# 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:** 15
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/281 "2005-10-08T14:07:09Z")
**minty** , I appreciate your last post: this is one of those threads that I read but don’t post to, because I have a hard time figuring out exactly how both sides can have such convincing yet contradictory arguments. The fact that we haven’t ratified that part of the Convention is exactly the missing puzzle piece I was searching for. A few related questions: 1. The treaty against torture to which you linked has a [list of ratifications](http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm). The US made a comment during these, which I’m having trouble parsing. Can you explain it, or should I just go have another cup of coffee and hope that it’s comprehensible later in the morning? > [@US](#): > > United States of America > “The United States declares, pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. It is the understanding of the United States that, pursuant to the above-mentioned article, such communications shall be accepted and processed only if they come from a State Party which has made a similar declaration.” 1. There was a UN Declaration on Human Rights made awhile ago, right? Does this declaration have any force of law? 2. Given our ratification of the treaty against torture, is this treaty being used to protest the treatment of prisoners? If not, why not; and if so, how? 3. What jurisdiction does the eighth amendment hold in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo? Finally, [Today’s New York Times has an editorial on this issue](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/08/opinion/08sat1.html), which may be of interest to folks. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/282 "2005-10-08T14:08:30Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Okay, I’m a moron. I’m still right, but a moron nonetheless. Because the text you’ve been quoting for “Article 45 and 75” turns out to be the [Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977](http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/470?OpenDocument). And if you take a look at the list of nations that have [ratified](http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=475&ps=P) that treaty (which modifies the 1949 GC we all know and love), it turns out that the United States ain’t on that list. Apparently, we [signed it](http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=475&ps=S) but never ratified it. So it’s a dead issue, as far as legal effect on the U.S. government is concernced. I’m a moron, too: it’s not your last post in this thread, but this post, to which I was referring. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/283 "2005-10-08T14:28:05Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > No, my contention is that we (lawyers and legal scholars, actually) have a very difficult time determining what the letter of the law is. It is much, much more difficult to reach agreement on what the spirit of the law is. Thus, it is better that we not count on an interpretation of the law that depends on divinging what it’s spirit is. If we wish to forbid torture (as most of us do), it would behoove us to do so explicitly rather than rely on someone’s interpretation of the spirit of the GC. For cryin’ out loud, the spirit of the Geneva Conventions (and hardly just that) is that torturing people you have in custody is wrong. Do you really have any difficulty in realizing that? I do recognize that it’s more difficult than one might think to “reach agreement on what the spirit is”, and that is truly frightening. Or should be. Why isn’t it? Does anyone in this thread, anyone, really think that the US has any less responsibility, or has engendered real-world consequences any less severe, or for that matter any Judgment Day consequences for those who believe in such things, for not having formally ratified every bit of a piece of paper? _What the fuck does that really matter?_ There is no way for the world to enforce the GC’s, or bring any violators to account for it, other than in the way that country and its people are treated if they are taken, or in the way that country and its claim to moral leadership are treated. While there would be some sense of justice done to see Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales in the dock, it hardly matters if there are so many of us willing to condone what this administration has done. There will only be others to follow if that is the case. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/284 "2005-10-08T15:17:27Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Does anyone in this thread, anyone, really think that the US has any less responsibility, or has engendered real-world consequences any less severe, or for that matter any Judgment Day consequences for those who believe in such things, for not having formally ratified every bit of a piece of paper? _What the fuck does that really matter?_ Well, you can’t impeach Dubya for violating the Geneva Convention. That’s the frgging difference. The US’s failure to ratify the Protocol means that there is one less tool available in which to prevent mistreatment of “enemy combatants” by agents of the US government. It doesn’t change the moral argument, but it changes _how you try to stop it_. And if you keep trying to use a tool that does not apply, you are just wasting time. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/285 "2005-10-08T15:21:12Z")
> [@SuaSponte](#): > > Well, you can’t impeach Dubya for violating the Geneva Convention. That’s the frgging difference. The US’s failure to ratify the Protocol means that there is one less tool available in which to prevent mistreatment of “enemy combatants” by agents of the US government. It doesn’t change the moral argument, but it changes _how you try to stop it_. Ooh! I want to pick nits, too. Can’t you impeach Dubya for anything you want, without gainsay? If Congress wants to Impeach Dubya for having eighteen arms, they can do it, if I understand the process. Of course, to pick the nitpicking, you were talking to **Elvis** , and he can’t impeach Dubya for anything, so technically you’re right. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/286 "2005-10-08T15:29:05Z")
> [@SuaSponte](#): > > Well, you can’t impeach Dubya for violating the Geneva Convention. That’s the frgging difference. Sure you can. You can impeach the President for anything you want to, without regard to the technical legality of the impeachment charge. Recent history shows that. > [@](#): > > The US’s failure to ratify the Protocol means that there is one less tool available in which to prevent mistreatment of “enemy combatants” by agents of the US government. And who can use that tool? Compliance is essentially voluntary, based upon a government’s own interests > [@](#): > > And if you keep trying to use a tool that does not apply, you are just wasting time. Again, who uses 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 8, 2005, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/287 "2005-10-08T15:36:54Z")
