# 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:** 11
**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, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/201 "2005-10-06T17:32:07Z")
> [@ShibbOleth](#): > > 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. It may well be your opinion, but that’s not what the Geneva Convention says. It defines prisoners of war in Article Four. And it doesn’t say “if you capture someone for something you’ve declared a war on, then you’ve got a prisoner of war.” If you capture a member of an opposing army in a war, then he’s a prisoner of war. The convention even applies to members of an organized resistance in an occupied country… PROVIDED that the resistance meets the following conditions: [list=a] [li]that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; [/li][li]that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; [/li][li]that of carrying arms openly; [/li][li]that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war[/li][/list] I would contend that the persons captured and under discussion right now don’t meet those conditions. The Geneva Convention is thus inapplicable. ---
**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, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/202 "2005-10-06T17:33:52Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > This is evidently a matter of some contention, hence appeals to the conventions should not be so lightly brushed aside. How is it “of some contention?” The burden is on you: you claim they are prisoners of war as defined by Article 4 of the Geneva Convention. So you tell me: into what precise category enuciated by Article 4 do they fall? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/203 "2005-10-06T17:44:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It may well be your opinion, but that’s not what the Geneva Convention says. It defines prisoners of war in Article Four. And it doesn’t say “if you capture someone for something you’ve declared a war on, then you’ve got a prisoner of war.” > > If you capture a member of an opposing army in a war, then he’s a prisoner of war. The convention even applies to members of an organized resistance in an occupied country… PROVIDED that the resistance meets the following conditions: > > [list=a] > [li]that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; [/li][li]that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; [/li][li]that of carrying arms openly; [/li][li]that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war[/li][/list] > > I would contend that the persons captured and under discussion right now don’t meet those conditions. The Geneva Convention is thus inapplicable. Does it have to be all four, or any one of the four? Because I have trouble understanding how a marine in a gully suit could possibly pass muster on #2. ---
**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, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/204 "2005-10-06T17:46:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? The fourth convention relates to the protection of civilians, unless I am missing something. It’s arguable as to whether they are part of an organized resistance or just common criminals, but I’d lean towards the former. In which case, as repugnant as we may find it to offer certain protections to the peope in our custody. To quote McCain: > [@](#): > > “The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don’t deserve our sympathy,” he said. “But this isn’t about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies.” In other words, even if we can find legal ways to do what is being done, we have a higher moral standard to uphold. ---
**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, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/205 "2005-10-06T17:51:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How is it “of some contention?” > > The burden is on you: you claim they are prisoners of war as defined by Article 4 of the Geneva Convention. So you tell me: into what precise category enuciated by Article 4 do they fall? Good grief, **Bricker**. The very fact that detainees have been kept indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay while their legal statis was reviewed is evidence enough that the area is gray. The burden most certainly isn’t on me to demonstrate to what precise category the prisoners belong. I am merely remarking that there is tension between your patent dismissal of the relevance of the Geneva Conventions and the facts as wel know them. ---
**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, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/206 "2005-10-06T18:06:50Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Does it have to be all four, or any one of the four? Because I have trouble understanding how a marine in a gully suit could possibly pass muster on #2. The resistance movement must have a sign. The individual soldier does not have to wear it. The idea is to differentiate between organized, “official” movements and individuals acting alone or in small, unofficial groups. > [@ShibbOleth](#): > > The fourth convention relates to the protection of civilians, unless I am missing something. It’s arguable as to whether they are part of an organized resistance or just common criminals, but I’d lean towards the former. In which case, as repugnant as we may find it to offer certain protections to the peope in our custody. The fourth category in Article 4 says: > [@](#): > > Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. We’re not talking about people in this category. > [@Shibboleth](#): > > In other words, even if we can find legal ways to do what is being done, we have a higher moral standard to uphold. Not the point I’m addressing. I was rebutting **RtFirefly** ’s comment: > [@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. I was pointing out that the Geneva Convention does NOT, in fact, apply to these detainees. I agree that we have should apply a moral standard here, and not torture prisoners to death even though they are NOT prisoners of war, but let em ask you: as long as you agree that my moral standard should control our behavior here, are you willing to have it control our behavior in all matters of public policy? Or is it YOUR moral standard that you’re suggesting should be the yardstick? Or McCain’s? Who is the moral authority from which you are suggesting we derive our rules of conduct? I’m certainly willing to take the job. Are you offering? > [@Maeglin](#): > > Good grief, **Bricker**. The very fact that detainees have been kept indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay while their legal statis was reviewed is evidence enough that the area is gray. The burden most certainly isn’t on me to demonstrate to what precise category the prisoners belong. I am merely remarking that there is tension between your patent dismissal of the relevance of the Geneva Conventions and the facts as wel know them. “Their legal status” is a much wider area than their status under the Geneva Convention. It’s relatively easier to determine if they fit the defintion of “prisoner of war” for Geneva Convention purposes. Determining what other legal instruments may apply is more of a chore, and is undoubtedly responsible for the long detention times you describe. ---
**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, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/207 "2005-10-06T18:24:33Z")
In a probably useless attempt to foreclose further hijack of this Harriet Miers thread, allow me to direct the interested reader to a couple of past threads discussing the legal status of various kinds of persons taken into custody by the United States in the various post-9/11 conflicts. > **[Why can't we declare war?