Throwing him out of a teaching position doesn't take away his ability to do harm. Neither will disbarment per se. However, while disbarment won't keep him from breaking bread with his fellow war criminals at the Heritage Foundation and other GOP retirement homes, it would, like the disbarment of Scooter Libby, do much to delegitimize his career, the evil causes he and others devoted their lives to, and the personal life he built with it.  It may not be true internal exile, but it would have to do.

As the first anniversary of 9/11 approached, and a prized Guantánamo detainee wouldn't talk, the Bush administration's highest-ranking lawyers argued for extreme interrogation techniques, circumventing international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the army's own Field Manual. The attorneys would even fly to Guantánamo to ratchet up the pressure--then blame abuses on the military. Philippe Sands follows the torture trail, and holds out the possibility of war-crimes charges.

This is from the actual article..

The Bush administration has always taken refuge behind a "trickle up" explanation: that is, the decision was generated by military commanders and interrogators on the ground. This explanation is false. The origins lie in actions taken at the very highest levels of the administration--by some of the most senior personal advisers to the president, the vice president, and the secretary of defense. At the heart of the matter stand several political appointees--lawyers--who, it can be argued, broke their ethical codes of conduct and took themselves into a zone of international criminality, where formal investigation is now a very real option.

Yoo's memo wasn't written until a year after the torture policy was implemented at Guantanamo. Here is the part that made me sick to my stomach..

November 2002 "action memo" written by William J. (Jim) Haynes II, the general counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense, to his boss, Donald Rumsfeld; the document is sometimes referred to as the Haynes Memo. Haynes recommended that Rumsfeld give "blanket approval" to 15 out of 18 proposed techniques of aggressive interrogation. Rumsfeld duly did so, on December 2, 2002, signing his name firmly next to the word "Approved." Under his signature he also scrawled a few words that refer to the length of time a detainee can be forced to stand during interrogation: "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

While the Bush Administration was blaming the troops for "going overboard", they knew the torture was started, implemented and approved by people in their administration long before Abu Graib. In fact, it can be deduced that Abu Graib was simply a local implementation of interrogation instructions that went out to all the places holding captured Iraqis, and Al Quedas.

The rest of the article is interesting, a doctor who specializes in rehabilitation of torture victims discusses what is done and what effect it has. There is also more discussion on torture and why we do it. It's not the troops, it's the Justice Department and the Defense Department, with authorization from the highest level.

Per Human Rights Watch:

First, the Bush administration negotiated a Security Council resolution to provide an exemption for U.S. personnel operating in U.N. peacekeeping operations. *

Second, the Bush administration is requesting states around the world to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender American nationals to the ICC. The goal of these agreements ("impunity agreements" or so-called "Article 98 agreements") is to exempt U.S. nationals from ICC jurisdiction. They also lead to a two-tiered rule of law for the most serious international crimes: one that applies to U.S. nationals; another that applies to the rest of the world's citizens. *

Thirdly, the U.S Congress has assisted the Bush administration's effort to obtain bilateral impunity agreements. The Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which was signed into law by President Bush on 3 August. The major anti-ICC provisions in ASPA are:

    * a prohibition on U.S. cooperation with the ICC;
    * an "invasion of the Hague" provision: authorizing the President to "use all means necessary and appropriate" to free U.S. personnel (and certain allied personnel) detained or imprisoned by the ICC;
    * punishment for States that join the ICC treaty: refusing military aid to States' Parties to the treaty (except major U.S. allies);
    * a prohibition on U.S. participation in peacekeeping activities unless immunity from the ICC is guaranteed for U.S. personnel.

Can you imagine telling Franklin  that his stove could only be used on "low" pollution days?