Page 16 of 20 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 191

Thread: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

  1. #151
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,514

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    This is a wonderful example of how politics works, and how political partisanship dominates the field...and honest debate is *nearly* irrelevant.

    The honest message may be leigitimate:
    Is there a conflict of interest in having people who participated in X work on project Y? Almost always this is a good question to evaluate, and just as relevant to law/lawyers as any other field/profession.

    The political rhetoric they used to make this point is an altogether different beast though:

    1. Long arm of Cheney/Republicans to use a big stick on anyone that doesnt' do what they want...*anyone*. It's effective, but is it net effective? I don't know....probably.

    2. Provacative AQ7 language gets headlines, and sufficient attention to possibly get what they want.

    3. Continues to paint the Obama admin/Dems as incompetent with anti-terrorism/national security issues.

    The only reason they are seeing some backlash is because so many in washington ARE lawyers, and because those they are attacking of *some* connections. Otherwise repubs would be behind it like any other partisan attack.

  2. #152
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,947

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Or military tribunals, as they've existed for hundreds of years.
    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



    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    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.
    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.


    [quote=RightinNYC;1058621174]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?[QUOTE]

    They aren’t less important and I don’t believe I have said or implied they were.




    Quote Originally Posted by 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
    Thank you, I understand the distinction in these cases vs. the current uproar. Thank you.
    Last edited by Gina; 03-16-10 at 12:02 AM.

  3. #153
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    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
    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?)

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #154
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    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.)
    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.

    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:
    How was the Bush administration's treatment of unlawful combatants inconsistent with the rule of law?

  5. #155
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,947

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    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?)
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    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.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    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?
    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.

  6. #156
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,947

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    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.
    So they can be prepared for the experience should it befall them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    How was the Bush administration's treatment of unlawful combatants inconsistent with the rule of law?
    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.

  7. #157
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    So they can be prepared for the experience should it befall them.
    Why do they need to be prepared for something that's ineffective? That makes no sense.

    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.
    I see nothing in your posts or your link that proves your position. Please cite the specific laws which you feel apply.

  8. #158
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    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]
    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.

    Obama is following policies setup AFTER the Bush Administration was forced to come into compliance by the Supreme Court.
    Which means what, exactly? He's still following procedures that these lawyers were fighting against.

    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.
    I assumed a difference because you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina
    This is completely different from representing White Supremacists.
    If you're now saying that the two situations are the same, then that's fine.

    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.
    And lawyers who represent white supremacists are fighting to vindicate principles as well. That's the point.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #159
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    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.
    A lawyer should never be judged by the clients they take. Legal representation is a right in the country, and thus somebody always has to step forward and defend them in court. I have no problem is someone who defended supremacists working on civil rights legislation.

    However, this does not excuse lawyers who let personal bias interfere with their work. The point is that you need more evidence of misconduct than merely having represented someone.

  10. #160
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    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?

Page 16 of 20 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •