AT THE AMERICAN Constitution Society's annual convention in June, Noel Francisco, a former Bush lawyer
in the Office of Legal Counsel, appeared on a panel alongside several longtime critics of Bush policy who had recently been hired by the Obama administration.
diplomatic credibility on human rights and likely ground the six Bush lawyers
in the United States, for fear of arrest overseas.
THE EXTREMELY WEAK CASE FOR PROSECUTING THE BUSH LAWYERS
What is surprising is the willingness of many scholars to entertain, or advocate for, criminal prosecution of the Bush lawyers. Legal scholars have relentlessly criticized the "torture memos," not to mention the legal advice undergirding the Bush Administration's policies on the war on terrorism more generally.
(11) There is no evidence that the Bush lawyers in any way participated in the alleged interrogations, so there can be no question of actually punishing them directly under the statute or international treaties prohibiting torture.
There are two relevant sets of laws that might be invoked to prosecute the Bush lawyers. First, under U.S.
Therefore, in order to be held liable for aiding and abetting the torture under federal law, the Bush lawyers must have intended, through their legal advice, to purposefully bring about "severe physical or mental pain" as defined in the statute.
(11) Instead, Bush lawyers vigorously defended all of Clinton's actions, including those in the designation of the Utah monument that involved the illegal backdating of a presidential letter in order to escape the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The closing of a million acres of the Lewis and Clark National Forest to oil and gas leasing because of claims by some American Indians that it is "sacred" suggests yet another broad issue area on which the Bush Administration's commitment to energy development, science-based forestry practices, and multiple use has not been heard in the positions Bush lawyers have taken in federal court.
Furthermore, Bush lawyers
had good reason to go to federal court: Gore's hand-recount request should have been denied by state courts because there was no proof of "misconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of any election official or any member of the canvassing board," as required by Florida's contest statute.20 The only thing the Gore team could prove was the incompetence of thousands of its own supporters.
Neither Antonin Scalia nor Clarence Thomas recused themselves from the decision, though the former's son works for Bush lawyers
Theodore Olson's law firm and the latter's wife collects resumes for the Bush administration.
Nov 11: Bush lawyers
file a federal suit to block the hand count of votes in the four counties.
On the other side, human rights advocates argued that Obama should not have assured the CIA that officers who conducted interrogations would not be prosecuted if they used methods authorized by Bush lawyers
in the memos.
objected, saying that if any ballots are manually counted, the vote of the entire state should be included.
say the rerun violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under law, because only certain counties are involved.