And now, merely providing legal council to the accused is considered to be immoral:
The senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees suspected of terrorism said in an interview this week that he was dismayed that lawyers at many of the nation’s top firms were representing prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and that the firms’ corporate clients should consider ending their business ties.
The comments by Charles D. Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, produced an instant torrent of anger from lawyers, legal ethics specialists and bar association officials, who said Friday that his comments were repellent and displayed an ignorance of the duties of lawyers to represent people in legal trouble.
“This is prejudicial to the administration of justice,” said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University and an authority on legal ethics. “It’s possible that lawyers willing to undertake what has been long viewed as an admirable chore will decline to do so for fear of antagonizing important clients.
This is, hands down, the most ethically blind, morally bankrupt, and criminally incompetent administration in my lifetime. This man should be immediately fired, and would be, were this administration and the Republican party composed of people who were even remotely concerned with the spirit and the letter of the law.
But they aren’t, and are now pushing a boycott of those people who merely provide legal services to those being detained by the government. Guilt or innocence are immaterial- what matters to the Red Queens is that you are accused. How long before Sean Hannity determines that lawyers representing prisoners are enemies of the state?
Tim F.
He sounds scared to me. It sounds to me like they know the admin is in deep legal shit and has no idea what to do about it.
stickler
That statement is worse than merely being questionable from a legal and moral standpoint.
It’s also boneheadedly stupid.
(As Talleyrand put it after Napoleon put the duc d’Enghien to death after a show trial: “it is worse than a crime; it is a mistake.”)
Maybe the collective incompetence of the Bush administration will cancel out the mendacious incompetence. Is that hopelessly naive?
Otto Man
Would the last libertarian to abandon the Republican Party please shoot out the lights?
SomeCallMeTim
This Administration will have to leave in a couple of years. The thing to worry about is the Red Rot they’ve left behind in all of the various government agencies. We’re going to have to spend a lot of time unwinding the damage this Administration has done, both abroad and at home. Either that, or we’re just going to have to accept a government compromised by Southern Republicans.
Darrell
Ah yes, take the comments of one Pentagon official made 1 1/2 days ago, comments which were repudiated by DoD top brass and Bush’s AG, and then use that as an example to paint the entire Bush administration as systematically corrupt.
I don’t agree that these foreign terrorists have “constitutional rights”, but if a decision was made to allow them legal representation, it seems a bit improper (but not completely over the top) to call attention to the firms doing the representation. I would consider it “over the top” if the government was using it’s power to go after the law firms. That’s not my understanding what happened with Stimson, who is making the suggestion to private companies doing business with these law firms.. to equate his actions as some sort of complete violation of the law seems more than a little drama queen-like
jake
Well, I guess he didn’t want to work for any of those major law firms after 2009.
Leaving aside the fact that the Bush Admin. seems bent on hiring the law students who needed a lot of help to get through Con. Law, this qoute about who is paying the bill stood out:
Oh really? Say, the GOP wasn’t expecting any donations from any of these firms partners, were they? Good.
S.W. Anderson
It stands to reason incompetent pols would think it good enough for incompetent shysters to represent terror war detainees.
Be advised, incompetence isn’t just a matter of being able to function capably as an elected or appointed official, or as a hired hand. People can also be incompetent when it comes to basic humanity — just ask those who survived the Holocaust.
The barb about Hannity is right on target.
Otto Man
Yes, this was a completely isolated incident. The fact that the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal made almost identical comments is simply a coincidence.
Anyone who sees a coordinated effort in these comments is a communist. A gay Mexican Muslim communist.
Darrell
I didn’t read the WSJ editorial, but if they said the same, that “proves” that there’s another vast rightwing conspiracy brewing, doesn’t it?
srv
Of course Darrell, the appointed deputy is really just talking to himself here. This “major play” in the next few weeks is just going to occur spontaneously by itself, and the values laden and uncorruptable administration has no vested interest or spin on it. It’s just the completely random meanderings of the guy in charge of detainee affairs. Not some important policy guy who is speaking out of line.
Darrell
Read again dumbass. You’re attributing a quote to me which I never wrote.
VidaLoca
Darrell,
Wait a minute. This “Attorney General Albert R. Gonzales” that you quote on the topic of the current system of representation of the detainees — would that be the same “Attorney General Albert R. Gonzales” who was arguing before the Supreme Court this summer that the detainees had no such rights to representation? Or even a hearing?
But let’s consider your larger point — you’re saying that we should let all those bygones be bygones and believe that while the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs thinks that the detainees shouldn’t have counsel, the AG disagrees with him. Look at his title: “deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs”. He’s first in line for taking the consequences of the way the DoD has handled the detainees. And the Gonzales quote sounds to me like the noise you hear when someone gets thrown under a bus. Tim’s right: Stimson is freakin’. You may be right: he may have been speaking out of turn. Which is exactly why he should be fired.
scarshapedstar
This is not a new development. My father has defended in at least a dozen capital cases over the years, and not everyone respects him for it, here in St. Tammany, home to David Duke and countless “civil war enthusiasts”. Even though he saved one completely innocent man from the chair (he was big, black, and ugly, and on trial for murder in Louisiana) it seems that line of work is only respectable in Harper Lee novels.
And they probably had a stronger case against that guy than anyone in Gitmo.
Ugh
See also hilzoy, josh marshall’s place, and, most ominously, Sully:
Sources among the heroic community of pro bono lawyers who are defending some of the innocent and some of the guilty at Gitmo tell me that Stimson’s comments are not isolated, that there has been a full program dedicated to the harassment of Gitmo lawyers – surveillance, pettty harassment, pressure on their law firms.
tick tick tick
Darrell
That’s because all the prisoners in Gitmo were innocent goat herders who got caught in the terrorist net by mistake.
