Or military tribunals, as they've existed for hundreds of years.
Again, this distinction makes no sense. You're saying that it's okay when a lawyer volunteers his time to defend a terrorist because its serving some broader legal principle, and as a result, that's somehow different than the white supremacist case. In reality, when a lawyer volunteers his time to defend any indigent defendant, he's doing so in service of a broader legal principle. In most contested criminal cases, there are serious issues of criminal procedure and constitutional liberty at stake. If the suits were civil suits regarding free speech, the same concerns would apply. Generally speaking, lawyers don't take cases pro bono unless there is a broader legal principle at stake. You can't just say "oh, well the principles at issue in the terrorist's cases are somehow more important," because they're absolutely not.
How are things like the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment as applied to US citizens less important than a disputed question over jurisdiction as applied to foreign terrorists?They aren’t less important and I don’t believe I have said or implied they were.
RightinNYC;1058621174You're confusing two different things. The uproar re: trying these terrorists in civilian courts involves formal criminal prosecutions. That's not where most of this representation has taken place. Most of the representation in question is in cases filed in the civilian courts by the attorneys on behalf of the clients. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld_v._Padilla said:Rumsfeld v. Padilla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rasul v. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Al Odah v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Boumediene v. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
etc.
Thank you, I understand the distinction in these cases vs. the current uproar. Thank you.
If you’re suggesting that Bush’s military tribunals are identical to those which came before:
The distinction that the Bush administration draws between citizens and aliens deviates from the U.S. military commission of the past, which applied the same rules to citizens and aliens alike. As Justice Antonin Scalia has said, the genius of the equality guarantee is that it forces Congress to legislate evenhandedly. When Congress can pass a law that only applies to the powerless, literally the people without a vote, those laws are bound to have problems.A real Guantanamo trial begins. - By Neal Katyal - Slate Magazine
No, I haven’t said at any point there was a difference in legal principles between the terrorists’ lawyers and the hypothetical defenders of White Supremacists, since I’ve only addressed the terrorists’ lawyers in that respect. The quoted text above, doesn’t mention White Supremacists, so I’m not sure how you drew that conclusion.
As for a lawyer who would defend White Supremacists under the premise of preserving and important principle, bravo to them. I’m with John Adams on this.
I believe this is their true motivation due to the Bush administrations penchant for propagandizing the war on terror. (They are still touting the Los Angeles Library Tower as proof water-boarding is effective when it has been totally debunked.)
Given that, lawyers strongly believing in the rule of law would not want to see the Bush administration run these kangaroo courts, obtaining guilty verdicts, in order to justify how they prosecuted the WOT. Their involvement would assure that any guilty verdict was rendered according to law not because:
Which, even if true, has no practical difference in terms of the way the tribunals are conducted. There is no way you can argue that the tribunal system as used in cases like Ex Parte Quirin was more protective of liberties than the current system. If anything, the modern military tribunal system is more protective of rights than any that we've ever had.
(Also, you realize that the Obama administration is following the exact same policies, right?)
I drew that conclusion because my only point in starting this discussion was that had this been a situation where the lawyers had volunteered to represent white supremacists, people would have reacted differently. You said that the two situations were different, and I'm still not seeing why.
You're honestly telling me that if Alberto Gonzales had appointed lawyers who had done lots of pro bono work for white supremacists to work in the civil rights division of the DoJ, you wouldn't have a problem with that?
Even if you wouldn't, you don't think that most of the rest of the public would?
If "torture" is ineffective, why do we train our military to resist it? Seems like a big waste of resources to train against something that's ineffective.
How was the Bush administration's treatment of unlawful combatants inconsistent with the rule of law?
So they can be prepared for the experience should it befall them.
Please, go back and read my posts in this thread. Read the links I have cited. I'll start you with off: A real Guantanamo trial begins. - By Neal Katyal - Slate Magazine
Kaytal successfully argued that point.
The quoted text was written by Neal Kaytal: Neal Katyal, a law professor at Georgetown University, successfully argued the last Guantanamo case at the Supreme Court on behalf of Salim Hamdan.
I'm not going so far field from the thread topic as to argue about Ex Parte Quirin. Supreme Court rulings in the case of Hamdan and Hamdi seem to support Kaytal's contentions:
The Supreme Court announced its decision on 29 June 2006. The Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, holding that President George W. Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals and finding the special military commissions illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Conventions.[17][18]
Obama is following policies setup AFTER the Bush Administration was forced to come into compliance by the Supreme Court.
Indeed, that was the starting point, but as I hadn't directly addressed lawyers for White Supremacists with regard to principles, I guess you assumed a difference.
