# Harriet Miers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 3, 2005, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556 "2005-10-03T12:14:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/181 "2005-10-06T13:22:32Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > You mean things like torture? That explains why we haven’t ever tortured prison … woopsies! Perhaps you could explain for me how that comment is relevant to the discussion - I’m not seeing it. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/182 "2005-10-06T14:18:29Z")
> [@Spavined Gelding](#): > > An independent judiciary is a _problem_? Apparently many conservatives find it so. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/183 "2005-10-06T14:20:31Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > Perhaps you could explain for me how that comment is relevant to the discussion - I’m not seeing it. The Bush Admin. has committed a clear and egregious violation of the cruel and unusual punishment clause a lot lately. I find it difficult to believe it would be stretched to cover the death penalty if “cruel and unusual punishment” can’t even manage to cover torture. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/184 "2005-10-06T14:25:11Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > The Bush Admin. has committed a clear and egregious violation of the cruel and unusual punishment clause a lot lately. I find it difficult to believe it would be stretched to cover the death penalty if “cruel and unusual punishment” can’t even manage to cover torture. Ah - OK. Well, some are being punished for it. Though not likely, I would (naively) hope and expect that the punishment for breaking the law would extend up through the ranks as necessary. Also, I’d note that it is law that has been broken there - the U.S. Constitution’s protections do not extend to the the prisoners at Abu Ghraib. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/185 "2005-10-06T14:46:49Z")
Something posted by [Kevin Drum](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_10/007271.php) last night that nicely captures why there isn’t anything all that particularly special about what is required to be a solid Supreme Court justice: > [@](#): > > Oddly enough, I agree with the conservative White House lawyer who said this: > > > [@](#): > > > > Judging takes work, but the folks who think “constitutional reasoning” is a talent requiring divination, intense effort and years of monastic study are the same folks who will inevitably give you “Lemon tests,” balancing formulas, “penumbras” and concurrences that make your head spin. The President sees through that mumbo jumbo and recognizes that good Justices are the ones who focus on the Constitution’s text, structure and history and who call balls and strikes. > > I actually think the length of modern Supreme Court decisions is ridiculous, and the “brilliant thinkers” who produce the cleverest arguments aren’t necessarily the best judges. The Supreme Court’s job is to provide guidance to lower courts, not to produce absurdly subtle arguments that mere mortals can neither understand nor apply coherently. > > In other words, the fact that Harriet Miers isn’t the most brilliant legal mind in the country isn’t necessarily a strike against her. On the other hand, it would be nice if she had at least a teensy bit of background in interpreting constitutional law, wouldn’t it? Surely we can all agree that President Bush has taken his signature anti-intellectualism to indefensible levels here? Now I _don’t_ agree with the last two sentences, since it seems to me that (a) any long-practicing litigator is going to have plenty of practical experience in interpreting constitutional law, and (b) whether Miers is “anti-intellectual” (which would certainly be a bad thing) is still up in the air. But Con Law ain’t rocket science, folks. ---
**Author:** ![Ponder\_Stibbons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponder_stibbons/32/343_2.png) [@Ponder\_Stibbons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponder_Stibbons)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/186 "2005-10-06T14:55:51Z")
The local alternative weekly, the Dallas Observer, has [this](http://www.dallasobserver.com/Issues/2005-09-29/news/schutze.html) to say about Harriet Miers. It paints her as someone with rather conservative religious beliefs and a great deal of respect for civil rights. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/187 "2005-10-06T14:57:20Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > Ah - OK. Well, some are being punished for it. Though not likely, I would (naively) hope and expect that the punishment for breaking the law would extend up through the ranks as necessary. Also, I’d note that it is law that has been broken there - the U.S. Constitution’s protections do not extend to the the prisoners at Abu Ghraib. So, it’s OK for us to torture them brown skinned furriners, is it? I suspected a lot of people thought that. To me the Constitution is binding on U.S. citizens … we aren’t supposed to go around torturing people … no matter who those people might be. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/188 "2005-10-06T15:01:42Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > So, it’s OK for us to torture them brown skinned furriners, is it? Yeah, that’s what I said. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/189 "2005-10-06T15:14:02Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > Yeah, that’s what I said. :rolleyes: If you are going to post such things as: > [@](#): > > Also, I’d note that it is law that has been broken there - the U.S. Constitution’s protections do not extend to the the prisoners at Abu Ghraib. it might be well to include a disclaimer such as, “although such conduct is of course morally indefensible and should be forbidden by US law in some way.” Otherwise, simple folk like myself might think you are trying to excuse torture of non-citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/190 "2005-10-06T15:16:34Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Otherwise, simple folk like myself might think you are trying to excuse torture of non-citizens. I suppose I assumed that simple folk such as yourself might understand this: > [@This Year's Model](#): > > Well, some are being punished for it. Though not likely, I would (naively) hope and expect that the punishment for breaking the law would extend up through the ranks as necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/191 "2005-10-06T15:17:15Z")