RSA
Government officials have been asked to step down for saying things that were much less stupid than this. In fact, over the past six years some have been forced out for saying things that are quite intelligent and correct. I guess the Bush administration has its own priorities.
jake
?
To quote Tony Snow, have you been smoking rope?
Darrell
Has he prohibited the terrorists in Gitmo from getting legal representation? Or did he point out that private companies doing business with these law firms might think twice.. I think he was a bit out of line in saying it, but has he actually done anything to block the Gitmo prisoners from receiving legal representation?
Steve
I’ll take Darrell’s side. For these comments to be repudiated so rapidly, at the highest level, demonstrates to me that it was just one nutjob spouting off.
What’s shocking yet predictable, though, is how many right-wing extremists there are who agree with this guy 100%, and who find it credible to believe, among other things, that the major law firms representing the detainees pro bono may be receiving secret funding from some evil source. See, for example, the “discussions” here and here.
Jrod
Right you are, Darrel, as this event is the one and only thing that might imply that this administration is systematically corrupt. To consider other recent events while putting a story into context is sheer solipsism.
Also, it would be unlikely if the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs should find himself unable to say something publicly that is, apparently, wildly contrary to the policy of the Pentagon and the AG himself, without finding himself out of a job. Well, I suppose Bush’s government must be known for toleration of dissenters in it’s ranks, but I wouldn’t want to show bias by considering its past actions in this analysis.
jake
Meanwhile, Barbara Boxer is still an evil woman-hating homophobe.
VidaLoca
Darrell,
Every time this topic comes up you try this. It’s almost as predictable as seeing your photos from the ANSWER demo attached to a comment, or seeing the photo of the recruiter being harassed. Every time you do it somebody has to take the time to respond to it so I guess it’s just my turn this time. So here goes.
Nobody argues that ALL the prisoners in Gitmo are innocent goat herders yadda yadda so that’s essentially a jackalope. Some are not. On the other hand, many are; and the way you make the determination between the two groups is through the kind of due process that Stimson is doing his best to undercut by attempting to intimidate the detainees’ counsel.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Darrell
Don’t give me too much credit. I oppose giving the Gitmo detainees criminal defendent-like rights. But as long as a decision was made, it doesn’t make much sense for Stimson to use his bully pulpit like he did.
Steve, do you have any links or summary to the extent of the “rights” granted to these Gitmo prisoners? I think they should be granted less rights than POW’s (my opinion), but some sort of military tribunal is not unreasonable given the relatively small number of terrorists we are holding.
RSA
This may well the the case, but I think the reason so much concern is raised is that it comes from
It’s like, I don’t know, having a veterinarian in charge of the FDA’s Office of Women’s Health, or having a coal industry manager with an execrable safety record in charge of the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration, or having an anti-environmentalist as Secretary of Health and Human Services, . . . Is there a pattern here?
Equal Opportunity Cynic
Re stickler,
Maybe the collective incompetence of the Bush administration will cancel out the mendacious incompetence. Is that hopelessly naive?
In the long view, I think their incompetence has done much to cancel their mendacity. I don’t want to be a conspiracymonger, but I really think Rove et al. would tried many more dirty tricks in the 2006 election if they’d not been in denial about the mess they were in. But you know, “You may end up with a different math but you are entitled to your math and I’m entitled to THE math.”
The Iraq War has been another example. Whatever nefarious motives you ascribe to the Bush Adminstration for the war, from avenging Poppy to stealing oil, it seems obvious they’d be better met by a war that wasn’t a complete clusterfuck. In about 5 years the Republicans have managed to swing the bulk of public opinion 180 degrees against them. Wise crooks don’t do this; wise crooks prop up the status quo so they can benefit from it for decades.
VidaLoca
He can’t formally prohibit them from getting legal representation, that’s a settled issue. What he’s attempting to do is created as many informal obstacles to their representation as he can.
Why should private compainies doing business with the firms representing the detainees pro bono think twice?
Darrell
Vida, I was responding to this specific comment which I already blockquoted
I strongly agree that most lefties do not believe everyone in Gitmo is innocent.. although I disagree with the left’s attempts to bestow (more or less )US constitutional rights on these foreign prisoners in Gitmo.
Darrell
Probably most won’t, but others may have moral objections. Are you suggesting that the list of firms representing the Gitmo crowd should be concealed?
Demrald
What’s with this Darrell guy? Why does he like pie so much?
Slide
Scumbags. Sorry, not much of a deep analysis but really, is any necessary? This is a government worker trying to intimidate Americans in the most vile and despicable way imaginable. Scumbags. This adminstration is populated by scores and scores of scumbags. History is going to be very unkind to this administration. The next two years, with Democratic oversight, we are going to look under a lot of rocks and wait till you see the creepy crawley things that emerge. Oh… but of course Darrell will still be there making excuses for the SCUMBAGS.
Steve
I actually don’t know. I assume it’s governed by the new Military Commissions Act, assuming that gets upheld by the federal courts, which it probably will.
For the record, most of the major firms representing these detainees probably have a mention of it on their website, together with their other major pro bono work. Except among kooks like the guy in this post, it’s generally considered to be a fairly noble thing.
RSA
I think it would be sufficient if government officials refrained from saying that some of the lawyers involved are representing terrorists “who hit their bottom line on 2001” and that they’re doing it in order to receive money from “who knows where”.