Gina said:This is completely different from representing White Supremacists.
Going back to the starting point:
Almost by definition, issues that split the Supreme Court can be argued either way. But these lawyers felt so strongly about these arguable principles that they sacrificed paying work and instead went to work without charge for people they loathed – just to turn their principles into law. Doesn’t this tell us something about the strength and content of their principles? And isn’t it fair for Liz Cheney to ask whether the rest of the country shares those principles?
The author questioned the lawyers' principles. I was arguing that they were fighting to "vindicate a principle, not to help a particular client". Cheney's attacks them as terrorist lovers.
I wouldn't if the substance of their arguments had a reasonable basis as in the case I discussed above, with which the Supreme Court agreed.
I'm sure some would have a problem with it. I can't say they would be universally accepted, but since many conservative lawyers such as Lindsey Graham agree that the lawyers being castigated by Lynn Cheney shouldn't be demonized as supporting the terrorists' cause, I feel this a non-issue and is just one more case of Lynn Cheney's unhinged attempts to defend her father. Anyone who speaks out or fights against Dick Cheney's policies at Gitmo, is a supporter of terrorism. She's very consistent in making that point.
I think that lawyers should be able to represent whoever they want without being labeled as terrorist-lovers. However, that doesn't mean they should be immune from criticism. Much like the majority of the country would be furious if Alberto Gonzales were to appoint lawyers who had done pro bono work for white supremacists to run the civil rights division, I think it's perfectly fair to be critical of Eric Holder for appointing lawyers who had done pro bono work for terrorists to run the detainee division.
If "torture" is ineffective, why do we train our military to resist it? Seems like a big waste of resources to train against something that's ineffective.
Wha?
It's ineffective because they resist it. And even if they don't. They can just lie.
Do you know what the training is, exactly?
This entire line of reasoning is patently dishonest. Torture is an effective interrogation tool. It's been used throughout history to extract actionable intel. It wasn't too long ago that people (who disgust me) were impugning John McCain's service for giving the VC information.
How long do you think you'd last, MM, if I was pulling your fingernails out with a plier? You'd probably give up the intel before I started torturing you, just from pure fear. And it's not like I can blame you either because torture works...
SERE School. I never went but I know what the deal is.
And I'm sure the CIA has its own training program as well.
.... and this insight is based upon what????
Sorry, but my understanding is the prevailing wisdom is that torture does not work.
Then, there is the whole issue of having the moral high ground, which we once enjoyed, but have no more.
Then, there is the whole issue of having the moral high ground, which we once enjoyed, but have no more.
This entire line of reasoning is patently dishonest. Torture is an effective interrogation tool. It's been used throughout history to extract actionable intel.
How long do you think you'd last, MM, if I was pulling your fingernails out with a plier? You'd probably give up the intel before I started torturing you, just from pure fear. And it's not like I can blame you either because torture works...
SERE School. I never went but I know what the deal is.
Exactly when did we have that high ground?
Was it when we were firebombing Dresden or dropping nukes on Japan?
When we were executing German sabateurs via half-organized military tribunals?
When we were bombing villages in Vietnam?
When we were funneling arms and money to insurgent groups to combat communism?
The idea that the US used to be some paragon of perfect moral virtue before Bush dragged us into the gutter is one of the most ridiculous yet pernicious myths of recent years. The world is a dangerous and deadly place, and American foreign policy has always reflected that.
So far, the debate has largely used anecdotes as evidence, but a new paper looks to neurobiology to end the debate. Writing in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Shane O'Mara, a behavioral neurophysiologist at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, claims that torture like waterboarding is specifically designed to interfere with the same part of the brain responsible for memory and decision making.
According to O'Mara, repeated high levels of stress can shrink the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex regions of the brain. Those regions control memory recall and higher level decision making. By attacking those regions of the brain, torture makes the victim more supple and less cagey, but also prevents the detainee from recalling accurate memories and picking the right information to tell interrogators.
Additionally, as those region undergo changes in reaction to torture, the brain becomes more likely to fix false memories. Thus, repeated waterboarding and questioning, like that applied to 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad, increases the likelihood of false information.
Koppl argues that torture is useless for intelligence gathering, because governments cannot get around a basic problem. "They cannot make a believable promise to stop torture once the victim tells the truth. Victims know this perfectly well and therefore say anything and everything except what the torturers want to know." Two problems prevent governments from making a "credible commitment" to stop torture once victims tell the truth. First, "they use torture because they don't know the truth already. But that means that they can't recognize the truth when the victim speaks it." Second, "even if they know they've got the truth, the victim is afraid they will keep torturing him anyway."