I think what Minty and the gang are saying is that, if you want the US government to have legal reason to totally espouse torture, we should ask Congress pretty-please to pass a law saying, “US citizens are not allowed to torture anyone under any circumstances, and no one is allowed to torture US citizens under any circumstances.” Make it part of the Bill of Rights. I was always under the impression that this was what “cruel and unusual punishments” was all about, but the brilliant legal minds of the US clearly do not see it this way. Maybe we should add a rider: "And if anyone does get tortured, the lawyers and/or legislators who sanction such activities shall be legally subject to the same tortures they advocate for their vicitms. I’m all for it, because forcing Bushiviks to oppose such a law would give everyone a very clear idea of whom we’re dealing with, morally speaking. My only doubt is that the brilliant minds of the legal profession will not see this as banning torture, as we will see tortured definitions of the word ‘torture’ emerging from their mouths as surely as the sun emerges each day from the giant turtle shell that holds up the world. After all, look how studiously they have managed to ignore the clear meaning of the phrase “Congress shall make now law abridging the freedom of speech.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/288 "2005-10-08T15:41:42Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I’m all for it, because forcing Bushiviks to oppose such a law would give everyone a very clear idea of whom we’re dealing with, morally speaking. Bush’s promised veto of the defense appropriations bill containing that rider exhibits that. > [@](#): > > My only doubt is that the brilliant minds of the legal profession will not see this as banning torture, as we will see tortured definitions of the word ‘torture’ emerging from their mouths as surely as the sun emerges each day from the giant turtle shell that holds up the world. Now-AG Gonzales’ famous memo (simply a coincidental academic exercise unrelated to Abu Ghraib, of course) did just that. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/289 "2005-10-08T15:42:45Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Sure you can. You can impeach the President for anything you want to, without regard to the technical legality of the impeachment charge. Recent history shows that. The impeachment papers for Clinton did in fact allege that he had violated a law. Sua ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/290 "2005-10-08T15:47:02Z")
But did not have to; in fact that was done in order to make the action seem respectable. Try again. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/291 "2005-10-08T15:49:42Z")
[The Nixon articles of impeachment](http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm) were for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress. The first is (coincidentally) a violation of the law, the second a political question, the third practically a requirement. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/292 "2005-10-08T18:32:27Z")
[Robert Bork](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-10-08-11-15-52), that’s who. Oh, the irony! > [@](#): > > Robert Bork - whose nomination to the high court was rejected by the Senate in 1987 - called the choice of Miers “a disaster on every level.” > > “It’s a little late to develop a constitutional philosophy or begin to work it out when you’re on the court already,” Bork said Friday on MSNBC’s “The Situation with Tucker Carlson.” “It’s kind of a slap in the face to the conservatives who’ve been building up a conservative legal movement for the last 20 years.” This week, the right wing has been more fun than the proverbial barrel of monkeys. Even if most of them deny the family connection. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/293 "2005-10-09T16:19:27Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > But did not have to; in fact that was done in order to make the action seem respectable. Try again. No thanks; every impeachment attempt in U.S. history involved an allegation of criminal behavior, and indeed the Constitution specifically requires such an allegation: “high crimes and misdemeanors”. It wasn’t merely made to make it “seem respectable” - it was done to make it comport with constitutional requirements. Sure, impeachments are inherently political exercises, but an allegation of criminal misconduct is a required part of that political exercise. Sua ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/294 "2005-10-09T21:10:56Z")
That criminal-law gloss was put on it as part of the \*political \* effort to make it look respectable, sure, I already stated that. But, _as I said_, they did not have to. Care to address the fucking point? ---
**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 9, 2005, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/295 "2005-10-09T21:24:03Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That criminal-law gloss was put on it as part of the \*political \* effort to make it look respectable, sure, I already stated that. But, _as I said_, they did not have to. Care to address the fucking point? I am amazed that anyone has the patience to ever answer you. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/296 "2005-10-09T21:47:01Z")
You don’t have anything either, huh? ---
**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 9, 2005, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/297 "2005-10-09T22:36:22Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You don’t have anything either, huh? Nothing more than has already been said by **Sua** and ignored by the black hole of ignorance that engulfs your every post. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/298 "2005-10-10T00:04:41Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > [Robert Bork](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-10-08-11-15-52), that’s who. Oh, the irony! > This week, the right wing has been more fun than the proverbial barrel of monkeys. Even if most of them deny the family connection. 🙂 I don’t know if that can be called “[borking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork)”. He’s not so much criticizing her judicial philosophy, but saying that she doesn’t have one. Her qualification to be on the SCOTUS is pretty questionable, and he’s questioning it. To bork usually means an all out assault, including character assasination. I don’t see that going on here. > [@](#): > > According to the New York Times, the verb to bork might be defined as “to destroy a judicial nominee through a concerted attack on his character, background and philosophy.” [1] > > The most famous (or infamous) use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Noted feminist Florence Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. She said, “We’re going to bork him.” [2] Thomas was subsequently confirmed after one of the nastiest confirmation fights in Supreme Court history. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/299 "2005-10-10T13:40:18Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > He’s not so much criticizing her judicial philosophy, but saying that she doesn’t have one. Odd. For the righties insisting that judges not be “activist”, that they rule only on the law and the Constitution, that should be considered an _endorsement_. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/300 "2005-10-10T13:47:29Z")
[Half of Senate Republicans doubt Miers](http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051010-121707-4311r.htm) > [@](#): > > according to a survey conducted by The Washington Times… > 27 Republican senators – almost half of his party’s members in the chamber – have publicly expressed specific doubts about Miss Miers or said they must withhold any support whatsoever for her nomination until after the hearings. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556.md?page=16)