Slide
Words of wisdom from scumbag Charles D. Stinson:
oh.. and there is this:
huh? 400,000 Nazis were detained in America? Is this guy on fucking crack? Wait, he is not done:
Hey.. this is on an official US Department of Defense website. Your tax dollars at work. Read the whole thing. It will nauseate you if you have any sense of morality.
DarkSyde
It is heartbreaking for me. There are components in the GOP of days past that I always admired. It’s jackasses from Bush to the fear pandering shithead John refers to above who are soiling the name Republican, and may well doom every aspect of that political platform for at least a generation.
Darrell
That comment makes Stimson look stupid. Is he seriously suggesting that they may lose money in the future if the law firms are permitted to follow the law and represent the Gitmo prisoners?
If he was going to come out swinging, he should have limited it to an appeal to companies based on moral and patriotic objections.
Otto Man
That’s because all the prisoners in Gitmo were innocent goat herders who got caught in the terrorist net by mistake.
All? No. Some. More than likely. We went into a region with deep poverty and centuries-long ethnic and sectarian rivalries and said, hey, if you can point out a terrorist, we’ll give you $10,000.
Only a Darrell would assume that under such conditions every single person turned over to us would be guilty.
Slide
well… actually it is I that must be smoking crack.. apparently we did detain 400,000 nazi’s…. he is still a scumbag
Steve
I was curious enough to look up this guy’s background, since we know how people tend to get jobs in this administration. To his credit, he’s apparently an experienced federal prosecutor, as opposed to, you know, the head of the Bush/Cheney campaign in Idaho.
I found this story about him, which has little to do with the subject of this thread, but it’s fucked up enough to deserve a link.
The Other Steve
Seems to me like there is nothing more moral and patriotic than helping to uphold the Rule of Law.
Otto Man
More and more evidence that Republicans are the ones who campaign on claims that government doesn’t work, and then get elected and prove it.
It’s going to take decades to rebuild our government once all the political hacks are removed. Thanks, Banana Republicans!
RSA
That is fucked up. Thanks for the link. It’s hard to believe we’re talking about the same person; these recent comments of his sound uncharacteristic (to me, now, having done a bit more reading).
Darrell
Why would you say that? Just because he doesn’t like the idea of foreign terrorists getting high powered legal representation, does that make him some sort of moral abomination in your eyes?
jake
A NYT article on some of the firms representing detainees.
And look, here’s another.
The two firms I searched (Allen & Overy and Covington & Burlig) mention their work with Gitmo detainees.
For this we file a FOIA? Cripes.
Yet this cretin seems to think the firms have been hiding their involvement and lying about their pro bono work.
I wonder what he’d say about the JAG lawyers who worked for Gitmo detainees? Even the Pentagon is in on the plot!
Sheesh. I thought lefty loons were the ones with all the conspiracy theories.
RSA
I may not have a coherent philosophy on this, but I think there’s a distinction between public and personal morality in situations like this. My impression is that some defense lawyers know that their clients are guilty, and they perform their defense in any case in order to uphold the rule of law and possibly to improve the adversarial legal system. I don’t think I could do that, myself; some lawyers undoubtedly have different (perhaps more refined or forward-looking) moral sensibilities than I have. However, not having people willing to defend even guilty defendants would be a much greater evil. I don’t think it’s the place of government officials to discourage people willing to do the job.
Darrell
I agree with that. He probably disagrees with the Military commissions act which Steve mentioned above.
I also don’t think it’s the EPA’s place to promote eco-friendly businesses, thereby discouraging doing business with competitors who don’t have a similar seal of approval.
TR
Yeah, where did the Environmental Protection Agency ever get the idea that they should try to protect the environment? What nerve!
grumpy realist
And we get more and more like Soviet Russia every day…..
Those who do not want “accused terrorists” to have any legal representation obviously never consider that they might fall in the same situation. Just because your neighbor hates you, or a business rival thinks it’s a dandy way to get rid of you…or simply some catch-all statistical database winnowing on the part of the Pentagon throws your name up. After all, “false positives” never exist in the world, right?
RSA
Hardly an abomination; just someone I disagree with. In the way you cast the issue, it strikes me as showing a lack of faith in the system: high-powered lawyers may help bad guys get away. I think, especially in this case, high-powered lawyers will make it more likely that the trials are fair. There’s no certainty, of course, but the solution shouldn’t be for the guy in charge to try to stack the deck against defendants.
Darrell
So since you disagreed with him, you were surprised that he would show compassion to a quadrapalegic, right? Please correct me if I have misrepresented your reaction here.
My problem is that this “system” of rights to foreign combatents has never before been applied, and I think it’s a too-dangerous slippery slope to travel. We never gave lawyers and courtroom trials to POW’s in WWII, Vietnam, or any other war. Do you acknowledge this?
Otto Man
No. Because as with everything else you insist to be true, that’s completely wrong.
We caught German spies on our shores, and still gave them regular trials with regular counsel in our regular court system.
Somehow, America survived this shocking instance where we lived by our own rules.
Darrell
The problem is, environmental advocacy has in a number of cases, killed a lot of innocent people and bankrupted businesses unfairly.
Darrell
Rather than being “completely wrong”, my point still stands. We didn’t try POW’s in courtroom trials. Your example was one of a foreign spy caught on US soil.
Note how Otto Man, instead of dealing with the larger truth (not giving lawyers and courtroom trials to POWs), he tries to obfuscate with a spy trial, declaring that my previous assertions were “completely” wrong. Otto does this because he’s dishonest as hell. What other explanation could there be?
