Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

This fight is for everything.

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

I like you, you’re my kind of trouble.

People are complicated. Love is not.

Don’t expect peaches from an apple tree.

We still have time to mess this up!

American History and Black History Cannot Be Separated

This really is a full service blog.

No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.

We’ll be taking my thoughts and prayers to the ballot box.

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

Tick tock motherfuckers!

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

“What are Republicans afraid of?” Everything.

White supremacy is terrorism.

DeSantis transforms Florida into 1930s Germany with gators and theme parks.

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

The arc of history bends toward the same old fuckery.

And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

You are here: Home / Horton’s Tale of Three Lawyers

Reader Interactions

76Comments

  1. 1.

    Librarian

    Ok, then why isn’t the American law profession up in arms about all this? Why aren’t lawyers marching in the streets? Where’s the outrage?

  2. 2.

    Bibblesnæð

    Ugh.
    One thing you got wrong: these aren’t the “worst administration and worst President of my lifetime.” they’re the worst ever. Ever.

  3. 3.

    The Grand Panjandrum

    This administration and its henchmen are beyond contempt. My country is run by a gang of war criminals who will more than likely never be brought to justice.

    How many years will it take to restore the rule of law and confidence in our system of justice? One hopes the damage is not irreparable.

  4. 4.

    Paul L.

    From your link.

    In the Hamdan decision, the Court went a step further. In powerful and extraordinary words, Justice Kennedy reminded the Administration that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was binding upon them, and that a violation could constitute a criminal act. One senior member of the Bush legal team, informed of the decision over lunch, was reported to have turned “white as a sheet” and to have immediately excused himself. For the following months, Bush Administration lawyers entered into a frenzied discussion of how to protect themselves from criminal prosecution.

    Funny that he forgot the Military Commissions Act.
    Congress to Supremes: Drop Dead!

    The new law is, above all, a stinging rebuke to the Supreme Court. It strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear any habeas corpus claim filed by any alien enemy combatant anywhere in the world. It was passed in response to the effort by a five-justice majority in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld to take control over terrorism policy. That majority extended judicial review to Guantanamo Bay, threw the Bush military commissions into doubt, and tried to extend the protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, overturning the traditional understanding that Geneva does not cover terrorists, who are not signatories nor “combatants” in an internal civil war under Article 3…

    Of course that does not matter, because people who do not follow the Geneva convention are still entitled to the full protects that those who follow it are.

    Convention protections are not reciprocal.

  5. 5.

    taodon

    No one does anything because no one wants to be destroyed by the very mechanisms that destroyed Diaz. It was less about Diaz, and more about shooting a warning shot over the bow of anyone who would dare challenge the righteousness of the Government’s cause celebre.

  6. 6.

    mightygodking

    Funny that he forgot the Military Commissions Act.

    Which was raced into law just before the Republican party lost control of Congress (go figure) and did not apply at the time of Diaz’s actions or circa the decision in Hamdan (but I’m sure you knew that bit).

  7. 7.

    TenguPhule

    Shorter Paul L: I have reserved my place on the wall with the other traitors to the Republic.

  8. 8.

    Dennis - SGMM

    Shorter Paul L: I have reserved my place on the wall with the other traitors to the Republic.

    Why? All he ever posts about is pie. (;

  9. 9.

    libarbarian

    Following the implementation of these techniques, more than 108 detainees died in detention. In a large number of these cases, the deaths have been ruled a homicide and connected to torture. These homicides were a forseeable consequence of the advice that Haynes and Yoo gave.

    We’ve tortured more than 100 people to death?

    I want to know where this figure comes from.

  10. 10.

    Wilfred

    Why aren’t lawyers marching in the streets? Where’s the outrage?

    That’s a good question, one that can easily be expanded to include a host of other outrages, disgraces and brutalities that have generated similar apathy.

    My opinion is that the reason for this is that the current nigger – the brown-skinned, Arab/Afghan/Pakistani/Palestinian Muslim has replaced American blacks as the possessors of what Floyd Hayes called absolute negativity. This isn’t about Diaz, although interestingly, and inevitably, the persons whose suffering make his own heroics possible are once again relegated to irrelevant, non-person status, but rather about the group keen to protect its control of the narrative that enables Gitmo and other prisons to flourish.

    There must be an answer to the question, an answer to this remarkable anomalous silence. Right?

  11. 11.

