Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 05/24/2004 View Sun 05/23/2004 View Sat 05/22/2004 View Fri 05/21/2004 View Thu 05/20/2004 View Wed 05/19/2004 View Tue 05/18/2004
1
2004-05-24 Home Front: Culture Wars
Professor Denounced for POW Memo for Bush
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-05-24 3:20:50 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 "We came to law school in order to uphold the rule of law, not to learn ways to wiggle our way out of compliance with it."

This woman has completely missed the point of law school.

A googling on Abby Reyes is most instructive. Previous anti-war activities. Letter to Al Gore re: her dead boyfriend, Terence Freitas.

It's high time that someone tried to clarify the legal status of captured Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Reyes et al would like to make them equivalent to captured Nazis, if not captured burglars. Someone alse needs to explain that "not covered by the GC" does not necessarily mean they are fair game for torture.
Posted by Angie Schultz 2004-05-24 12:39:23 AM|| [http://darkblogules.blogspot.com]  2004-05-24 12:39:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 These spoiled Mumia-cong brats have no problem with another and much more illustrious legal colleague, Ramsey Clark, profitably abetting Saddam Hussein's atrocities for years in his capacity as Saddam's official legal representative in the United States.
Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-05-24 1:38:42 AM||   2004-05-24 1:38:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 "We came to law school in order to uphold the rule of law, not to learn ways to wiggle our way out of compliance with it."
It's funny, I didn't read a thing in the article that pointed out how Prof. Yoo was wrong in his legal analysis. It's all emotion. I thought law school was intended to teach legal reasoning and argument.
I'm not surprised they didn't point out Prof. Yoo's errors, because he didn't make any. The Geneva Conventions apply only to those States, which have signed the treaties and have agreed to abide by their provisions. The terrorists do none of this. Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg show how they treat prisoners, not to mention the fact that both of these guys were non-combatants.

You should only benefit from the rules of civilization, when you abide by those rules. There is no obligantion, explicitly stated in the Geneva Conventions, to treat terrorists as decent human beings. Not there and this is no attack on human rights. It's upholding human rights.
If one-side doesn't play by the rules, it has an advantage. There's no reason to tie our hands, unless you want America to lose. Now, that's the crux.
Posted by Jabba the Nutt  2004-05-24 2:14:15 AM||   2004-05-24 2:14:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 
About one-quarter of the 270 graduates of Berkeley’s Boalt School of Law donned red armbands over their black robes in a silent protest

So, about three-fourth's didn't participate in the protest.
.
Posted by Anonymous4978 2004-05-24 2:51:36 AM||   2004-05-24 2:51:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Great. More lawyer larvae. Just what we needed.
Posted by mojo  2004-05-24 10:54:20 AM||   2004-05-24 10:54:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 "We came to law school in order to uphold the rule of law, not to learn ways to wiggle our way out of compliance with it."

So much for your career in Democratic politics...
Posted by Raj  2004-05-24 12:53:38 PM|| [http://angrycyclist.blogspot.com]  2004-05-24 12:53:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Looks like the Public Defenders office for you, Abby... and it ain't like the movies...
Posted by tu3031 2004-05-24 1:19:43 PM||   2004-05-24 1:19:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 I agree with the absence of POW status for the Guantanimo hardboys, at least for the first year or so when we still might get some information out of them, but now, I think things might be better to grant them POW status since any info they have is old, and the identities of most is known already because we've released so many prisoners already.

When Al Queda and the Taliban surrender (or we find some other route to peace) we can discuss a prisoner transfer.

I think such a move now would eliminate much of the human rights abuse claims against the US regarding such prisoners. Am I wrong?
Posted by ruprecht 2004-05-24 3:25:37 PM|| [politicaljunky.blogspot.com]  2004-05-24 3:25:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 It is stuff like this that makes it so hard to admit being an attorney in California.
Posted by Sgt.DT  2004-05-24 4:20:08 PM||   2004-05-24 4:20:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 When Al Queda and the Taliban surrender (or we find some other route to peace) we can discuss a prisoner transfer.

Who do we negotiate with and why? Do we release killers so the world feels better about us? I don't think so
Posted by Frank G  2004-05-24 4:28:10 PM||   2004-05-24 4:28:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 When Al Queda and the Taliban surrender (or we find some other route to peace) we can discuss a prisoner transfer.

Nope. Absolutely not.

Any al'Qaeda we capture should be grilled for intelligence info, then executed. They've placed themselves outside the law; let them pay the price for it.
Posted by Robert Crawford  2004-05-24 4:35:51 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com]  2004-05-24 4:35:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 "Who do we negotiate with and why?" If Al Queda or the Taliban choose to negotiate they determine who the negotiator will be. We then determine how much we trust that negotiators ability to do what he says. Saying we negotiate is a far cry from saying we'll bend over and release everyone. I'd turn over a hundred Al Queda lackeys for Bin Laden (or his head).
"Any Al'Qaeda we capture should be grilled for intelligence info, then executed." What are we waiting for then. We've gotten all of the intelligence out of these guys months or years ago. Now they are in legal limbo. I'd be happy to execute them. I'd be happy to change their legal status to POW and otherwise let them rot. As I said above, I'd be happy to free a few POWs if the exchange resulted in Bin Laden (or some other Al Queda leaders) capture.
Posted by ruprecht 2004-05-24 5:01:49 PM|| [politicaljunky.blogspot.com]  2004-05-24 5:01:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 ruprecht asks:
I think such a move now would eliminate much of the human rights abuse claims against the US regarding such prisoners. Am I wrong?
In a word, yes. The clowns who claim "human rights abuse" against us will continue to claim that, or something else, until America is defeated and destroyed. Nothing less will satisfy them.

Anyway, the Gitmo inhabitants aren't human. If you think they are, I invite you to take some home with you for the weekend.
Posted by Barbara Skolaut  2004-05-24 5:19:46 PM||   2004-05-24 5:19:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 I guess my question was not clear. I never said these were nice guys, I never said they were human, and never said to release them outright.

Short of executing them I don't see an advantage to using the Unlawful Combatant classification any longer. We're facing some serious legal problems as the thugs go to trial that could be settled with a change of classification.

Classifying them as POWs eliminates any claims to a civilian jury trial, something that will be screamed about endlessly otherwise. It also allows us to hold onto the prisoners until there is a formal peace treaty (something I don't think will ever happen).

What advantage is there in keeping these guys categorized as non-combatants after a two years of incarceration? Do you really think they have any intel at this point? Do you honestly think the Bush Administration would execute them? If your answer is no then whats the advantage? This is war and we shouldn't just let advantages slip by because of emotions.
Posted by ruprecht 2004-05-24 6:16:48 PM|| [politicaljunky.blogspot.com]  2004-05-24 6:16:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 I'm not sure there's any intel value, but these prisoners would cut your throat given half a chance - I don't think there's any rehabilitation possible with these animals. No release except at 25,000 feet...
Posted by Frank G  2004-05-24 7:24:13 PM||   2004-05-24 7:24:13 PM|| Front Page Top

11:22 Mr. Davis
10:06 yorgos
09:40 CrazyFool
02:16 .com
01:45 Mark Espinola
01:38 ex-lib
01:30 Anonymous4617
01:21 FED UP
01:12 Anonymous4989
01:12 Bomb-a-rama
00:58 ex-lib
00:48 ex-lib
00:20 Atomic Conspiracy
23:53 Phil B
23:42 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
23:40 Phil B
23:40 Laurence of the Rats
23:37 Matt
23:28 Scott
23:26 Anonymous2U
23:18 Anonymous2U
23:13 Alaska Paul
23:11 RWV
23:04 Mark Espinola









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com