RSA
The disconnect is more abstract. Stimson, as a prosecuting attorney, went to some lengths to try to persuade a judge that the defendant he was prosecuting in a specific case deserved a particular sentence because of extenuating circumstances. That’s a concern for the individual, and he apparently did not find it sufficient to rely on the persuasive abilities of the defense attorneys. In this case, Stimson is generalizing over hundreds of prisoners, saying (a) that these are “the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001” (as if) and (b) that they shouldn’t get the best representation possible. That shows little to no concern for the individual, and we’ve all heard stories, some fairly compelling, about people being swept up by accident and brought to Guantanamo.
Steve
We’re not giving courtroom trials to the detainees at Guantanamo, as far as I know, unless the government decides to charge them with a crime.
Hyperion
i don’t get a lot of compassion from the article John Cole cited. yet Stimson in the link provided by Steve came across as a compassionate person. he argued to the judge that the particular facts of the case were important to consider if justice was to be served. and that’s my argument about Gitmo. the detainees are not “all” anything. they are not all innocent and they are not all guilty. the particular facts of each case must be considered. for me that means some sort of legal process where the accused gets to present his side of the matter.
Demrald
It’s not surprising at all that someone could seek to subvert the legal system to win convictions against “terrorists,” yet also support being lenient to a quadripalegic with a drug problem. The fact that a person may hold some repugnant views doesn’t make them inhuman. I suppose the worst part of people like this – and the scum one finds proliferating online – is that such individuals are often human, all too human.
That being said, Stimson still sounds like a jerk.
Darrell
In every war throughout history, innocents have been jailed and killed. War is hell, but we’ve fought this one more humanely than any country in history. I’m not sure there are so many “compelling” cases of innocents caught in the net as you assert. Can you back that assertion up? as a number of those released from Gitmo were recaptured on the battlefield trying to kill our troops, which leads me to believe, that if anything, we are too lenient in who we detain.
No other country, to my knowledge, has ever before bestowed courtroom rights to POW’s. This is opening the door to the lawyer-ization (for lack of a better term) of our military. You seem unconcerned about the ramifications.
Otto Man
I don’t know what’s funnier — Darrell’s ignorance, his righteous indignation, or his belief that anyone here agrees with him.
Darrell, if you’re not going to count Nazi spies as P.O.W.s, could you please enlighten us as to how the people in Guantanamo qualify as prisoners of war? What enemy state do they fight for? What military body to they represent? What declared war are they combatants in?
Darrell
Fair enough. But aren’t we giving them a far more extensive military tribunal and legal defense than has before been afforded POWs?
TR
Your example was one of a foreign spy caught on US soil.
If by “one” you mean “thirty-three.” Did you even read the FBI link?
Darrell
It’s my understanding that most of them fought for a stateless orgnanization called Al queda. You seem to suggest that because they are fighting for an organization/cause not for a country, that somehow makes them a non-soldier. That’s ridiculous.
Richard 23
Interesting. I did not know that. What is that number and where can I read about it?
Darrell
You can read about it here
jam hamster jay
Mr. Cole, you used “composed of” instead of the incorrect yet ubiquitous “comprised of.” You are truly a hero to ex-Republican language dorks everywhere.
Demrald
Hasn’t the Bush admistration itself claimed (or at least implied) that the prisoners at Guantanamo are not POW’s? I don’t think they even use the word ‘prisoner’ to describe them. I think the idea they have is that this is a very clever way to avoid observing the Geneva Conventions.
Otto Man
Darrell hasn’t answered my question about how Guantanamo Bay prisoners can be considered P.O.W.s
Darrell does this because he’s dishonest as hell. What other explanation could there be?
dslak
The other explanation: Darrell likes pie.
Darrell
You imply that this term is somehow deceptive. But we’re talking about ‘soldiers’ who don’t wear uniforms, hide among and target civilians, and wave surrender flags to lure our soldiers out so they can shoot them.
Geneva conventions is a 2-way street, not a 1-way street. You respect the Geneva conventions, we’ll respect the geneva conventions. But that’s not what we have here is it? So cut the crap that this all some kind of semantic trickery on the part of the Bush administration, rather than actual unlawful combatents who are not entitled to Geneva protections.
Darrell
Sure I have. They are less than POWs.. they are unlawful enemy combatents. So whatever rights POWs have, these guys need to have less. Clear now?
Perry Como
Yes, and I’m pretty sure our resident pie lover has agreed with that assessment. There are very strict rules for treating POWs and one thing you can’t do is shackle them to the ground in sweltering or freezing cells and play loud music for hours on end. That means the people being held in Guantanamo are not POWs.
So what do you do with the non-POWs? If you really, really like pie, you put your full trust in the government that the government is efficient and never makes mistakes. If you only sorta like pie, then you believe that the government makes mistakes and would like to see some form of due process where people can defend themselves against the charge of being an enemy combatant.
dslak
I’ve always liked pie (including the meat-filled British varieties), but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that I really, really like pie. I guess that’s what seperates guys like me from Darrell.
Darrell
That, or you insist on full US constitutional rights for them, complete with jury trial, lawyers and appeals.
Marc
Darrell does this because he’s dishonest as hell. What other explanation could there be?
I’ll take a guess …. He’s an idiot?
dslak
That explanation lacks a certain panache that you find in the explanation that Darrell likes pie.
John Cole
Some of them, maybe. But you are too fucking chicken shit to even let them have a public trial to find out whether they are or are not ‘evildoers.’ For you, all that matters is that Daddy George said they are evil, and they should be locked up forever.
We won’t even bother going in to the ones being detained who were merely swept up by rival warlords chasing a reward.