    TR

    Sadly, this is par for the course for the Bush administration. Show competence, morality or foresight, and you’re out on your ass. Show a craven support to political power and a total lack of ethics, and the medals will come out.

    But to the point — there needs to be an effort to have these two disbarred for their brazen disregard for the law, and they should be hounded from their faculty posts. Yoo’s at Berkeley, right? I’d imagine students there would be rioting in the streets over this.

  13. 13.

    Paul L.

    Shorter Paul L: I have reserved my place on the wall with the other traitors to the Republic.

    I guess dissent is not patriotic if if disagrees with you?
    So will Democratic Congress and President Clinton/Omaba now work to repeal the Military Commissions Act?
    They should include that in their campaigns.

  14. 14.

    Dug Jay

    More rubbish from Scott Horton, a disgraced and conflicted “attorney.” Have you already forgotten this is the same shitty lawyer who was trying to blame the fall of Elliot Spitzer on the Bush Justice Department? The guy is so paranoid and fucked up that he has evem suggested that his ex lover was a Republican operative of Karl Rove’s.

  15. 15.

    Dennis - SGMM

    This is just the story that received public attention. How many other people has the administration quietly fucked over, sidelined, pigeonholed, fired, threatened or browbeaten into silence? The aftereffects of this administrations malfeasance will be felt for years to come.

  16. 16.

    Krista

    On Thursday in the National Press Club in Washington, a crowd gathered to witness the presentation of the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling to Lieutenant Commander Matthew Diaz.

    1) Sad that our culture is such that truth-telling has become so rare and refreshing that we now give awards for it.

    2) Good for Diaz, though. He did the right thing.

    3) Like the article said, it’s frankly pathetic that the system is now rewarding lawyers who put the wants of the political administration over the country’s rule of law. Pathetic and scary.

  18. 18.

    Adam

    There was also a profile of Diaz (and the destruction of his career) in the Times Magazine a few weeks back.

  19. 19.

    TR

    Yoo is currently a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, the author of a number of widely featured books, and a widely followed media figure whose works are routinely published in the Wall Street Journal and other publications. He remains a member of the bar in Pennsylvania and California.

    Haynes recently left the position of General Counsel at the Department of Defense to become General Counsel–Corporate at Chevron Inc. He remains a member of the bar in North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia.

    Any lawyers out there with an idea of what it takes to institute disbarment proceedings in Pennsylvania, California, NC, Virginia, and/or DC?

  20. 20.

    qwerty42

    Funny that he forgot the Military Commissions Act.

    Paul, I’m not sure Congress can create a law beyond the power of the Court. It would seem to violate the separation of powers. I will guess no case has ever come up on this (it would seem like a variant of the Russell paradox), so it would be difficult to say. The court may decline to hear such cases, as they probably would not want a head-on conflict with either branch, but I’m not sure congress may actually do this (of course, if it gets away with it, it can). This has also been odd set up from the start, and has been accompanied by a lot of verbal gymnastics; there is a growing feeling the whole thing is a sordid affair and has harmed us more than some wish to recognize.

  21. 21.

    Svensker

    Dug Jay Says:

    More rubbish from Scott Horton, a disgraced and conflicted “attorney.”

    I’ve heard this before from the RWers but don’t know the source. Dug Jay sites the Spitzer comment, but the “disgraced” meme started long before that. Care to provide any info, DJ?

  22. 22.

    zsa

    108 huh? That’s in US military custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not counting the luckless, nameless bastards we’ve rounded up and sent to our friends in Novowelistan.

    Dead men tell no tales.

  23. 23.

    Pooh

    Have you already forgotten this is the same shitty lawyer who was trying to blame the fall of Elliot Spitzer on the Bush Justice Department?

    No. We remember that one because it was…uhm, what’s the word, TRUE? I mean you might have a point if we didn’t have a billion examples of dudes who got caught with pros without nearly the effort to “sting” Spitzer who had “R” after their names.

    Fuck you and your IOKIYAR very much.

  24. 24.

    Conservatively Liberal

    Angry? Yes. Surprised? Not one bit. Seven years ago I would have been, but not now. If someone told me that Cheney ate aborted fetuses for breakfast and that Bush likes to fuck dead kittens, I would not even bat an eyelash now. Nothing about this administration would surprise me. Nothing.

    What I am really pissed at is the fact that the Democrats are complicit in this mess. Not only that, but some Democrats provided (and still provide) cover for Bush and Cheney (including Bill Clinton, a former president, providing them cover over the war). Pelosi herself took impeachment ‘off of the table’. My god, the Republicans prosecuted Clinton for lying about a blow job and now they and the Democrats have let this executive run roughshod over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Geneva Accords, Habeas Corpus and everything else they wanted to trash.

    In the name of ‘freedom and liberty for all’. /barf

    It is sad when an virtually powerless attorney has a conscience and puts his career on the line, and then I contrast that with the spineless weasels we have running our country who won’t risk anything so they can get elected again.

    Our politicians need to be despised for the weak willed pieces of shit that they are. Very few of them are true leaders or statesmen. The majority of them are little more than leeches; they suck all they can out of the system while they are attached to it, not concerned about anything other than filling their pockets and gaining power.

    That they will do nothing with.

  25. 25.

    sparky

    http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/what-hamdan-hath-wrought.html

    as for the lawyers, (a) many people outside the legal profession have the wrong idea of it, i think. it’s a deeply conservative, conformist institution–and there are a number of reasons for that–some of them even good ones. lawyers are usually at the rear of the cavalcade not the front. (b) most lawyers don’t want to threaten their day jobs.

  26. 26.

    Svensker

    Dug Jay sites the Spitzer comment, but the “disgraced” meme started long before that. Care to provide any info, DJ?

    Never mind. Teh google shows me that the “disgraced” bit comes via Confederate Yankee. An outstanding source for truth, justice and the American way, ta da!

    I love how Dug Jay puts the scare quotes around “attorney” for Horton, too. Who you gonna believe, Duggie and Confederate Wanker, or Columbia Law School?

  27. 27.

    4tehlulz

    Never mind Paul L. and Duggie. They’re just upset that their snuff fantasy “enhanced interrogation” might be considered immoral, corrupting, etc.

  28. 28.

    jenniebee

    Paul, the idea that there is a human being on this earth not covered by Common Article 3 is a radical theory that, before the Bush Administration, was pretty much only adopted ever before by defendants at Nuremberg. Most of the people who argued it then were hanged for their troubles.

    And Dug Jay, do you really want to hang your ad hominem attacks on the fact that your target has noticed other bad things your most favoritist preznit ever has done?

    Someday, if there is justice in this world, these fellows will be warming cells in The Hague. But there, their names won’t be kept from the Red Cross, they won’t be chained to freezing floors or made to stand still until their legs fill with fluid. They won’t be held down naked and have suppositories shoved into them. They won’t be beaten to death or be threatened with vicious dogs. Their lungs won’t be filled with water. They won’t have to stand by and be horrified as atrocities are committed in their names.

    It is wholly unsatisfying to be compelled to defend civilization against barbarism. One gets so much better a sense of quid pro quo when one can visit obscenities upon their originators.

  29. 29.

    srv

    Damn! Phil Carter has taken intel-dump to the Washington Post.

    Great that he’ll have a spot like that, but the wise commentors will probably be lost.

  30. 30.

    Napoleon

    Ok, then why isn’t the American law profession up in arms about all this? Why aren’t lawyers marching in the streets? Where’s the outrage?

    I think the ABA has in fact tried to make it an issue, and IMO once Bush is out of office the best way to make sure this does not happen again is to literally wage a relentless campaign against those attorneys who participated. This will make it very difficult to pull stuff like this in the future (see sparky’s comment a few comments above for and idea why).

    Any lawyers out there with an idea of what it takes to institute disbarment proceedings in Pennsylvania, California, NC, Virginia, and/or DC?

    Sorry, I am Ohio, but the place to start would be with the website of the supreme court of each state (DC I am not sure of). Often the initial complaint can me lodged with the persons local bar association, specifically in the jurisdiction they would have first joined the bar (if they are in more then one there is a pretty go chance that they are in the subsequent ones on a reciprocity basis and a state will often/usually revoke that if you loose licensing in your base state.

  32. 32.

    Xenos

    The new law is, above all, a stinging rebuke to the Supreme Court. It strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear any habeas corpus claim filed by any alien enemy combatant anywhere in the world.

    It remains to be seen whether the USSC cares to let Congress reset the balance of powers like that. I suspect it will not, and ever since Marbury v. Madison the USSC holds the trump card.

  33. 33.

    Napoleon

    PS, if other states are like Ohio you ought to be able to access the persons licencing info on-line to figure out where a person was admitted first and the basis of admission (i.e. bar exam, reciprical admission or the like).

  34. 34.

    Napoleon

    It remains to be seen whether the USSC cares to let Congress reset the balance of powers like that. I suspect it will not, and ever since Marbury v. Madison the USSC holds the trump card.

    Problem is, if I recall correctly, according to the Constitution the Congress has an absolute right to determine exactly what jurisdiction the courts can exercise.

  35. 35.

    Rick Taylor

    libarbarian wrote:

    We’ve tortured more than 100 people to death?

    I want to know where this figure comes from.

    I don’t know about the specific figure, but we have certainly been guilty of brutality that has lead to peoples’ deaths. There was an academy award winning documentary, Taxi To the Darkside. It focuses on the case of Dilaware, a cab driver who was killed while in detention.

    On the day of his death, Dilawar had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days. “A guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling. “Leave him up,” one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying. Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.

  36. 36.

    Lee

    What I felt mostly from reading that article was pride in Lieutenant Commander Matthew Diaz. Despite all our faults and recent setbacks we still tend to create brave, patriotic Americans.

    Those that enable & defend torture and atrocites are not fit to scrape the mud off of Lieutenant Commander Matthew Diaz’s boots.

    Hopefully the next President (whoever it might be) will recognize the injustice and immediately pardon Lieutenant Commander Matthew Diaz.

  37. 37.

    LarryM

    (1) The architects of the system of illegal detention, and the persons responsible for running the sytem (I make an exception for people involved on the lowest levels) should be tried as war criminals and hanged by the neck until dead.

    (2) Every person connected in even the slightest way with the torture of prisoners (I make no exceptions for anyone, however slight their involvement) is a war criminal who should be tried and hanged by the neck until dead.

    I fully realize that this would result in tens of thousands of executions. All the better. Such a prospect would make me joyful. I would personally be the executioner myself without a pang of remorse.

  38. 38.

    4tehlulz

    >>I would personally be the executioner myself without a pang of remorse.

    I’ll agree with this only on the condition that you hang yourself at the end.

  39. 39.

    Paul L.

    jenniebee Says:

    Paul, the idea that there is a human being on this earth not covered by Common Article 3 is a radical theory that, before the Bush Administration, was pretty much only adopted ever before by defendants at Nuremberg. Most of the people who argued it then were hanged for their troubles.

    From my QandO link

    And Congress just overturned that decision, and told the Court to but out. One of the reasons why…well, You quoted this bit, but apparently, didn’t catch it:

    They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

    If the party does NOT accept and apply the conventions, the other parties are not bound by them. Convention protections are reciprocal.

    So much for that argument.

  40. 40.

    Cyrus

    Duncan Black lives in Pennsylvania, doesn’t he? Hmmm. There must be a civic-minded lawyer in his circle of friends…

  41. 41.

    Svensker

    The thing that gets me about the Paul L’s of the world is that they WANT to be able to torture people. Like you should look for circumstances under which torture is the GOOD thing to do.

    They’re also the same ones who got all snuggered up because Rev. Wright said “God damn America”. Yet they are the ones who are doing just that. No sense of irony, these people.

  42. 42.

    Gus

    PaulL, how hilarious that your answer to Horton doesn’t contain a single attempt at refutation, merely an attack on the credibility of the source of the information, then you support your argument with a link to qando.

  45. 45.

    Jay B.

    And Congress just overturned that decision, and told the Court to but out. One of the reasons why…well, You quoted this bit, but apparently, didn’t catch it:

    “They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.”

    This is an absolutely idiotic argument. First, Congress can’t make a Supreme Court ruling null and void simply by making another law that’s equally specious. I mean, they “can”, but it doesn’t mean that this piece of shit law is Constitutional. So, once again, because of the sadistic children we had in the last Congress, the Supreme Court, inevitably, will have to “but in” [sic] to rule against it.

    The quote from the law doesn’t contain magic. It does not render the Geneva Conventions null and void simply by assertion. It’s at best a tenuous fig leaf of a rationale that still doesn’t make Article 3 of a signed international treaty irrelevant to the signatory.

    All it does is open up members of Congress to possible war crimes.

