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.
In other words, under the view of the Bush lawyers, none of the techniques they approved qualified as "severe physical or mental pain" within the meaning of the anti-torture statute.
government's willingness to fully incorporate international definitions of "severe" pain, I cannot say that the standard drawn by the Bush lawyers is objectively unreasonable.
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.