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=169862)** > > Ever since the Korean “police action”, “war”, declared by congress, seems to be a no-no. I’ve always assumed that the Geneva Convention basically tries to outlaw calling war “war”, or that so many of our weapons and tactics would be “war crimes” in... > **[Supreme Court issues decisions on Guantanamo and terrorism suspects](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=263819)** > > A little while ago, the Supreme Court announced its decisions on the various legal challenges to the detention of terrorism suspects in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. The opinions are not yet online, but news reports seem to say that the Court has... ---
**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, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/208 "2005-10-06T19:36:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? From Protocol I: > [@](#): > > Art. 45. Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities > > 1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal. > > 2. If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse Party is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that Party for an offence arising out of the hostilities, he shall have the right to assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial tribunal and to have that question adjudicated. Whenever possible under the applicable procedure, this adjudication shall occur before the trial for the offence. The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be entitled to attend the proceedings in which that question is adjudicated, unless, exceptionally, the proceedings are held in camera in the interest of State security. In such a case the detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly. > > 3. Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol. In occupied territory, any such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that Convention. > [@](#): > > Art. 75. Fundamental guarantees > > 1. In so far as they are affected by a situation referred to in Article 1 of this Protocol, persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances and shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this Article without any adverse distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria. Each Party shall respect the person, honour, convictions and religious practices of all such persons. > > 2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents: (a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular: (i) murder; (ii) torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental; (iii) corporal punishment; and (iv) mutilation; > > (b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form or indecent assault; (c) the taking of hostages; (d) collective punishments; and (e) threats to commit any of the foregoing acts. Summing up: someone who takes part in hostilities and is captured is presumed to be a prisoner of war, and entitled to the protections specifically applying to that class, unless and until a competent tribunal rules to the contrary. But if that should happen, the fundamental guarantees of Article 75 still protect that person. In neither case is torture allowable. ---
**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, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/209 "2005-10-06T19:59:01Z")
Forgot my [link](http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/protocol1.html#44). Article 44 also has some useful details: > [@](#): > > Art. 44. Combatants and prisoners of war > > 1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war. > > 2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4. > > 3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly: > > (a) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate. > > Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 ©. > > 1. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed. IOW, combatants are supposed to identify themselves as such, by at a minimum carrying arms openly during and just before engaging in an assault. And if they fail to abide by this standard, they forfeit their POW status. But even then, once a prisoner, such illegal combatant (if you will) is due protections _equivalent to_ those accorded to POWs by the Third Geneva Convention and by Protocol I. That, too, would seem to exclude torture. ---
**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, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/210 "2005-10-06T20:05:42Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > In a probably useless attempt to foreclose further hijack of this Harriet Miers thread, allow me to direct the interested reader to a couple of past threads discussing the legal status of various kinds of persons taken into custody by the United States in the various post-9/11 conflicts. > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=169862](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=169862) > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=263819](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=263819) **minty** : FWIW, I checked those threads, but they were more concerned with _whether_ or not certain persons could be detained under the Conventions, rather than how they could be _treated_ while detained. Neither of them made reference to these Articles of Protocol I. Hopefully the answer to the question raised here is straightforward, and the hijack will be brief. If not, I’ll open a new thread, so that this one can get back to Miers. ---
**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, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/211 "2005-10-06T20:12:25Z")
I wish Harriett Miers would stop torturing those poor fellows at Abu Ghraib. I can still hear their voices haunting my mind: “Oh, the fake gay stuff and the police dogs were bad enough,” they said, “but those piano recitals … for the love of Allah, THOSE PIANO RECITALS!!!” ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/212 "2005-10-06T20:14:05Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I wish Harriett Miers would stop torturing those poor fellows at Abu Ghraib. I can still hear their voices haunting my mind: > > “Oh, the fake gay stuff and the police dogs were bad enough,” they said, “but those piano recitals … for the love of Allah, THOSE PIANO RECITALS!!!” They liked it much better when Condi played for them. She’s really good. ---