I used to disagree with the assertion that Darrell and his ilk are chickenshits. No longer. You are so afraid of the threat of terrorism you will do and day ANYTHING to make yourself feel better. Even locking people up forever with no evidence of wrongdoing or any desire to really find out if they deserve to be locked up. And any one who challenges you on it- well, you just start in with your usual tired old scared bullshit.
And BTW- if that makes me a “leftist” in your book, so be it. Your childish names and cartoonish world view don’t matter to me. And I won’t even bother asking you what is conservative about unparalleled and unrestrained executive power.
dslak
Speaking of people who like pie, Darrel’s paeans reminded of this clip from “South Park.”
Pooh
I find the most compelling answer is often “all of the above. With pie!”
Darrell
Yes John, that’s all that matters. You win again with your eloquent argument.
Darrell
You mean like in every single military conflict we’ve ever been in throughout our history? Oh my, I must be embracing my ‘inner chickenshit’.
Darrell
Which makes this sooo rich
John Cole
Yes, Darrell. I called you a name. You are an idiot, and you are an exasperating fool. You have no coherent ideology or worldview, you just roll with whatever the GOP message of the day is. You don’t defen’d your logic or your reasoning, you merely fly off on any distraction in any post. The slightest thing will cause you to invalidate (in your own mind) someone’s entire argument. You are little more than a modern version of a usenet troll.
You are a waste of my time, and yes, you can drive me to insults.
BFD.
Perry Como
Which military conflict have we locked up people forever without any evidence of wrong doing? Take your time.
ThymeZone
In the war against the Cardassians? Duh.
Darrell
That’s not true. Read my other posts upthread. I didn’t defend my reasoning with you not just because you called me a name, but because your ENTIRE post was an unhinged rant. Don’t pretend you were looking to engage me in any sort of conversation by coming in with nothing but 100% insults and cartoonish accusations. I’m not sure what’s gotten into you over the past few months.
dslak
I think there is a fair argument to be made that the fact that certain varieties of insurgents and terrorist group-affiliated guerillas don’t belong to a nation, don’t wear uniforms, etc. means that some modification as to when they should be released – and under what conditions – ought to be at least reconsidered.
The obvious answer is not however that anyone picked up on a “battlefield” ought to be locked up arbitrarily and for an indeterminate amount of time with no ability to challenge their detention.
In addition, the fact that people who really do plan on killing Americans are released after simply promising to be nice indicates that the present arrangement isn’t working all that well. It would seem that a system of trials would make it possible to identify the criteria that make a detainee a credible threat.
AlanDownunder
Stimson ain’t the only Gitmo prosecutor with Gulag proclivities.
Cop this audio (especially the shitty bit):
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200701/r122639_395590.mp3
srv
Darrell says:
srv says:
Darrell says:
What part of “appointed deputy is really just talking to himself here” do you not get, shithead? Did you get kicked in the head by a horse during remedial reading comprehension?
RSA
Are you saying that Guantanamo detainees are POWs? My impression, based on limited knowledge of military history, is that POWs are generally released after the cessation of hostilities. Is that why war boosters are so keen on both escalation in Iraq and keeping prisoners locked up forever? Figure it out. Get a plan.
Darrell
We locked up plenty of Vietnamese suspected of working with the Viet cong. And define “wrong doing”. Do you realize unarmed cooks and medics are locked up in POW camps?
dslak
Why not title each post “Whatever Darrell Feels Like Talking About,” so that nobody feels like they’re being duped by misleading advertising? The blog motto could also be changed to: All Darrell, All the Time (Plus Pie!)
Darrell
Because you’re such a dumbass, you blockquoted a quote you attributed to me which I never wrote, and then refused to own up to it.
Grrr
Darrell and his ilk are exhibiting classic signs of codependency…
Wiki – “An example would be a wife making excuses for her husband’s excessive drinking and perhaps running interference for him by calling in sick for him when he is hung over”.
Esteem-deficient enablers, holding desperately onto to an illusion. Because try as they might, they can only hold onto power as long as it takes (give or or take a war or two) to prove conservatism is as big a crock of shit as socialism.
And they like pie.
srv
I block quoted a quote from the “appointed deputy is really just talking to himself here” which was an OBVIOUS response to your “lone gunman” theory.
Now, exactly how did you get brain damaged?
Darrell
The problem you see, is that soldiers in the thick of battle may not have time to dust for fingerprints, interview witnesses, and complete full written reports while dodging RPGs. Furthermore, if rights are extended to courtroom proceedings and appeals process, the system couldn’t handle it if we got engaged in a larger scale conflict.
Having said that, I agree with this assesment of yours
With relatively manageable numbers of terrorists in custody, we probably can afford to have military trials for Gitmo detainees now. I’m concerned about the ramifications of this extension of rights for unlawful combatents, future legal entanglements introduced if we get involved in large scale conflicts. In war, unfortunately, innocent people are unfairly killed and jailed. I’m not sure the additional “lawyerization” is the right solution.
srv
No, from now on, it is Retard Pie. This guy is really retarded.
Darrell
John Cole needs to believe that, because it’s so much easier to deal with caricatures of me (and others), then to actually deal with the substance of any of the arguments… all the while telling yourself what a maverick thinker you are, speaking truth to power and all.
jake
Translation: It’s all about moi! Even when it isn’t.
This is one reason I waver between thinking Darrell is a spoof or just desperate for attention. Either would explain what must be a deliberate misinterpretation of the following sentence: “Of course Darrell, the appointed deputy is really just talking to himself here.”
Unless Darrell is Cully Stimson…Hmmmm.
ThymeZone
Today’s
from the guy who has spent years caricaturing Democrats and liberals on this blog.
srv
Darrell Aid: In this reply, Darrell, “here” means within the blockquotes, which in this case are in fact your own, and not the “appointed deputy”.