Frankly, I do not see how the Dems can lose vis a vis the Supreme Court. If we get a moderate or even, Og willing, a left-leaning Court, we are spared the troglodyte decisions of folks like Scalia and Thomas. If we get a conservative court, it will likely overturn Roe v. Wade, giving the Dems so much political power that we will be able to undo legislatively whatever the trogs on the court attempt to do by judicial fiat. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/192 "2005-10-06T15:44:00Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > Ah - OK. Well, some are being punished for it. Though not likely, I would (naively) hope and expect that the punishment for breaking the law would extend up through the ranks as necessary. Also, I’d note that it is law that has been broken there - the U.S. Constitution’s protections do not extend to the the prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Maybe the provisions of the Constitution itself don’t apply. But Article VI says the treaties to which we are signatories “shall be the supreme Law of the Land,” and those treaties include the Geneva Conventions. Which just might have a few clauses that apply to our treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/193 "2005-10-06T15:45:59Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Maybe the provisions of the Constitution itself don’t apply. But Article VI says the treaties to which we are signatories “shall be the supreme Law of the Land,” and those treaties include the Geneva Conventions. Which just might have a few clauses that apply to our treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. Now that’s a good point. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/194 "2005-10-06T16:43:19Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Maybe the provisions of the Constitution itself don’t apply. But Article VI says the treaties to which we are signatories “shall be the supreme Law of the Land,” and those treaties include the Geneva Conventions. Which just might have a few clauses that apply to our treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. Into what category of the Geneva Convention do the detainees at Abu G fall? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/195 "2005-10-06T16:49:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Into what category of the Geneva Convention do the detainees at Abu G fall? I’m absolutely positive that torturing prisoners to death is against the conventions. We’ve got at least three instances of that so far. (They were in the ‘and elsewhere’ rather than at Abu Ghraib specifically.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/196 "2005-10-06T17:05:33Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I’m absolutely positive that torturing prisoners to death is against the conventions. We’ve got at least three instances of that so far. (They were in the ‘and elsewhere’ rather than at Abu Ghraib specifically.) Do the Geneva Conventions prohibit torturing a country’s own, internal prisoners to death? That is, suppose we were discussing Joe Pedophile, a US citizen and resident of Virginia, arrested in Virginia for the rape of an eight-year-old. The court sentences him, in our hypothetical, to death by torture. Does the Geneva Convention prohibit that? In other words, I don’t doubt that the Geneva Convention prohibits torturing to death those people to whom it applies. My question to you is: to whom does the Geneva Convention apply? ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/197 "2005-10-06T17:10:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Into what category of the Geneva Convention do the detainees at Abu G fall? > [@](#): > > Part II. General Protection of Prisoners of War > > Art. 12. Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them. > > Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody. > > Nevertheless, if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with. > > Art. 13. Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest. > > Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. > > Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited. Note that just calling them detainees does not automatically make them “non-prisoners”, except in a very Orwellian sense. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/198 "2005-10-06T17:15:18Z")
That’s the third convention which I just referenced, btw. > [@Bricker](#): > > Do the Geneva Conventions prohibit torturing a country’s own, internal prisoners to death? It does for internal conflicts. For the example you’ve just mentioned, I don’t think that the Geneva convention applies. But we’ve not declared war on paedophelia, at least not yet. IMO, if you’ve captured someone for something you’ve declared a war on, they are a prisoner of war. If they’re captured in the field by soldiers, even moreso. If they are arrested by a recognized police organization, then they should be given standard US constitutional protections while they are in our custody. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/199 "2005-10-06T17:24:43Z")
> [@ShibbOleth](#): > > Note that just calling them detainees does not automatically make them “non-prisoners”, except in a very Orwellian sense. OK. So if they are prisoners of war, then their treatment is violative of the Geneva Convention. The term “prisoners of war” is defined in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention. So far as I can determine, “insurgents” – people who simply pick up a gun or a bomb and attack American forces – do not fit into any of the definitions of “prisoner of war”. Into which specific Article 4 category do you claim they fit? ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/200 "2005-10-06T17:29:59Z")
> [@](#): > > So far as I can determine, “insurgents” – people who simply pick up a gun or a bomb and attack American forces – do not fit into any of the definitions of “prisoner of war”. This is evidently a matter of some contention, hence appeals to the conventions should not be so lightly brushed aside. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556.md?page=11)