One note Charlie
May. 4th, 2009 10:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumWhat They Said
I'm sorry to be throwing so much about torture at you all. I assume those who keep reading are in agreement with me. Think of it as reference material for when someone says something stupid like "torture works," or begins to blather about ticking bombs, buried babies, etc. I do this so you don't have to. :)
Mind you, vast numbers of those who say such things are beyond reason. I made the effort of commenting to a horrid column in some New Jersey paper. By itself that was no big deal, were I able to just pull a fire, and forget.
But I will go back to see what the first pass of fools have to say. Oi...
It was worth it, not for the first pass (there were a number of people calling the authors on the crap they were pulling: Me, I took them to task for the cards they were palming), but for the new "insult" I was delivered.
I, you see, well I can't do it justice, a quotation is all that I can do: pecunium,
You were NEVER an Army Interrogator. You are a lefty lawyer. Another liberal liar outed.
A lefty-lawyer. That's sort of flattering.
A liberal... ouch, that stings. I mean, all I did was tout the rule of law, and the constition. I was saying things Reagan said. So, liberal. I guess I can bear it.
Liar... Typical. I disagreed with torture, ergo I can't have been in the Army, and certainly not an interrogator. It's not the first time I've gotten this; won't be the last.
Sadly, the reply is in moderation (I used links to support my response; I think they are worried about spam). I suspect it will be released, in the morning; unless they have 24 hour a day moderation. Seems to be my day to fail at being seen.
I'm sorry to be throwing so much about torture at you all. I assume those who keep reading are in agreement with me. Think of it as reference material for when someone says something stupid like "torture works," or begins to blather about ticking bombs, buried babies, etc. I do this so you don't have to. :)
Mind you, vast numbers of those who say such things are beyond reason. I made the effort of commenting to a horrid column in some New Jersey paper. By itself that was no big deal, were I able to just pull a fire, and forget.
But I will go back to see what the first pass of fools have to say. Oi...
It was worth it, not for the first pass (there were a number of people calling the authors on the crap they were pulling: Me, I took them to task for the cards they were palming), but for the new "insult" I was delivered.
I, you see, well I can't do it justice, a quotation is all that I can do: pecunium,
You were NEVER an Army Interrogator. You are a lefty lawyer. Another liberal liar outed.
A lefty-lawyer. That's sort of flattering.
A liberal... ouch, that stings. I mean, all I did was tout the rule of law, and the constition. I was saying things Reagan said. So, liberal. I guess I can bear it.
Liar... Typical. I disagreed with torture, ergo I can't have been in the Army, and certainly not an interrogator. It's not the first time I've gotten this; won't be the last.
Sadly, the reply is in moderation (I used links to support my response; I think they are worried about spam). I suspect it will be released, in the morning; unless they have 24 hour a day moderation. Seems to be my day to fail at being seen.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-05 08:28 am (UTC)To encourage clients to seek legal counsel in myriad settings, the rules shield attorney-client communications regarding future acts, unless those acts clearly are intended to violate the law.
But to get away with this claim, these lawyers should have to be ignorant of so many laws, their only defence is incompetence. And incompetence of such a degree that it beggars belief that one of these lawyers is now an appeal-court judge.
The two guest columnists: they might not be part of a conspiracy, but they don't sound like competent lawyers.
It's not just statute law and ratified treaties: if torture isn't the compelling of self-incrimination, the the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution is worthless. And there was no need to dance the jurisdictional dance about Gitmo.
This isn't obscure, is it?
no subject
Date: 2009-05-05 08:38 am (UTC)Most people think of the Fifth as something guilty peope do in courtrooms. They don't think it out (and the present argument as been much around the Eighth, Cruel, and Unusual. I've seen people try to say, "Lots of places used torture back then, so it wasn't unsusual and we can do it now, if we want". Scalia types of, "original intent" when it helps me sorts).
And yes, they are trying to have their cake and eat it too, with privilege applying when the counsel is become part of a criminal conspiracy.
I don't think the writers are incompetent, I think they are letting party get before law; which is part of how we got here (that and people like Jonathan Alter, and David Brooks saying we needed to be as hard as possible; torture some people, make some death squads, commit some atrocities; so we could win this thing and prove what civilised sorts we are).