You are your own caricature. Nobody could create that which oozes from braincase. Even DougJ couldn’t imagineer a nut that didn’t know that “here” means “here”.
Grrr
Yeah, those scary mavericks. Polluting the purity and essence of your natural… fluids.
No one needs to make a caricature of you. You did that all on your own. You goat-sucking hump.
Perry Como
We locked them up forever? Really? And did we waterboard those cooks? Or did we condemn the Khmer Rouge for that type of behavior?
Pooh
Is this a word? If not, it should be.
TenguPhule
Darrell, you have surpassed Baghdad Bob in Orwellian speech. Up is down to you, War is Peace and Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
Krista
And to anybody with any sense of ethics, this is a BAD thing.
So why are you using it as justification for not giving a sweet damn about those in Gitmo who are living the nightmarish existence of being an innocent person locked away, with no idea if or when you’ll ever get out?
tBone
John used to really like pie. Then he quit pie. Ex-pie lovers tend to be a little sanctimonious about people who haven’t kicked the habit yet. It’s OK, Darrell. Just ignore him. Have some more pie.
Aren’t the lost souls who get stuck in the costumes at Disneyland called “imagineers?” Man, that’s got to be one of the worst jobs in the history of mankind.
tBone
You do remember who you’re talking to here, right?
The terrorists don’t worry about ethics, so why should we?
TenguPhule
Good, you’ve been reported as a terrorist, Darrell. So obviously you don’t deserve any rights or a lawyer to represent you. Your guilt is obvious, no need for trial just straight to Guantanamo Ass-rape Hotel for you.
Steve
Try to believe that the same person wrote both these things. And only 20 minutes apart, to boot!
RSA
Actually, imagineers are at the other end of the job desirability spectrum. I’ve known a couple of computer graphics types who have worked as imagineers. Sounds like great fun.
TenguPhule
We sorted POWS through due process and treated them like human beings. Do you dispute that?
The simple fact you avoid again and again, Darrell, is that these people are ACCUSED but are not given due process to sort the innocent from the guilty…even in cases where the military itself acknowledges it has made mistakes they STILL hold the people in capitivity in CLEAR violation of US and international law. Instead, you merely brand them all as guilty just because they’re there.
So when Empress Hillary’s troopers throw you in with them, remember not to bitch and moan for your ‘rights’ that you’ve given up on.
TenguPhule
Shorter Darrell: As long as they don’t cap my sorry ass, I don’t care.
Richard 23
She wouldn’t do that, TenguPhule. And if she did, I’m sure she’d have a good reason that even Darrell could agree with.
demimondian
I dunno. Does anybody besides me find the use of “enemy of the state” in other than the snarkiest way really disturbing? Do you think FoxNews meant it as a (tasteless) joke?
TenguPhule
Darrell’s first honest sentence in this thread.
TenguPhule
Way to miss the point, Darrell. Just because the enemy acts like a bunch of shits is not carte blanche for the US to act like them.
We are supposed to be better then that.
That sniveling little chickenshit pussies like you are so eager to throw the rules away because you wet your panties in fear of the big bad Osama under the bed says all that needs to be said.
TenguPhule
Yes, Darrell’s Irony of the Day!
demimondian
No. The Geneva conventions are multilateral, not bilateral, and there’s no language about abrogating your treaty responsibilities.
(For what it’s worth, the Vienna Convention has similar language. In fact, diplomatic immunity is not reciprocal, but automatic, despite what some concern trolls may have said recently.)
ConservativelyLiberal
I have observed a pattern here regarding Darrell. This is only my opinion, no offense intended:
And he steamrolls along until he drags in something irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If nobody bites he repeats with stronger bait until he gets a taker.
I bet Darrell lives under a bridge… And he keeps lots of electric koolaid and pie on hand. Lots…
ConservativelyLiberal
I have observed a pattern here regarding Darrell. This is only my opinion, no offense intended:
Or at least that is all that comes across to me. He steamrolls along until he drags in some other topic that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, just to bait the hook again. If nobody bites he trys again with even stronger smelling bait until he gets a bite.
I bet Darrell lives under a bridge…
He likes to get up on the bridge and go fishing often.
It is clear that he keeps lots of electric koolaid and pie on hand. It holds him over between catches…
ConservativelyLiberal
Oops, bad lag at my end… Too many submits, sorry!
Chuck Butcher
Darrell,
“I’m not sure what’s gotten into you the last few months.”
I won’t speak for John Cole, but I can guess and it is obvious why Darrell has to wonder.
Look, Darrell, there is a limit past which people deeply resent being pushed. I’m a tough guy, honestly, I do hard dangerous work and I’ve lived near the edge my entire life, but I find myself approaching tears when I have to contmplate what’s happening to our troops in Iraq and why it is happening and the CiC just keeps piling on. I’m pushing 54 yrs & I’ve had a lot life and now I’m on the back end, I could go do their job and let a kid with everything to go stay here, but, I’m too old. I’ve put my life on the line and I care about these folks and I’m tired of it, I’m so damned tired I find myself getting all emotional over it. If you cannot get the idea that people with principles can get worn out of patience, past the point of finding your ever dodging quibbles illuminating or even amusing, you must have none of your own.
The simple qualifier that something was said by GWB or his lackeys does not make it true, right, proper, or even remotely sensible, that you are expected to work out on your own, and you do not. You are exasperatingly predictable, you will constantly move your basis of argument as long as it doesn’t put you in opposition to this President. I have Presidents I take as heroes, but in every case I can see faults, failures, and errors, you are an idolator of Bush, that makes your opinions valueless and your character suspect.
