Sunday, February 18, 2007
Saturday, January 13, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 — The senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees suspected of terrorism said in an interview this week that he was dismayed that lawyers at many of the nation’s top firms were representing prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and that the firms’ corporate clients should consider ending their business ties.
Yeah because it's way un-American to give people fair trials.
The comments by Charles D. Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, produced an instant torrent of anger from lawyers, legal ethics specialists and bar association officials, who said Friday that his comments were repellent and displayed an ignorance of the duties of lawyers to represent people in legal trouble.
She seems shocked, apparently she doesn't know too many wingnuts.
The same point appeared Friday on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, where Robert L. Pollock, a member of the newspaper’s editorial board, cited the list of law firms...
We're blacklisting people again. This time though it's for acting in the belief that as Americans, we actually want to see justice, not just make it a talking point.
...and quoted an unnamed “senior U.S. official” as saying, “Corporate C.E.O.’s seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists.”
If they're terrorists, then why not just give them a fair trial where that can be easily proven?
In his radio interview, Mr. Stimson said: “I think the news story that you’re really going to start seeing in the next couple of weeks is this: As a result of a FOIA request through a major news organization, somebody asked, ‘Who are the lawyers around this country representing detainees down there?’ and you know what, it’s shocking.” The F.O.I.A. reference was to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by Monica Crowley, a conservative syndicated talk show host, asking for the names of all the lawyers and law firms representing Guantánamo detainees in federal court cases.
Ah yes, count on wingnut radio to try an undermine one of the most basic principles of American justice.
Karen J. Mathis, a Denver lawyer who is president of the American Bar Association, said: “Lawyers represent people in criminal cases to fulfill a core American value: the treatment of all people equally before the law. To impugn those who are doing this critical work — and doing it on a volunteer basis — is deeply offensive to members of the legal profession, and we hope to all Americans.”
What does the White House and/or Pentagon think of this?
Neither the White House nor the Pentagon had any official comment, but officials sought to distance themselves from Mr. Stimson’s view. His comments “do not represent the views of the Defense Department or the thinking of its leadership,” a senior Pentagon official said.
He would not allow his name to be used, seemingly to lessen the force of his rebuke.
Actually, it's to keep from getting thrown into Gitmo himself.
When asked in the radio interview who was paying for the legal representation, Mr. Stimson replied: “It’s not clear, is it? Some will maintain that they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart, that they’re doing it pro bono, and I suspect they are; others are receiving moneys from who knows where, and I’d be curious to have them explain that.”
If he's so curious about money trails maybe he should start at the White House and ask the Bush family how much money they've received from the Bin Ladens over the years.
Lawyers expressed outrage at that, asserting that they are not being paid and that Mr. Stimson had tried to suggest they were by innuendo. Of the approximately 500 lawyers coordinated by the Center for Constitutional Rights, no one is being paid, Mr. Ratner said. One Washington law firm, Shearman & Sterling, which has represented Kuwaiti detainees, has received money from the families of the prisoners, but Thomas Wilner, a lawyer there, said they had donated all of it to charities related to the September 2001 terrorist attacks.
A wingnut, wrong again?
Friday, January 12, 2007
First this guy plays architectural historian:
The Athens embassy, which started operating in 1960, was designed by famous architect Walter Gropius, which is supposed to resemble the nearby Parthenon and which evokes "transparency" with its large glass walls.
Reeks of plagiarism to me.
It was confusing though to think of a wingnut actually paying some respect to artistry of architecture (rather than accusing it of being a secret Islamic batsignal)
Don't worry, the Mankin comes around:
One of the basic functions of good architecture is defense.
Actually that depends on the intended use of the structure. This building was designed as an embassy - where diplomats work, you know diplomats, diplomacy - any of you wingnuts know what that word means?.
Oh right, nevermind
Today, trendy "modern" design failed in that function.
How fitting for a wingnut to degrade the work of one of the most important architects of the 20th century to something out of the latest Abercrombie catalog.
And because wingnuts are stupid AND pompous, he makes sure to call the structure a failure.
The Gropius building, however important from the standpoint of architectural history, placed the symbolism of transparency over the substance of protection.
Gropius' liberal use of windows does not take into account the Islamofacist threat we face today.
