# Could/Should Jay Bybee be disbarred? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 22, 2009, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-should-jay-bybee-be-disbarred/494008 "2009-04-22T19:26:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-should-jay-bybee-be-disbarred/494008/21 "2009-04-23T14:29:16Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Well…not sure I have got this right but how about violating the Geneva Convention? (me pulls up armchair IANAL chair) > …(Note I realize well trained legal eagles looked for loopholes in all this so be nice…just trying to work through it and am bound to get some part wrong.) Easy. They aren’t “prisoners of war”. They’re “enemy combatants”. Or they were, under Bush. Next you’ll be asking for the difference, won’t you? **Hamlet** is doubtlessly better prepared to provide that explanation, but apparently it is based on the expected duration of the war. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-should-jay-bybee-be-disbarred/494008/22 "2009-04-23T14:29:59Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; > > So, in line with your money laundering example did not Bybee tell the Administration that something illegal was in fact legal? > > (Note I realize well trained legal eagles looked for loopholes in all this so be nice…just trying to work through it and am bound to get some part wrong.) Well, you’re assuming that waterboarding is cruel treatment and torture, as a self-evident fact. I may agree with that conclusion, personally, but what do the court cases, if any, dealing with the Geneva Conventions say? how are the phrases “cruel treatment and torture” to be interpreted? I don’t have any knowledge of those issues - I’m just suggesting that what you’ve posted so far isn’t enough for me to agree that it’s clear and obvious that Bybee said that something illegal was actually legal. You may be right, but so far, I would want a much more detailed argument in support before I would agree with your conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-should-jay-bybee-be-disbarred/494008/23 "2009-04-23T14:30:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > This also does not change the issue that Bybee got rather creative with the law to justify the use of torture regardless what you want to believe about preconceived notions. Give him credit for creativity, at least. Gonzales was reduced to dismissing the Geneva Conventions, despite their constituting US law, on the basis that they’re “quaint” and “obsolete”. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-should-jay-bybee-be-disbarred/494008/24 "2009-04-23T14:32:22Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Well, you’re assuming that waterboarding is cruel treatment and torture, as a self-evident fact. I may agree with that conclusion, personally, but what do the court cases, if any, dealing with the Geneva Conventions say? As applied to Japanese “interrogators” after WW2, that it is. Is that solid enough precedent for you? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2009, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-should-jay-bybee-be-disbarred/494008/25 "2009-04-24T16:44:03Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > Perhaps one of the lawyers here can tell us what the legal status of a memo like Bybee’s or Yoo’s is: Are the memos just knowledgeable opinions, or do their findings have some legal weight? Could a CIA interrogator hauled into court for “coercive interrogation” wave the Yoo memos around and say “I was following these in good faith, therefore I’m not guilty”? I’ve heard before that “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” What specific provisions would exempt a federal employee from the law on this, regardless of whether their superiors told them it was ok? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2009, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-should-jay-bybee-be-disbarred/494008/26 "2009-04-24T18:06:23Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > Perhaps one of the lawyers here can tell us what the legal status of a memo like Bybee’s or Yoo’s is: Are the memos just knowledgeable opinions, or do their findings have some legal weight? Could a CIA interrogator hauled into court for “coercive interrogation” wave the Yoo memos around and say “I was following these in good faith, therefore I’m not guilty”? The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 provides in Section 1004(a) that: > [@](#): > > In any civil action or criminal prosecution against an officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States Government who is a United States person, arising out of the officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent’s engaging in specific operational practices, that involve detention and interrogation of aliens who the President or his designees have determined are believed to be engaged in or associated with international terrorist activity that poses a serious, continuing threat to the United States, its interests, or its allies, and that were officially authorized and determined to be lawful at the time that they were conducted, it shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful. Good faith reliance on advice of counsel should be an important factor, among others, to consider in assessing whether a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the practices to be unlawful. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or extinguish any defense or protection otherwise available to any person or entity from suit, civil or criminal liability, or damages, or to provide immunity from prosecution for any criminal offense by the proper authorities. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2009, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-should-jay-bybee-be-disbarred/494008/27 "2009-04-24T23:05:49Z")
This was all very obviously illegal when they first started talking about it and doing it. Did they really imagine that they were going to be able to travel freely about the world without ever having to answer for these charges? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2009, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-should-jay-bybee-be-disbarred/494008/28 "2009-04-25T03:43:09Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > This was all very obviously illegal when they first started talking about it and doing it. Did they really imagine that they were going to be able to travel freely about the world without ever having to answer for these charges? The “world” is one thing and something these guys will never answer for in another country (ala Kissinger I think). In this country they deserve it but political considerations seems to shield them. Hence my question if their professional organization could disbar them. That is not jail but seems a good signal and maybe (perhaps, possibly) it can motivate and/or clear the way to some extent to see further justice done. So far I have seen nothing to indicate one way or the other if a Bar Association could disbar them. My sense so far is they _could_ but probably won’t. Whether it is just politics that stops them or a can of worms to they do not want to open (setting a precedent busting attorneys for opinions) I cannot tell yet. Some great questions, hard questions, have been asked here but surprisingly no one is really tackling them (unfortunately our legal eagles are likely the only ones really qualified to answer and they seem to be…careful…with this one). ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2009, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-should-jay-bybee-be-disbarred/494008/29 "2009-04-25T04:24:35Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Some great questions, hard questions, have been asked here but surprisingly no one is really tackling them (unfortunately our legal eagles are likely the only ones really qualified to answer and they seem to be…careful…with this one). It’s all part of the grand conspiracy. Lawyers are the modern equivalent of the clergy of old. The last thing they want is a populace who understands what they do in any meaningful way. As long as the mystery remains the lawyers exert a level of control they otherwise likely would not have. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2009, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-should-jay-bybee-be-disbarred/494008/30 "2009-04-25T13:26:40Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > It’s all part of the grand conspiracy. Lawyers are the modern equivalent of the clergy of old. The last thing they want is a populace who understands what they do in any meaningful way. As long as the mystery remains the lawyers exert a level of control they otherwise likely would not have. Thanks for proving my point. No one said that in this thread so not sure where that flip answer came from. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-should-jay-bybee-be-disbarred/494008/31 "2009-05-05T22:05:18Z")
An Update… Apparently disciplinary action by State Bar Associations is on the table (although for who I am not sure): > [@](#): > > A draft report of more than 200 pages, prepared in January before Bush’s departure, recommends disciplinary action by state bar associations, rather than criminal prosecution, against two former department attorneys in the Office of Legal Counsel who might have committed misconduct in preparing and signing the so-called torture memos. State bar associations have the power to suspend a lawyer’s license to practice or impose other penalties. > > SOURCE: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/05/AR2009050502219.html?hpid=topnews](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/05/AR2009050502219.html?hpid=topnews) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-should-jay-bybee-be-disbarred/494008.md?page=1)