    You are Nazi filth, really, Paul. Literally no different that the butchers who brought the Gestapo to life. Sadistic, immoral, relying solely on bullshit ‘legalistic’ arguments that the entire world knows are fradulent. One of the US’s shining moments was the fairness and stature we brought to the post-war trials at Nuremberg. And in six short years, we’ve pissed away the legitimacy we brought to that tribunal because we’re so fucking scared of brown people we’re willing to shred not only the Geneva Conventions, but our own Constitution as well.

    Filth.

  47. 47.

    4tehlulz

    >>Literally no different that the butchers who brought the Gestapo to life.

    Hey, don’t demean the Gestapo like that. They did their own dirty work.

  48. 48.

    Paul L.

    I am pointing out that Horton is wrong about Geneva Convention protections.
    That persons who do not follow the Geneva Conventions (in fact willfully ignore and violate them) are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

    I can buy the argument that we should treat the detainees humanely. But do not go on to say that the US is violating the Geneva Conventions because we don’t.

    Shorter Paul L: I have reserved my place on the wall with the other traitors to the Republic.

    What is ironic coming from progressives who think that the terrorists deserve the Geneva Convention protections say that those who don’t deserve to be thrown in a camp and shot.

  49. 49.

    Paul L.

    This is an absolutely idiotic argument. First, Congress can’t make a Supreme Court ruling null and void simply by making another law that’s equally specious

    Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

    On June 29, 2006, the Court issued a 5-3 decision holding that it had jurisdiction, that the administration did not have authority to set up these particular military commissions without congressional authorization, because they did not comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention (which the court found to be incorporated into the Uniform Code of Military Justice).[4]

  50. 50.

    Jay B.

    I am pointing out that Horton is wrong about Geneva Convention protections.

    No, he’s not.

    That persons who do not follow the Geneva Conventions (in fact willfully ignore and violate them) are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

    Yes, they are. The FUCKING NAZIS violated all kinds of Geneva Conventions — and yet, they were entitled to protection. Really, are you this fucking ignorant of everything? Look it up — Nazis killed all kinds of non-combatants, used bullshit laws to justify it, but were still treated to Geneva Conventions protection.

    I can buy the argument that we should treat the detainees humanely.

    Oh, that’s precious. Why? If they don’t treat our boys humanely, why entitle them to decent treatment? Nothing else you puke out in defense of US actions makes sense unless you thought they deserved inhumane treatment to begin with. Really. Your sadism comes through loud and clear, no need to lie about your humanity now.

    But do not go on to say that the US is violating the Geneva Conventions because we don’t.

    That’s what gets sadistic fucks like you pause? Sure, we might have killed 100 or so people by torture, and yeah, we should have been humane, but how dare you say we’re in violation of the Geneva Conventions! That’s really the lamest bullshit of all time.

    We torture. We’ve killed people in custody. We are in violation of the Geneva Conventions — among other international treaties — because of it. The proof will be when Bush Administration butchers don’t travel overseas for fear of arrest.

  51. 51.

    Jay B.

    On June 29, 2006, the Court issued a 5-3 decision holding that it had jurisdiction, that the administration did not have authority to set up these particular military commissions without congressional authorization,

    Right. And then Congress gave them congressional authorization to set up the Military Tribunals. It does not, however overrule the Geneva Conventions, no matter what magic language Congress inserts into the law — it merely sets up the framework of the Tribunals which the court asked for. The larger issues of torture, extraordinary rendition and the “quaintness” of the Geneva Conventions are still going to be addressed by the Supreme Court at some point because Congress clearly overstepped their bounds and inserted obviously unconstitutional language into the Military Tribunal bill.

  52. 52.

    gypsy howell

    Paul, aside from the fact that your argument in defense of torturing any human being is despicable, you seem quite sure that these detainees are somehow not covered by the Geneva Conventions. As I’m sure you know, almost every country in the world is a signatory to the conventions, including Afghanistan, Iran, and just about every other country you can name. The Geneva Conventions cover combatants and non-combatants, prisoners of war and civilians. There really are no “carve-outs” of classes of people who can be legally tortured by a signatory to the convention.

    Give it up. Go back to watching 24.

  53. 53.

    John Cole

    The proof will be when Bush Administration butchers don’t travel overseas for fear of arrest.

    While I agree with everything else you have stated, someone NOT doing something is hardly proof of anything.

  54. 54.

    Lee

    While all this is an interesting discussion; for me what is more interesting is WHY someone would actually want to try and give cover to these torturers?

    Is it the ‘My Party over My Country’ attitude?

    Do they lack the basic human decency of opposing torture?

    Both?

  55. 55.

    LarryM

    I’d love to be a fly on the wall when some of these animals explain to their children why they can’t vacation outside the United States.

  56. 56.

    MayBee

    Really, are you this fucking ignorant of everything? Look it up—Nazis killed all kinds of non-combatants, used bullshit laws to justify it, but were still treated to Geneva Conventions protection.

    By whom?

  57. 57.

    jenniebee

    I am pointing out that Horton is wrong about Geneva Convention protections. That persons who do not follow the Geneva Conventions (in fact willfully ignore and violate them) are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

    It’s good to know that you’re an expert in international law. Please enlighten us as to why Congress can make an exception to The United States of America vs. Josef Altstötter, et al. while you’re at it.

  58. 58.

    Cyrus

    The proof will be when Bush Administration butchers don’t travel overseas for fear of arrest.

    I’d love to be a fly on the wall when some of these animals explain to their children why they can’t vacation outside the United States.

    I oscillate between being far more pessimistic and cynical than everyone else around me and far less. About these, I’m apparently more pessimistic and cynical than you. Unless our culture and legal system undergo some really drastic changes really quickly, it wouldn’t happen. Bush, Yoo, Cheney et al. would not get arrested for war crimes if they vacation in Belgium or Germany.

    What are you expecting, something like what happened to Pinochet? It would be nice, but for all the sins of Bush et al., he didn’t come to power in a violent coup and hasn’t ordered the assassination of dozens of political leaders within and outside his own country. And unlike Pinochet, Bush would be the former leader of one of the richest and largest countries in the world. About 40 percent of Chile supported Pinochet to the end, but who cared except for their neighbors? But if 40 percent of Americans still support Bush when he gets put on trial by some damn furriners in Germany, that’s a whole lot of people who won’t buy Volkswagens.

  59. 59.

    Jay B.

    By whom?

    Um, do you really have to ask? Hint, it rhymes with Poo Pess and the Boo Kay. I can’t speak for the Soviets.

    John, you’re right about the “not traveling as proof” — I would like to think, however, traveling overseas will give most of them pause. But then, Henry Kissinger’s a free man, so who knows?

  60. 60.

    Seitz

    If the party does NOT accept and apply the conventions, the other parties are not bound by them. Convention protections are reciprocal.

    In other words, if you wear the uniform of a “nation” that we’re fighting against (who is also a signatory) you’re protected. But if you’re (per the 60 Minutes story) a German student and tourist crossing from Pakistan into Afghanistan, and you have absolutely no idea who Al Qaeda is, and have never even remotely so much as threated to squash a bug on U.S. soil, we can torture the shit out of you, because hey, we didn’t sign a treaty “enemy combatants” did we?

    Brilliant logic.

  61. 61.

    TomMil

    I’m a licensed but inactive attorney in PA (licensed and active in NJ). I haven’t kept up with my Pennsylvania continuing legal education requirements and bar dues because I haven’t handled a case in PA in about 14 years. I intend to contact some of my former colleagues to see if they are interested in pursuing the matter of Mr. You. I’ll keep you informed.

  62. 62.

    Seitz

    persons who do not follow the Geneva Conventions (in fact willfully ignore and violate them) are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

    Considering a lot of these persons aren’t guilty of anything that we’ve been able to prove, it seems like pretty fucking specious reasoning. So we can just declare war on some group of people, or hell, some concept, round up a bunch of people and say “hey! They don’t follow the Geneva Convention! We get to electrocute their balls!!”

    Paul L. is a real piece of shit.

  64. 64.

    The Populist

    The interesting part will be when the world decides Yoo, Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney and Rice (plus others – Wolfie? Negroponte? Gonzales?) will be tried in absentia for war crimes.

    I will bet it happens. I’d hate to be those people should somebody do it.

  65. 65.

    ThymeZone

    What is ironic coming from progressives who think that the terrorists deserve the Geneva Convention protections say that those who don’t deserve to be thrown in a camp and shot.

    Future language archivists will declare this to be the most tortured sentence in the history of Written communication.

  66. 66.

    The Populist

    What is ironic coming from progressives who think that the terrorists deserve the Geneva Convention protections say that those who don’t deserve to be thrown in a camp and shot.

