Legal Ethics
Ex-DOJ Lawyer Rips ‘Double Standard’ in Ethics Probe of Bradbury, Bybee & Yoo
Posted May 6, 2009 6:09 PM CST
By Martha Neil
A former senior lawyer at the U.S. Department of Justice read with interest news that three Office of Legal Counsel attorneys in a high-profile ethical investigation were offered a routine opportunity to review allegations made against them in a draft report.
That so-called routine opportunity was provided to Steven Bradbury, Jay Bybee and John Yoo by the Office of Professional Responsibility concerning their work on memos approving the use of harsh interrogation methods on terrorism detainees. Yet it was never offered to her when she was investigated for doing her job as a DOJ lawyer in a terrorism-related case, writes Jesselyn Radack today in the Daily Kos.
Nor is it standard OPR procedure, she contends, decrying what she describes as a "blatant double standard" applied to Bradbury, Bybee and Yoo.
"If OPR wants to live up to its lofty mission of ensuring 'that Department of Justice attorneys perform their duties in accordance with the high professional standards expected of the Nation’s principal law enforcement agency,' " she writes, "it can start with itself."
Related coverage:
Washington Independent: "DOJ Doesn’t Let ‘War on Terror’ Whistleblowers Comment on Professionalism Reports"
ABAJournal.com: "Former Bush Officials Seek Changes in DOJ Report Critical of Bybee and Yoo"
New York Times: "Interrogation Memos: Inquiry Suggests No Charges"
National Law Journal: "New OPR Chief Predicts More Transparency in Attorney Investigations"
ABAJournal.com (2008): "Ex-DOJ Lawyer: Politics in Ashcroft Justice Department Led to Ouster"
Updated on April 7 to add link to subsequent National Law Journal article.

Comments
B. McLeod
May 6, 2009 6:36 PM CST
It has been somewhat obvious since the start of this inquiry that the administration is walking a fine line, trying to show disapproval of the torture and crappy legal opinions, but without ever actually holding anybody accountable.
Flag this comment
Why not get it over with
May 7, 2009 9:51 AM CST
Why don’t we just freakin’ pardon them and get it over with. (I don’t want them to get pardons. But what I want never seems to happen in government, so let’s just give the torture-enablers their pardons and be done with it.) At least then I’d be able to say we acknowledged their wrongs, even if we didn’t make them pay for them.
Flag this comment
J.D.
May 7, 2009 11:12 AM CST
The reason that won’t happen, #2, is that the Obama Administration is too busy working on pardons for the jihadists.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
May 7, 2009 6:57 PM CST
I don’t think they are working on pardons for jihadists. I know that Obama has been doing an absolutely stellar job of preventing attacks (since none have happened) for over 100 days now.
Flag this comment
Paul the Magyar
May 12, 2009 4:17 PM CST
“The reason that won’t happen, #2, is that the Obama Administration is too busy working on pardons for the jihadists.”
Please get a new harp to play on! As Ronald Reagan said, “There you go again!”
Of course, what would I do for fun if I did not have you to laugh at?
Flag this comment
Paul the Magyar
May 12, 2009 4:20 PM CST
Own up, you are really someone who passes for an outstanding conservative intellectual—perhaps Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.