to not discipline two former DOJ lawyers who drafted memos in 2002 that legalized certain torture techniques against suspected terrorists, and gave the president near unlimited decision-making power to protect the country.
A five-year inquiry by the DOJ’s ethics department recommended that attorneys Jay S. Bybee and John C. Yoo be put under a disciplinary review for writing what are now described as the “torture memos.”
Bybee and Yoo wrote the memos in 2002 while working for the Justice Department during George W. Bush’s administration. The memos declared techniques such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation legal for the Central Intelligence Agency to perform on suspected terrorists, while also allowing the president freedom to order the military into action without consent of congress.
But shortly after the recommendation was made, the Justice Department’s David Margolis, a higher ranking official, overruled the inquiry ruling against the former DOJ lawyers.
Editorial writers with the Washington Post agreed with Margolis’ decision, pointing out that Bybee and Yoo were under pressure by the Bush administration to swiftly come up with a policy after terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The Post described David Margolis’ decision as courageous and quoted him as saying Bybee and Yoo acted under “good faith” and with the backing of several court decisions that could support the memos.
But the Post also wrote that Margolis was still sharply critical of the lawyers’ actions.
“Yet Mr. Margolis also made clear that Mr. Bybee and Mr. Yoo at virtually every turn argued for the most extreme application of executive power — a particular obsession of Mr. Yoo’s — and interpreted anti-torture provisions in the narrowest way possible,” the Post wrote in their editorial. “They failed to fully air arguments that cut the other way. Their work shows how quickly matters can go awry when ideology and fear drive decision-making during a crisis.”
The New York Times chastised the Justice Department for not following through on the recommendation to place both Bybee and Yoo under disciplinary actions by their respective state bar associations.
The Times wrote that while many Americans were both scared and clamoring for harsh punishment against terrorists after the Sept. 11 attack, the Justice Department had a responsibility to be even that much more vigilant when government officials wanted to sidestep laws.
“When [the Justice Department] renders an opinion, it has the force of law within the executive branch,” the Times wrote about the Justice Department. “Poor judgment is an absurdly dismissive way to describe giving the green light to policies that have badly soiled America’s reputation and made it less safe.”
The Times also pointed out that Margolis was critical of Bybee’s and Yoo’s professionalism in writing memos that seemed to offer little more than a preemptive criminal defense for questionable actions by the Executive Branch.
The Times wrote that Bybee and Yoo aren’t necessarily in the clear, since federal House and Senate Judiciary Committees will still be holding hearings in relation to the ethics report.
“The quest for real accountability must continue,” the Times wrote. “The alternative is to leave torture open as a policy option for future administrations.”