My Blog is very left, an odd sort of left, and I make no bones about it. At my place you’d be a troll, oh, I’d let your inannites stay, since you don’t do threats and name-calling, but I wouldn’t waste time on you. On the other hand I’ve spent a great deal of time on others who disagreed with me, they brought facts and solid reasoning to the table. That’s worthy of the respect of argument.
I haven’t had to go through what JC has, I started out in mild opposition to this President, moderate approval of Afghanistan – I was worried he’d try to do it on the cheap – he did, and complete opposition to Iraq, from the outset. I’ve had near total disdain for his domestic politics. JC started out on the other side from me and he’s been kicked over to my side on many aspects of GWB, and he keeps getting kicked and his perfectly good Conservative Blog is now heavily populated by the left. WTF do you suppose is bothering John Cole?
Ted
Folks, Darrell is the human equivalent of a Cardassian. You won’t change his reptilian mind about justice and presumed innocence for anyone. He’ll go on believing in the righteousness of indefinite detention, and no representation, by governments. He has faith and trust in government power, and you should leave him to it. When it comes to massive governments, he’s not a skeptic. There’s no need to determine if anyone at Gitmo is innocent. They’ve been accused…
He really shouldn’t be argued with. We know his position on just about everything now, and if you ignore him, he might just go away, and the threads won’t exceed 100 posts so often.
srv
That everything he knew was wrong.
That he’s lived a life thinking his right peers – even friends – shared his “conservative” values. But he’s discovered that they never really did. The body of the right really has only a thin veneer of values, and what lies beneath that is as bad as any caricature ppGaz could create in his worst nightmares.
Most of the wingnuts have gone back to their caves, just as most of the rah-rah Milbloggers have gone silent. Darrell is the fading echo of what was once, and will never be again.
TenguPhule
GOP4Me et al
We need to take these lawyers and throw them into Gitmo. Throw all the bums and traitors into Guantanamo, everyone who seeks to enable the terrorists and thereby threaten our lives and our freedoms.
Is it a pretty solution? No, but it may be the only one that keeps us alive. If you don’t like it, move to Iraq- or pack your bags and go to Gitmo. There are plenty of terrorists there for you to hug and sing Kumbaya with, you Hippie moonbat traitors.
Jim Schimpf
In the discussions above there are mentions of POW’s and trying them. Please understand these POW’s are not criminals to be tried. They are wards of the winning side, under the Geneva Conventions the capturing power is responsible for their safety and health. It is understood that they will be returned to their home when hostilities are over. They are NOT criminals, unless you find some guilty of war crimes but that is an entirely different problem. So the US holding many many German solders in WWII is actually showing we followed the convention, keeping them here (I think Canada did the same) where they would be entirely (in WWII) safe from bombing or other war actions.
The Gitmo problem is we cannot decide what these people are and what the War is and when it’s over.
ConservativelyLiberal
Over at TPM, there is a message about them going after the lawyers now, and how Scooter Libby needs to get new counsel as his lawyer’s firm is representing some Gitmo detainees (Per Josh Marshall). Hmmm, the right hand is not in communication with the right brain, is it? ;)
Regarding JC’s disillusionment with the GOP, and the mentioned invasion of liberals here, I can understand his feelings about the events that led to where he is today.
I am a registered small ‘i’ independent, no party affiliation. I used to be a Democrat, but I have too many issues with that group to continue as one. But I am not a Republican either, I have just as many issues with them too. I quit the party in ’92, and I have not looked back since. I have grown alot since then, and I have learned that in politics, unbridled allegiance leads to unbridled abuses. Always has, always will.
I am stuck in the middle, and I consider my political party to be America. Despite what I have been told over the last few years, I do not hate freedom, I do not hate America and I am not aiding and abetting terrorists by not marching in goose step with the leadership of this nation. I never thought I would see the day that our leadership would alienate over half of the nation by referring to them as ‘cut & run’ traitors. How low will they go in their quest for absolute control of the direction of our nation?
No party will ever own my allegiance again. I will go with what I view is in the best interest of our nation, and to hell with blind devotion. I love my country, and the people who live in it, even the Darrell’s out there. My job, as I see it, it to prevent messes like the one we are in from happening. I am realistic though, I am only one person and I am not going to change the world.
So I will vote in the interests of America, as I see them. I will disagree and confront either party when I see stupidity in motion. I will not use the excesses of one side to justify an equally excessive contrarian stance on the other side. I will meet everyone openly and on an equal basis, but I will not tolerate those who are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. I will not discuss issues with people who only raise issues so they can pat themselves on the back everytime they are right (which is every time they open their mouths or start posting). These are the ones who are in love with their own voices. There is a place for those people, and it is called RedState.
I will not be intimidated into silence by those who wish to stifle free speech in our nation. I will not give up my freedom for security. I will not shred the Constitution for some false sense of security. I will live free, as our Founding Fathers intended for me to be.
JC, the best thing to do is go with America first, everything else is secondary. No one party has an absolute lock on the truth, and the sooner people realize this, the sooner we will return control of this nation into our hands and get those idiots in Washington to finally listen to US.
Darrell
Germany was a signatory to Geneva conventions, and for the most part, treated US POWs well. The terrorists are not signatories to the Geneva convention, and do not in any way follow the Geneva conventions.. as for POW treatment at the hands of terrorists, they chop their heads off
The Geneva convention applies to signatories only who follow the conventions. The extremists on this BJ site don’t seem to understand this basic fact. How we should treat the captured terrorists in Gitmo is a separate issue, one we will choose voluntarily. But Geneva convention rules do not apply at all in how we deal with these captured terrorists.