No one wants brutal, ominous citadels symbolizing America abroad. But they all are targets and we can't afford to pretend otherwise.
Apparently we also can't afford to make people stop hating us too. Instead of thinking, "hmmm, just 50 years ago, nobody would think America could be so hated around the world that an embassy in Greece would be a target - maybe we should work on our image," a wingnut will just shrug off hatred of America as jealousy (yes, apparently even people living on the Greek Isles are jealous of America) and demand we insulate and segregate ourselves further.
The most telling thing about the story? The bombers weren't Muslims, so put aside the shrieking hysteria and inane platitudes we've come to expect from this crowd, the bombing of an embassy by westerners warrants a discussion on architecture. I repeat, a wingnut trying to discuss art. Oh the humanity!
Michelle also has Mary Catherine Ham posting. I don't think I need to elaborate any further.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Of course Ellison, in his typically classy way, chooses to be above the fray (and scumbags like Goode) with this, very under-reported reply:
Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, said Thursday that Goode and others had nothing to fear about Muslims. "They are our nurses, doctors, husbands, wives, kids, who just want to live and prosper in the American way."
Asked whether he thought Goode was a bigot, Ellison said, "I don't know the fellow, and I'd rather just say that he has a lot to learn about Islam. ... I don't want to start any name-calling."
All you need to know about the state of the Bush admin and the Republican party can be known by the amount of invective directed at minorities and immigrants. The more they lose, the worse they behave. It's only a matter of time before they are too much of an embarrasment to let out into public.
Apparantly, most of Goode's constituents agree with him. CNN doesn't seem to think there is anything wrong with that, frequently making excuses for their intolerance and ignorance, but I think it's just another reason to let the South go.
On his first day in Congress, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minnesota, the first Muslim elected to Congress, finally met the Republican who criticized him for his decision to use the Koran at his ceremonial swearing in.
Ellison asked another Democratic member to introduce him to Rep Virgil Goode, R-Virgina, who spoke out against Ellison in a letter to constituents last month. Ellison told CNN that he approached Goode on the House floor and the brief meeting went well.
"I shook his hand and shook mine. We greeted each other." Ellison asked Goode to grab a cup of coffee with him soon and Goode accepted.
Asked if he was felt singled out as the first Muslim member, Ellison said no and added, "By reaching out to Congressman Goode I'm not trying to be accepted, I'm trying to build bridges. In this world there are too many misunderstandings. I want to put a human face on things."
via Liberty Street
Yep, way more class than Goode deserves.
El Presidente Morono:
Today, Saddam Hussein was executed after receiving a fair trial -- the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime. Fair trials were unimaginable under Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule. It is a testament to the Iraqi people's resolve to move forward after decades of oppression that, despite his terrible crimes against his own people, Saddam Hussein received a fair trial. This would not have been possible without the Iraqi people's determination to create a society governed by the rule of law.
i.e., His trial was a joke and they hanged the POS before he could rat out Ronnie, Rummy and the rest.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
are the first to bitch about how they are unfairly persecuted for being war mongers?
Pammykins - either you're for the cowardly slaughter of inncent kids from the skies above, both Lebanese and Israelis, or you're not.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
I think it's sort of shocking to those of us who actually think there are 2 sides to every conflict that news coverage of the recent events in Lebabnon and Israel actually are somewhat balanced.
Sure there is the usual blathering from the usual susupects, AIPAC and the spineless Dems they own, on how Lebanon supports the terrorists and how the bombing of a UN post was an accident despite the UN asking them to stop bombing them 10 or 20 times and how Israel regrets every dead Lebanese child while Hezbollah celebrates every dead Israeli child. But for the most part, the coverage has been sort of fair (in the same way that we would all love to see $2.50 gasoline).
But how come the Palestinians can't get attention from American media? Sure they aren't as good looking as the Lebanese, and less Christian, but do they really deserve complete media blackout in the U.S.?
The media is allowed to cover the Lebanese plight because the Bush admin used the Lebanese situation last year as an example of their democracy spreading. So note to the Palestinians - if you do what the Bush administration wants, the media will give a shit about your deaths too!
Isn't it sad that despite being less popular that genital warts, the media still begs for the administration's permission?