Comments on: Cheney’s Lawyer Now Defending Haynes

By: bmaz

bmaz — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:40:06 +0000

Not to mention that would further cover his fat rear by clouding the whole gig up even more.

By: JohnLopresti

JohnLopresti — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:19:54 +0000

Continuing the OT re natsecCourts, Katyal and Goldsmith have had that paper available for months. I was chagrined that Katyal would subsume his otherwise insightful energies and constitutional law expertise beneath the tarp of a very risky proposition such as that in a neocon dominated administration plumbed with stovepipery; it reads like some theoretical documents from the 1930s. Those officials are looking ever more intensively for camoflage as exposure increases while congress continues multiple investigations. The prospect for the 111th congress is worse exposure for the folks that hoodwinked congress into some of the seamier initiatives Bush signed. But I guess Katyal remains working with some other good folks still shaking the structure of the showTrial prelude for their client whose case Scotus used for a vehicle to shore up Geneva CA3 rights for humanity’s sake, although that opinion skipped comment on some of the wildest neocon schemes about unitary fourth branchdom. It seems Ew is right that people in posts like Haynes’ likely are central for making progress writing a faithful history of who gave Yoo the keys to the car. Maybe they can ask Rice what she knows about how Yeltsin and Putin diminished the political prisoner population as the modern Russia developed from the ashes of CCCP. Neocon inspired habeaslessness will have more backwash than the afterlife of final disposition for former detainees; there are all the trained torture experts who are both contractors and regular military who will be facing ordeals like LEngland’s; countries following conflicts have to address that reintegration factor and the shattered lives and displaced and, in this instance, inverted, value systems of its own protagonists after discharge.

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:14:24 +0000

46 - MD, Katyal is a pretty smart guy and so I’ll overcome my first reaction to dismiss anything that has Goldsmith’s name. But I did think that it was interesting what “motivates” Goldsmith on this front. From your link/quote:

It would help the Republicans in the fall election.”
…
“It worked very well in 2006,” Goldsmith said. “The only way the Democrats have to not make it an election issue is to give the President the powers he seeks.”

Goldsmith could give a rats ass about the families he’s destroyed, the children whose parents were disappeared, the children who were disappeared, the London chefs, the Chinese dissidents, the Germans in the wrong place at the wrong time; he helped insure they were all bound for torture and for being safely tucked away, beyond the reach of habeas, so the years and years of ongoing depravity could continue, unabated, while he tuck’s his tenure around him and sleeps like a baby at night.

He’s doesn’t care at all about the people held in concentrated population camps throughout Afghanistan and Iraq, or at Guantanmo. He wants to smugly offer up something to help the Republicans come up with a tool to use against the Democrats. I can’t really imagine how you get more repulsive.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 02:02:34 +0000

Words mean nothing as far as “responding in kind”. It is a waste of oxygen. He, and every other Democrat as well, should DO something, and pledge to keep doing it until the job is done if elected.

By: Loo Hoo.

Loo Hoo. — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:51:57 +0000

Then, again, I hope the democrats respond in kind. Barack Obama seems to have a way with words…

By: MadDog

MadDog — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:48:14 +0000

The fact that Goldsmith, the Administration’s DOJ OLC tame “lawyer” who thought Yoo’s opinions in the OLC were unadulterated crap, primarily views a ~~kangaroo~~ national-security court as a means to politically embarrass Democrats, is so very telling as to the Repugs idea of “Justice”.

It isn’t about the detainees, it’s about scoring political points against Democrats. And he has no shame in publicly admitting this.

By: Loo Hoo.

Loo Hoo. — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:34:36 +0000

I really would hope that the democrats show some guts on this. If they’re guilty, prove it. If not, compensate them and send them home. No more horseshit courts at all.

By: MadDog

MadDog — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:27:37 +0000

And I’d recommend that “only” women be allowed to ~~interrogate~~ question him.

“Give it up Karly! You know you want to. Momma will make it all better!”

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:20:12 +0000

seriously

Can he sign something in writing.

And since in the GQ interview, he also refused to talk about the DOJ firings, can we make it a two for one deal. After all, if he’s willing to talk about his role in the Siegelman case, why not the USA firings?

By: MadDog

MadDog — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:14:20 +0000

Quick, lock him into testifying before he wakes up!