Darrell
Krista, I have referred (more than once on this thread and others) to the killing and jailing of innocents in war as “unfair” and “unfortunate” consequences of war, not as any “justification” for not giving a damn as you claim.
I realize that what I actually wrote gets in the way of your phony moral posturing, but that’s just who you are.
By quick count, I see that about 22 of the 30-odd posts upthread are all of posters obsessing over me when I’m not online or posting. That’s rather pathetic, wouldn’t you agree?
Darrell
If one side is not a signatory to or follows the Geneva conventions, the treaty does not apply. Incredible how many leftists don’t know this basic fact.
Ted
Why, you’re right! Nothing should constrain our government’s (oh, trusted, inerrant government!) treatment of anyone except written treaties, provided there are some loopholes.
And these reptilian idiots are always going on about the evils of “moral relativism” when their “morality” is defined by a book of laws with a set of contingencies useful for violating them.
Ted
Hey Darrell. Did you know that over 30 of them are by you alone? But that’s not pathetic at all, is it!
Darrell
Strawman! Strawman! Get yer red-hot strawman right here!
Darrell
Out of 2 posts
and
Not big on originality, are you Ted?
Ted
LOL. That’s all he’s got. The description works well; no need to alter it. Besides, you call damn near everyone who disagrees with you a “dumbass”.
Ted
Tell us more about your “morality” with its built-in set of loopholes, Darrell!
Darrell
What the hell are you talking about Ted? Look man, if you want to posture in your self righteousness, who am I to stop you?
Ted
We know, Darrell. Stop telling us.
Steve
Well, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, but thanks for sharing that “basic fact.”
Darrell
Fair enough. I should have said Geneva conventions as they were written. In this case, the Supreme court invented rights out of thin air.
Ted
Yes. How dare non-citizens have anything remotely resembling due process. That right is not inalienable to humans, just Americans.
There are two kinds of people on this planet when it comes to this: those who view ‘rights’ as a given, unless government specifically and legitimately restricts them, and those who view ‘rights’ as completely prohibited, unless government specifically authorizes them. Darrell adheres to the latter.
What do you expect from an authoritarian cultist?
Darrell
Explain for us Ted, details of ‘due process’ afforded honorable German soldiers we captured in WWII. Then after doing that, explain why we should be providing more protections and rights to dishonorable captured terrorists. I look forward to hearing your ‘logic’
Ted
Oh, gee, I don’t know. Maybe because when the war ended the German soldiers were returned to their country, minus intervening torture? I don’t know what the difference is between German soldiers and Afghan soldiers (governmental affiliation being irrelevant in war with a country’s army). I know you love your little loophole distinction based on uniforms and such, but the rest of us recognize humans for humans, regardless of their clothing. I seem to remember the Afghanistan military campaign being over, and a supposedly friendly government taking over (Kabul only, of course).
You really resemble a bloated bureaucrat with your technicalities of the treatment and handling of human beings captured in wars. But that fits with the rest of your faith in government.
Darrell
Yes Ted, because the “only” distinction with the head choppers is that they don’t wear a uniform. You probably don’t think of yourself as a simpleton, do you?
Ted
You seem to be confusing the behavior of certain Iraqis with the Afghan “detainees” at Gitmo. I’m capable of seeing past skin color and religion to their actual cultural and national differences. I know, that makes me a traitor.
And no, I could not give a shit how enemies of our troops conduct themselves when it comes to how we treat captured foreigners. We regain our moral high ground by behaving above that, not stooping to it, you ethical gorilla.
Steve
Oh right… “out of thin air.” It’s not like they were interpreting Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions or anything. Nope, they just invented those rights out of thin air.
RSA
What rights did the Supreme Court invent, in your opinion? If you have quotations, even better. The reason I ask is because of Ted’s comment about inalienable rights.
Krista
You may say that it’s “unfair” and “unfortunate”, but then, in your very next breath, you claim that you cannot believe that we leftists are trying to give legal rights to accused terrorists. So you’ll have to excuse me if I consider your “unfair” and “unfortunate” to be nothing more than empty lip service.
Saying “Oh that’s too bad, but shit happens”, doesn’t in any way excuse the fact that, in your own words, “I oppose giving the Gitmo detainees criminal defendent-like rights.”
TenguPhule
Shorter Darrell: All Arabs look the same to me.
Name one POW who has had his head chopped off. Then name the specific group that did it.
You’re simply full of Shit, Darrell. You can’t tell the difference between one group and another and as a result you think they’re all the same. You argue like how Bush runs a war.
TenguPhule
Darrell’s Spoof of the Day.
Darrell: Guilt without Trial! Death without Conviction!
grandpa john
Would someone please point out to the troll named darrell
that his continued description as “terrorists” of all the Gitmo detainees, pretty much invalidates all the rest of the bullshit he has smeared over this thread. See darrell, tthe point of the legal representation is to determine if they actually are terrorist
ConservativelyLiberal
Oh pshaw! If the Decider in Chief or one of his appointees says that they are guilty then they must be guilty. Heck, with his judgment, we can do away with Congress and the Judiciary! Then the Decider in Chief and the military run the show! Think of the money we will save! No trials, no appeals. Just nice clean euthanasia after their convictions (which are forgone conclusions as they would not be in custody if they were not guilty, right?).
Of course, without a Congress or Judiciary we would have to call our goverment what it really would be. A military dictatorship.
Jake
You just don’t understand the world as seen by the Damp Boots Brigade: A person is a terrorist if they terrify the DBB.
Guilt or innocence is not determined by trial, it is determined by the state of the DBB’s collective pants.