**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, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/213 "2005-10-06T20:27:14Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > “Oh, the fake gay stuff and the police dogs were bad enough,” they said, “but those piano recitals … for the love of Allah, THOSE PIANO RECITALS!!!” What _really_ drives them batty is when we stick flypaper strips on them. “Quit sticking that flypaper to me!” they scream in Arabic. “How can I possibly go over _there_ and blow the infidels up in their homeland if I’m stuck to this cursed flypaper?!” ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/214 "2005-10-06T20:37:34Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Something posted by 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, I cry foul. As a (relatively) long-practicing commercial litigator (8 years), I have plenty of practical experience in interpreting certain issues of constitutional law, but I have absolutely no practical experience with, say, the Bill of Rights, and I’ve only dealt professionally once with that (admittedly unimportant) section of the Constitution known as the “Commerce Clause.” Now admittedly I, like **Bricker** , would make a fantastic Associate Justice, but that is largely because I have chosen to continue study of the constitutional issues (and some other nonconstitutional areas of law outside my area of practice) own my own. But it is certainly not my _job_ that has kept me abreast of (most aspects of) the field. > [@](#): > > 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. True, and if Ms. Miers has kept up with the field, she can probable hack it. But I wouldn’t feel comfortable if she had to pull out and re-read _International Shoe_ or_Miranda_ after being nominated to figure out what the heck they were about. Sua ---
**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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/215 "2005-10-06T21:43:22Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > In a probably useless attempt to foreclose further hijack of this Harriet Miers thread, allow me to direct the interested reader to a couple of past threads discussing the legal status of various kinds of persons taken into custody by the United States in the various post-9/11 conflicts. I was thinking on this one a bit. At first I was a little irritated at **Bricker** ’s nitpicking on whether or not something is in the Geneva Convention, or Constitution, or wherever. But the more I thought about it, I came to the conclusion: this is more or less what Supreme Court Justices do. They review the law, as it stands, and hold up the reality, and figure out, do the two match. Maybe there are current laws preventing abuses, and maybe there are loopholes which allow the current administration to act like Philistines and all the time be technically correct. The job of the courts is to determine whether or not some issue of law is technically correct, not to be the moral arbiter of our society. In a democratic society it is up to the legislators to write just and effective laws, and for society to elect legislators who will do so, and an executive that will uphold them and appoint judges who will fairly adjudicate. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/216 "2005-10-06T22:03:21Z")
And yet the Geneva Conventions, being ratified treaties, are the law of the land - even more supreme than the Constitution. There is nothing to decide about their applicability. ---
**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, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/217 "2005-10-06T22:19:37Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And yet the Geneva Conventions, being ratified treaties, are the law of the land - even more supreme than the Constitution. There is nothing to decide about their applicability. Yes, the Geneva Convention is BINDING on us. The question is whether, using the Geneva Convention, the detainees are “prisoners of war” under the Covention’s own definitions. Answer: no. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/218 "2005-10-06T23:24:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > . I agree that we have should apply a moral standard here, and not torture prisoners to death even though they are NOT prisoners of war, but let em ask you: as long as you agree that my moral standard should control our behavior here, are you willing to have it control our behavior in all matters of public policy? Or is it YOUR moral standard that you’re suggesting should be the yardstick? Or McCain’s? Who is the moral authority from which you are suggesting we derive our rules of conduct? I’m certainly willing to take the job. Are you offering? What, pray tell, is the point of this rambling? It seems to me that torturing and killing inmates, even if those inmates are not “prisoners” under the Geneva convention, goes under the “bad” column. Why the idiotic speculation into the basis for the morality of not torturing or murdering prisoners? ---
**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, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/219 "2005-10-06T23:36:29Z")
> [@SuaSponte](#): > > I cry foul. As a (relatively) long-practicing commercial litigator (8 years), I have plenty of practical experience in interpreting certain issues of constitutional law, but I have absolutely no practical experience with, say, the Bill of Rights, and I’ve only dealt professionally once with that (admittedly unimportant) section of the Constitution known as the “Commerce Clause.” Fine, but so what? Would you, or any other reasonably skilled commercial litigator, be incapable of handling a First Amendment case? Sure, it might take you some extra case law reading to get up to speed, but are you constitutionally incapable of doing it? And let’s not fall into the fallacy that con law is the Supreme Court’s bread and butter. Sure, it’s where most of the sexy cases lie, but most of the time they’re putzing around with statutory issues, civil procedure, and similar boring crap. _Nobody_ is a master of all those subjects, and it ain’t a requirement for the job. What it takes is the intellectual capacity to study the issues and make a reasoned conclusion. Again, it ain’t rocket science. I don’t particularly care if Ms. Miers has to go read _International Shoe_ the first time a personal jurisdiction case arises, because she’s certainly going to have to go read ERISA and the Tax Code and lord knows what else _every_ time she has to decide a case. Goes with the territory, even if you’ve got the resume of John Roberts. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And yet the Geneva Conventions, being ratified treaties, are the law of the land - even more supreme than the Constitution. You can trump state and federal statutory law by treaty, and the treaty power may be exercised in areas where Congress otherwise could not act, but you damn sure can’t override the Constitution by treaty. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/220 "2005-10-07T00:06:44Z")
Am I the only person who finds it a sad state of affairs when we have Americans honestly looking for loopholes to allow us to torture people, instead of simply drawing a (figurative) line in the sand and saying “Hell no, this is _not_ what our country is about”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556.md?page=12)