Justice Department: Torture Memos were “insane” but not the product of professional misconduct

From Jurist

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] has overruled the findings of a report [DOJ Ethics Report] released Friday concluding that two Bush administration lawyers committed professional misconduct when they wrote memos [JURIST news archive] authorizing the use of certain interrogation techniques that critics have called torture. Instead, the DOJ said that John Yoo [academic profile; JURIST news archive], and Jay Bybee [official profile; JURIST news archive] were only guilty of “poor judgment” in writing the memos. An internal ethics investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concluded that Yoo had committed “intentional professional misconduct when he violated his duty to exercise independent legal judgment and render thorough, objective and candid legal advice.” The report also found that Bybee had committed professional misconduct when he acted in “reckless disregard” of his duty to exercise independent legal advice. However, David Margolis, an associate deputy attorney general, released a separate memo [DOJ Margolis Report] overruling the OPR’s report, finding its analysis was flawed because it did not have a clear definition of what constitutes professional misconduct.

Back in August of 2008, when I began writing this blog, I explained my then long-held conviction that the White House Office of Legal Counsel — and in particular Jay Bybee (now a federal judge) and John Yoo (a tenured law professor) had acted immorally and in violation of their professional duties as lawyers in writing the so-called “torture memos” that gave legal approval to the torture the Bush Administration began. Both the DOJ Report and the DOJ Margolis Report confirm the details of  what I wrote back in 2008 — the memos were plainly written to justify a pre-determined conclusion. As I wrote then:

Somehow a justice department lawyer who is now a tenured professor at Boalt Hall Law School at U.C. Berkeley, along with his boss, who is now a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, thought they could get away with this utterly fictional definition of “severe pain.” And they did. Plainly, though, Yoo does not believe in constraints. In December 2005 he stated in a Chicago debate that there is no law that could prevent the President from theoretically ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.”

And now the DOJ Margolis Report concludes that “the’ evidence of the knowing violations . . . led us to conclude that Yoo put his desire to accommodate the client above his obligation to provide thorough, objective, and candid. legal advice, and that he thereforecommitted intentional professional misconduct.”

Mr. Margolis in the DOJ Margolis Report also stated:

While I have declined to adopt O.P.R.’s findings of misconduct, I fear that John Yoo’s loyalty to his own ideology and convictions clouded his view of his obligation to his client and led him to author opinions that reflected his own extreme, albeit sincerely held, view of executive power while speaking for an institutional client.

The reports really are remarkable testaments to how far the Bush Administration went to force its desire to torture within a rule of law that does not permit torture. Among other things, the DOJ Ethics Report quotes other Bush Justice Department appointees stating that John Yoo needed “adult supervision” and describing the torture memos as “insane,” a “one-sided effort to eliminate any hurdles posed by the torture law,” “plainly wrong,”  and “slovenly”:

Our view that the memoranda were seriously deficient was consistent with comments made by some of tlie former Department officials we interviewed, even though those individuals would not necessarily agree witl! some of our findings in this matter. [Daniel] Levin stated that when he first read the Bybee Memo, “[I had} the same reaction I think everybody who reads it has - 'this is insane, who wrote this?'". Jack Goldsmith found that the memoranda were "riddled with error," concluded that key portions were "plainly wrong," .and characterized them as a "one-sided effort to eliminate any hurdles posed by the torture law." [Steven G.] Bradbury told us that Yoo did not adequately consider counter arguments in writing the memoranda and that “somebody should have exercised some adult leadership” with respect to Yoo’s section on the Commander-tn-Chief powers. [Michael] Mukasey acknowledged that the Bybee Memo was “a slovenly mistake,” even though he urged us not to find misconduct.

