Nope, 1 Wrong Writer ...
5 wrong justices
Even the title of his piece hit me wrong from the get go. "This bozo thinks he's smarter than these five Supreme Court Justices?"
[goes off to read article to see what else he can find that's stupid/bogus/wrong/idiotic/moronic/etc]
Well he's not entirely stupid. Or perhaps he is given his creditentials (you'd think someone who was on the inside wouldn't say something that blatantly stupid). He's a law professor at Berkeley. Perhaps we should substitute him for part of the joke "LSD and Unix were both invented at Berkely. We don't believe this is a coincidence." Although he did serve in the Justice Department under the UberSturmFuhrer, so I guess I can understand that he has a radical (ie: stupid) point of view.
Given what I've seen of SC decisions (since I've begun paying attention to them in the last few years) they're incredibly focused. And the court decides what cases it wants to hear of those presented to it by petitioners. Which means there at least has to be some point of law under debate, some potential doubt that not all the "i"s are dotted and "t"s crossed, even if the topic does have political ramifications.
And if you *look* at the data on what's been laughingly called "trials" at Gitmo you would see that even the tribunals aren't following their own rules as established by Washington, Jackson, Lincoln and FDR. After the debate over the trial of General Tomoyuki Yamashita following WWII on war crimes charges, a change was made in the UCMJ for trying prisoners charged with war crimes. So it's covered in the rules now. Those self same rules he says they are following which the data indicates they are not.
And let's go look at the definition of a "military tribunal" to see what we can find out about it's history and it's rules.
Hell even I know it's pretty bogus if the accused a) doesn't get to attend the trial and b) doesn't get to see the evidence of his alleged guilt. That kind of sounds like something the SS or the KGB might do. The ultimate question, which Professor Yoo seems to be ignoring, is what's to stop them from charging me (or you) with "terrorists acts" (and is being "unpatriotic" during the War on Terror a "terrorist act"?), convicting you in-abstentia and locking you in solitary for the rest of your life? No appeal, no parole and no chance to speak to an attorney.
Is that the way you want to be recorded in History, Mister War President? Mister Attorney "Torture" General?
Okay I went and read the stuff on military trubinals and it's freakin' scary. One of the cited references to the it was
Executive Power, Gonzales Style
and the idea that the President could order the arrest and indefinate detention of any US citizen without recourse to trial or access to an attorney. That foreign nationals aren't protected by US laws or the Laws of War. And that any US official who engages in acts (such as torture, illegal wiretapping, ordering up personal phone records, etc.) is immune to prosecution related to those acts if ordered by the President (under his authority as "commander in chief").
So not only can they do this, but you can't sue them later if you're vindicated and released. Hell from that piece it even says that guilt doesn't even need to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". Which means that you can't see a lawyer, you can't be present at your trial, you don't get to see the evidence against you and you can't appeal to anyone outside the original chain of authority. If this isn't the very definition of WELL AND TRULY FUCKED I don't know what is.
Even the title of his piece hit me wrong from the get go. "This bozo thinks he's smarter than these five Supreme Court Justices?"
[goes off to read article to see what else he can find that's stupid/bogus/wrong/idiotic/moronic/etc]
Well he's not entirely stupid. Or perhaps he is given his creditentials (you'd think someone who was on the inside wouldn't say something that blatantly stupid). He's a law professor at Berkeley. Perhaps we should substitute him for part of the joke "LSD and Unix were both invented at Berkely. We don't believe this is a coincidence." Although he did serve in the Justice Department under the UberSturmFuhrer, so I guess I can understand that he has a radical (ie: stupid) point of view.
Given what I've seen of SC decisions (since I've begun paying attention to them in the last few years) they're incredibly focused. And the court decides what cases it wants to hear of those presented to it by petitioners. Which means there at least has to be some point of law under debate, some potential doubt that not all the "i"s are dotted and "t"s crossed, even if the topic does have political ramifications.
And if you *look* at the data on what's been laughingly called "trials" at Gitmo you would see that even the tribunals aren't following their own rules as established by Washington, Jackson, Lincoln and FDR. After the debate over the trial of General Tomoyuki Yamashita following WWII on war crimes charges, a change was made in the UCMJ for trying prisoners charged with war crimes. So it's covered in the rules now. Those self same rules he says they are following which the data indicates they are not.
And let's go look at the definition of a "military tribunal" to see what we can find out about it's history and it's rules.
Hell even I know it's pretty bogus if the accused a) doesn't get to attend the trial and b) doesn't get to see the evidence of his alleged guilt. That kind of sounds like something the SS or the KGB might do. The ultimate question, which Professor Yoo seems to be ignoring, is what's to stop them from charging me (or you) with "terrorists acts" (and is being "unpatriotic" during the War on Terror a "terrorist act"?), convicting you in-abstentia and locking you in solitary for the rest of your life? No appeal, no parole and no chance to speak to an attorney.
Is that the way you want to be recorded in History, Mister War President? Mister Attorney "Torture" General?
Okay I went and read the stuff on military trubinals and it's freakin' scary. One of the cited references to the it was
Executive Power, Gonzales Style
and the idea that the President could order the arrest and indefinate detention of any US citizen without recourse to trial or access to an attorney. That foreign nationals aren't protected by US laws or the Laws of War. And that any US official who engages in acts (such as torture, illegal wiretapping, ordering up personal phone records, etc.) is immune to prosecution related to those acts if ordered by the President (under his authority as "commander in chief").
So not only can they do this, but you can't sue them later if you're vindicated and released. Hell from that piece it even says that guilt doesn't even need to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". Which means that you can't see a lawyer, you can't be present at your trial, you don't get to see the evidence against you and you can't appeal to anyone outside the original chain of authority. If this isn't the very definition of WELL AND TRULY FUCKED I don't know what is.
posted by banzai at 10:30
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home