    Okay, I am not a “progressive” so what does that make me? Your logic is weak and you are a coward. So all the folks imprisoned at Gitmo are terrorists? If they are, why won’t they get a trial? After all, if they are guilty of something don’t you think it would be a slam dunk case?

    Sorry bud, I refuse to have MY name and MY country associated with things that TERRORISTS do. If we can’t have our principles we are no better than them.

    Must I quote Ben Franklin AGAIN?!??!?!?!

  67. 67.

    Redhand

    Why aren’t lawyers marching in the streets? Where’s the outrage?

    I’m a practicing lawyer, and believe me, if you met me in person to discuss this, you’d see where some of the outrage is.

    The betrayal of our profession, indeed, the betrayal of our country perpetrated by these legal ciphers is something I feel very keenly. I’ve been a lawyer for 30 years, and when I went to law school we were taught that our role in the administration of justice was an honor that also carried a special responsibility. Sure, there’s zealous advocacy, and wanting your client to win, but it’s all supposed to take place in the larger context of justice and upholding the law of the land.

    I see little that can be done to Yoo, Addington and Haynes so long as this vile, law-breaking Administration remains in power. But the pressure to expose, ridicule and reverse the unspeakable perversions of our law perpetrated by these “lawyers” and their bosses has to be a major priority of the next (democratic) administration. Believe me, I’ll be on of those lawyers calling for their heads. We need a truth and reconciliation commission like South Africa had, or an inquiry like Argentina instituted after its “dirty war” to regain some of our self-respect as a nation.

    These two cartoons by Mike Luckovich express perfectly my feeings about the current Administration.

  70. 70.

    TenguPhule

    But do not go on to say that the US is violating the Geneva Conventions because we don’t.

    And that is why people like Paul L are traitors to the Republic.

    Paul L. supports torture, shitting on the Constitution and the destruction of a nation of laws in favor of a nation of bed wetters. Crimes against humanity.

    And there is only one penalty for that.

  71. 71.

    TenguPhule

    By whom?

    Americans. Back when we were a country of laws, not Republican bed wetters who need to be lined up against a wall and shot.

  72. 72.

    TenguPhule

    I see little that can be done to Yoo, Addington and Haynes so long as this vile, law-breaking Administration remains in power.

    Thanks to the power of the tubes, any Iraqi with enough cash can find where they live if they look hard enough.

    And after 5 years of war, they’ll have plenty of experience.

  73. 73.

    ImJohnGalt

    Future language archivists will declare this to be the most tortured sentence in the history of Written communication.

    I think you’re crazy. We don’t torture.

  74. 74.

    Bedlam

    As a brit, I saw the outrage our politicians had to deal with from the public when news hit that one of your planes carrying gitmo prisoners refueled in our airports.
    They made loud public apologies and stopped any further landings by your illegal ‘prison ships’

    I cant imagine the horror we would pour out if our Government attempted such disgusting practices as your detention and torture and murder of victims of circumstance.
    I can only call them victims, as if they were definately guilty surely no-one would be avoiding taking them to court.

    America used to be the leader of the modern world. Now its being compared to Nazi Germany and Stazi East Germany.
    A tragedy.

  75. 75.

    binzinerator

    not Republican bed wetters who need to be lined up against a wall and shot.

    I’d prefer to see them stand trial at the Hague. And if found guilty — and I personally have no doubt that like the Nazis, it would be a question of when not if — to see these murderous lying shitbags hanged.

    That’s the only way we’ll regain our self-respect and our position as a leader of the modern world. By showing in the most transparent and evident way a commitment to the rule of law, and a reaffirmation of our national will to see it followed.

  76. 76.

    binzinerator

    By the way, I don’t think any of the Bush criminals will ever stand trial, and certainly not for war crimes.

    They won’t because this nation has a gravely weakend commitment to the law, and has even less will to see real justice carried out.

    America used to be the leader of the modern world. Now its being compared to Nazi Germany and Stazi East Germany.
    A tragedy.

    And so we will remain as a ‘used to be leader’ nation. Enough of the population have certainly proved and continue to prove this nation is unfit for any kind of leadership of the world, unless we want that world to be a pre-human rights pre-Enlightenment pre-Magna Carta sort of world.

    It’s amazing how the Bushies have managed to take the last 800 years of western history and strip out all the significant milestones of civilization while keeping the hi-tech toys and weaponry and then condense it all into a period of less than a decade.

    And there you have it. The Bush Legacy.

Comments are closed.