The critical issue, that this is torture, with premeditated thought to compose language to make it legal, has parallels to every controversial piece of legislation that came out of the Bush administration, as Legislation was controlled by the Republicans in the Congress, and Senate for many years. Newt Gingrich is the fat cat and one of leaders of all this mess.

Here, the contracts with America can be tied to a whole a volume of legislation once totally controlled by the Republicans. Something monumentally embarrassing that would likely lead to controversy for generations. Just as that wall Reagan wanted torn down likely was paid for by American tax dollars via secret Treasury, and Federal Reserve funding. One good reason no one wants to audit the Federal Reserve loaded with an ugly deception worse likely financing in tandem with the CIA lies. A hard and bitter pill to take but its chocking America right now.      

The Republicans know this would destroy the party, and try to get the democrats as complicit, which is exactly the very reason a huge mantra of rant raving rallying in cable and hate radio are persistent to spin the story Pelosi is a core liar in the process that involves being briefed by the CIA. Or the CIA is not representing the full truth to many issues during the Bush administration. Hell, the CIA and the Federal Reserve were Bush and Companies secret police and secret piggy bank...And so was an individuals as Colin Powell, or worse the joint chiefs of our armed forces.  

Where is Obama and his Attorney General on this issue? Likely right behind this public movement, which we all should admire the effort in motivation to address these criminals' lawyers. Don't forget Bush himself.  

They all should be disbarred and censured from making money off the public as it making speeches. All money made from speeches should go to an Iraqi veterans fund not their personal accounts. Watch Bush "support our troop's" president stay home because he will know he gets none of that money.

An excerpt:

When a lawyer advises a client about what the law requires, there is one basic ethical obligation: to tell it straight, without slanting or skewing. That can be a hard thing to do, if the legal answer isn't the one the client wants. Very few lawyers ever enjoy saying "no" to a client who was hoping for "yes". But the profession's ethical standard is clear: a legal adviser must use independent judgment and give candid, unvarnished advice. In the words of the American Bar Association, "a lawyer should not be deterred from giving candid advice by the prospect that the advice will be unpalatable to the client." [1]

That is the governing standard for all lawyers, in public practice or private. But it's doubly important for lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel. The mission of OLC is to give the President advice to guide him in fulfilling an awesome constitutional obligation: to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Faithful execution means interpreting the law without stretching it and without looking for loopholes. OLC's job is not to rubber-stamp administration policies, and it is not to provide legal cover for illegal actions.

No lawyer's advice should do that. The rules of professional ethics forbid lawyers from counseling or assisting clients in illegal conduct; [2] they require competence;[3] and they demand that lawyers explain enough that the client can make an informed decision, which surely means explaining the law as it is. [4] These are standards that the entire legal profession recognizes.

Unfortunately, the torture memos fall far short of professional standards of candid advice and independent judgment. They involve a selective and in places deeply eccentric reading of the law. The memos cherry-pick sources of law that back their conclusions, and leave out sources of law that do not. They read as if they were reverse engineered to reach a pre-determined outcome: approval of waterboarding and the other CIA techniques.

My written statement goes through the memos in detail, Mr. Chairman. Let me give just one example here of what I am talking about. Twenty-six years ago, President Reagan's Justice Department prosecuted law enforcement officers for waterboarding prisoners to make them confess. The case is called United States v. Lee. [5] Four men were convicted and drew hefty sentences that the Court of Appeals upheld. [6]

The Court of Appeals repeatedly referred to the technique as "torture." This is perhaps the single most relevant case in American law to the legality of waterboarding. [7] Any lawyer can find the Lee case in a few seconds on a computer just by typing the words "water torture" into a database. But the authors of the torture memos never mentioned it. They had no trouble finding cases where courts didn't call harsh interrogation techniques "torture."[8] It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Mr. Yoo, Judge Bybee, and Mr. Bradbury chose not to mention the Lee case because it casts doubt on their conclusion that waterboarding is legal.[9]