Don’t worry – the presidency ages a person and he’ll eventually have to be replaced. Hope the twins are ready by then…
Hilarious! never thought about it that way…
Sam
Damn that’s the only appealing thing she had going :dubious:
Well since this is the Pit…
He thought the statue was shameful and yet he got a VIetnam War deferment because of his “vital” civilian job - teaching law in Missouri !!!
Yeah that sure stopped the Vietcong.
So long you hypocritical asshole and don’t let the statue hit you on the way out !!!
FWIW, Gonzales (sorry, I inevitably mix up the spelling with the long-serving Justice Gonzalez he replaced on the state supreme court in ‘99) enlisted in the Air Force in the 1970s before moving on to a couple years in the Air Force Academy, followed by Rice and Harvard Law. Unlike his boss, there has never been any suggestion that Gonzales’ service was anything other than complete and honorable.
The Enron smear, by the way, is completely baseless. He was a partner in Vinson & Elkins, the firm that did most of Enron’s legal work, but left V&E to work for Governor Bush when he entered office in 1995–long before any of the malfeasance began at Enron.
Huh, I’ve been spelling it wrong all along, and I don’t even have your excuse. I don’t think the Enron thing is anything but a smear. What worries me is what he has done while working in the White House. But you know that. We’ll see.
Didn"t Gonzales overturn the abortion parental notification law in Texas when he was on the Supreme Court?
I think I remember reading that he was considered a pro-choice judge somewhere, which is probably why he won’t be headed to the US Supreme Court anytime soon.
I’m not too convinved with the defense that the torture memo was a theoretical exercise. Does the WH’s chief lawyer really have time to be churning out abstract legal opinions. And given the times he wrote it in, it can’t not have occured to him that some people would be interested in the subject in a practical sense. I doubt Al was in on any of the details of what was going on, but I can’t imagine he didn’t realize his bosses were looking into this for a reason.
His wikipedia article also mentions that he was an early supporter of the Patriot Act, authored the presidential order which authorized the use of military tribunals to try terrorist suspects, and may or may not have been involved in the decision to allow captured foreign combatants to be given to countries that allow torture for interrogation.
It’s cool we won’t have an AG that thinks statue nudity is a serious problem, but I’m not so sure one who thinks attaching car batteries to the testes of foreigners is a valid investigation tactic is a trade up.
Exactly. Democrats have exclusive use of the race card. Republicans have exclusive use of the patriot card. “Adulterous scumbag” is free to whoever wants it.
There are rules to this sort of thing, you know!
Yeah I second this. No matter who is in the WH, I’d still like to see some checks and balances in place.
No. He was in the majority that set standards for judges to meet if they decided to turn down a minor’s request for an abortion without having to inform her parents. The minority wanted to have no standards at all, which would have prevented the appellate courts from reviewing the court’s decision–i.e., judges could just turn down applications for no reason at all, simply because they were opposed to abortion, and there would be nothing that could be done about it. Gonzales wrote one concurring opinion sharply criticizing the dissenters (particularly Justice Hecht) for their behavior in the matter.
Sure. Somebody probably said “Hey Al, what’s up with this Geneva Convention thingie? Does that apply to these ter’ists?” Whereupon Gonzales got some staffer to do the research and draft the memo. Conclusion: Nope, the G.C. does not apply in these circumstances (a conclusion I happen to believe is also legally correct), along with some very unpleasant language about interrogation.
It is a pity then that the latest authority disagrees with you on that one.
What is “the latest authority,” and why should I give a damn?
Sure, I am happy to explain. See this profession called law, as I understand it, relies on what are termed “authorities.” It is a term of art.
It means decisions by courts on disputed questions of law. Court cases.
So if you come up with a legal argument, or “case” then to settle this you go before a court. All things running smoothly, you will have a decision from that court, an “authority”
Clear so far? Splendid.
Recently the GC/Not GC question was determined before a court. Boy is it bad news for the US military, anyway I digress. Enough prologue:
Thank you John Ashcroft.
Ashcroft’s part in implementing the Patriot Act has kept us all safer and will continue to protect Americans for decades to come. The Ashcroft justice department has done a great job fighting terror and protecting the American people. Ashcroft would make a fine member of the Supreme Court.
However, along the way Ashcroft became a lightning rod for the rabid left. Merely uttering his name in a room full of democrats causes near panic and outrage. At this point he’s more useful to the left as a fundraising tool for the 08 elections than he is to the current administration. So, sadly, Ashcroft has fallen on his sword and resigned his position. For this same reason, he will not be appointed to the SCOTUS. He deserves it and would make a fine strict constitutionalist conservative judge. However, it just isn’t worth the fight to get him there.
Wow! Debaser, I had no idea you had such a gift for droll, understated irony! That’s classic stuff! “…a great job fighting terror and protecting the American people…” Oh, man, my hat’s off to you!
It never fails to amaze and amuse me to see a clueless layman lecturing a lwyer on the law, making grossly erroneous points in a condescending manner. A few minutes Googling for a news article is no substitute for 3 years of law school and years of professional experience. Jiminy, if you’re going to build a case, you might at elast read the article to understand what it says. The court held that
A. Because the president’s claim to authority to establish military tribunals has not been held by previous decisons
B. And because the government’s claim that Hamdan is not entitled to POW status has not been authorized by "a competent tribunal (and the court doesn’t define what that is, BTW)
C. Hamdan must be given presumptive POW status under the Third GC UNTIL a competent tribunal says otherwise.
It’s not bad news for the military, it’sbad news for the president’s claim to authority to adjudicate a prisoner’s status.
And the term is “precedents,” not “authorities,” you doofus.
BTW, I ain’t no lawdog, so if’n I done gots my facts all higgledy piggledy, well, I ain’t had me much book larnin’.
I’d be rather more careful with the assumptions I bring to my rants, were I you.
But rather than concern yourself with me, here’s a question.
- Now that we know that Hamdan and other Guantanamo Bay detainees have been entitled to GC protections all along, what does that suggest about the conduct of the US military at Camp Delta?
Trundle through the Geneva Coventions if your thoughts need some stimulus.