First, think about when the Geneva Conventions were enacted and then compare that to Quirin.
Second, you're missing the point. The entire argument is over your claim that the military tribunals are somehow so dastardly that a lawyer who opposes them pro bono is somehow acting more on principle than a lawyer who merely defends a white supremacist. That's demonstrably false, for the reasons I've already showed you.
Indeed, that was the starting point, but as I hadn't directly addressed lawyers for White Supremacists with regard to principles, I guess you assumed a difference.
Going back to the starting point:
Almost by definition, issues that split the Supreme Court can be argued either way. But these lawyers felt so strongly about these arguable principles that they sacrificed paying work and instead went to work without charge for people they loathed – just to turn their principles into law. Doesn’t this tell us something about the strength and content of their principles? And isn’t it fair for Liz Cheney to ask whether the rest of the country shares those principles?
The author questioned the lawyers' principles. I was arguing that they were fighting to "vindicate a principle, not to help a particular client". Cheney's attacks them as terrorist lovers.
No, I haven’t said at any point there was a difference in legal principles between the terrorists’ lawyers and the hypothetical defenders of White Supremacists, since I’ve only addressed the terrorists’ lawyers in that respect. The quoted text above, doesn’t mention White Supremacists, so I’m not sure how you drew that conclusion.
As for a lawyer who would defend White Supremacists under the premise of preserving and important principle, bravo to them. I’m with John Adams on this.
As far as the White Supremacists, I never said they weren't important, they just are not equivalent (at this time anyway) to prosecuting terrorists in the desire to meet a global political goal.
It's different because the grievances I cited, would help a Presidential administration obtain global political goals; the conviction of terrorists that will then,indirectly, justify the detention of those prisoners (which they had been harshly criticized for) and then additionally, the treatment of those prisoners. White Supremacists do not rise to that level, politically, not even close.
Cutting against this analysis is the argument that lawyers often defend even unpopular and unlikeable clients in order to preserve an important principle. In that well-worn narrative, lawyers bravely stand against the tide of popular opinion to vindicate a principle, not to help a particular client.
I believe this is their true motivation due to the Bush administrations penchant for propagandizing the war on terror. (They are still touting the Los Angeles Library Tower as proof water-boarding is effective when it has been totally debunked.) Given that, lawyers strongly believing in the rule of law would not want to see the Bush administration run these kangaroo courts, obtaining guilty verdicts, in order to justify how they prosecuted the WOT. Their involvement would assure that any guilty verdict was rendered according to law not because:
So, for example, the rules for Hamdan's trial admit hearsay evidence in ways that American courts (both civilian and military) do not. The New York Times reported over the weekend, moreover, that the detainees have not been given access even to the names of the people who will testify against them.A real Guantanamo trial begins. - By Neal Katyal - Slate Magazine
This is completely different from representing White Supremacists.
Which means what, exactly? He's still following procedures that these lawyers were fighting against.
Obama is following policies setup AFTER the Bush Administration was forced to come into compliance by the Supreme Court.
I assumed a difference because you said:
If you're now saying that the two situations are the same, then that's fine.
And lawyers who represent white supremacists are fighting to vindicate principles as well. That's the point.
So the question of whether or not you would consider these lawyers to be good people or not would hinge on whether they won the case? That's a bit absurd.
All of which is entirely irrelevant to the point.
I think that lawyers should be able to represent whoever they want without being labeled as terrorist-lovers. However, that doesn't mean they should be immune from criticism. Much like the majority of the country would be furious if Alberto Gonzales were to appoint lawyers who had done pro bono work for white supremacists to run the civil rights division, I think it's perfectly fair to be critical of Eric Holder for appointing lawyers who had done pro bono work for terrorists to run the detainee division. The fact that Liz Cheney's criticism was so far over the top that it spurred a backlash doesn't change any of that.
Prove it.
What if I didn't have any intel?
I'd make something up.
What is the deal?
Nobody said we were a paragon of virtue. But we were better than torture. We have ideals. That's what we're about. We're supposed to be special.
So we dropped napalm on little girls, but because we didn't make alleged terrorists stand for more than 12 hours or suffer the indignity of being interrogated by women, we're somehow special?
Nobody said we were a paragon of virtue. But we were better than torture. We have ideals. That's what we're about. We're supposed to be special.
A couple of interesting items on the ineffectiveness of torture. Things to ponder that you might not think of:
New Study Shows That Torturing People Makes Them Forget the Facts You Want Them to Confess | Popular Science
Torture Does Not Yield Useful Information
So the logic here is: We've already done bad things so why not just keep doing them?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?