” Insane” about sums it up. You’re not acting as a lawyer if the research and analysis you do is insane. But, I guess, “insane” is not a sufficiently firm legal standard for Mr. Margolis. The funny thing is that I’d expect any reviewing official who didn’t see discern a standard in the report he was reviewing to state the proper standard and make his own determination whether the facts set forth satisfied or did not satisfy that standard. Or he could have sent the matter back to the ethics people with instruction to set forth a clear standard. Instead, he plainly was looking for a way to find no ethical violations here. Honestly, if the flat out lies about the law contained in the torture memos is permitted, then anything is permitted in the “war on terror.” Which, of course, is exactly Yoo’s position.

Who’s the good guy?

When they begin studying law my students most of my students, like children and cartoons, divide the world into good and evil. They believe that most cases can be explained by figuring out who’s the “good guy” and who’s the “bad guy.” To the beginner, every explanation is a strained effort to demonstrate why someone in a case has lied, cheated, or stolen. I try to explain to them that cases involving evil doers victimizing innocents are the easy ones. More importantly, perhaps, they’re the rare ones. The tough stuff to understand and explain are the vast majority of feuds, the feuds in which each side believes it is acting in good faith and for the best.

Life inevitably results in misunderstandings, accidents, mistakes, death, and failures (of investments, businesses, buildings and bridges, operations, etc.). Doing justice is most sensibly and correctly resolving the fights that result from those inevitable, though regrettable, events.

Justice, therefore, is blind.

So I am particularly disturbed by the willingness of people to cast aside the law on the grounds that certain lawbreakers meant only to do good. Charles Fried, Solicitor General under Reagan, for example (whose scholarship on Contracts I very much respect), condemns torture without qualification and yet argues we can’t prosecute people who decided to break the law and order torture because well, . . . unlike actual criminals the people who justified and ordered torture meant well:

But should the high and mighty get off when ordinary people committing the same crimes would go to prison? The answer is that they are not the same crimes. Administration officials were not thieves lining their own pockets. Theirs were political crimes committed by persons whose jobs were to exercise the powers of government on our behalf. And the same is even truer of the lower-level officers who followed their orders.

They are the same crimes — breaking the law in the belief that breaking the law is justified. Then why should Dick Cheney and the lawyers who lied about the law to justify torture get off?

Michael Mukasey is the Attorney General, and this week he apparently made the decision not to prosecute a former Justice Department lawyer who quite plainly could be indicted and tried for breaking federal law:

[A] former senior Justice Department official, Bradley Schlozman, set out to hire so-called “Right-Thinking Americans,” including members of the Federalist Society and other Republicans, for what were supposed to be apolitical career positions. He then gave them plum assignments on civil rights cases when he was helping to run the Civil Rights Division, beginning in 2003. . . . Mr. Schlozman . . . gave false statements to Congress when he repeatedly denied factoring politics and ideology into his hiring decisions.

The . . . case against Mr. Schlozman relies heavily on his words, from e-mail and phone messages to colleagues and underlings. His disdain for the traditional independence and mission of the Civil Rights Division is palpable. He spoke brazenly about reshaping the division by doing away with “pinko” and “crazy lib” lawyers and others he did not consider “real Americans.”

“As long as I’m here, adherents of Mao’s Little Red Book need not apply,” he wrote in one e-mail message. The report found that Mr. Schlozman transferred three lawyers out of the division because they were viewed as liberals who opposed his political agenda. The transfers, the report found, violated federal civil service law and “constituted misconduct.” All three lawyers brought federal discrimination claims and returned to the division after Mr. Schlozman’s departure.

Yet, without explanation, the Justice Department has decided not to prosecute Mr. Schlozman.

Charles Fried and Michael Mukasey can identify with federal officers and lawyers. They are or were federal officers and lawyers. They know even when people try hard things sometimes go wrong. But that doesn’t mean people who set out to do wrong things for even good reasons are above the law.

Fried and Mukasey know that, but somehow that knowledge escapes them when the defendants look and act just like them. That’s not the rule of law. It’s the rule of an aristocrats watching out for each other.