Comments on: Matt Apuzzo Pushes Back

By: MrWhy

MrWhy — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:06:15 +0000

The count was the same, but the names behind the numbers were very different.

By: readerOfTeaLeaves

readerOfTeaLeaves — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:36:09 +0000

Yeah, but at least McClatchy told the story.
Which I found quite intriguing.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:09:33 +0000

As the post points out, the other 40 people were on mute, so they couldn’t do anything. The teleconference format gives conference organizers a great deal of power to mute the voices of people they don’t want heard. And since it sounds like everyone was connecting in via phone, they really couldn’t do anything.

By: drational

drational — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:59:45 +0000

it is either the resurgence of rule of law, or the last grasping claw at the cliff’s edge before a long, tumbling fall.

By: PetePierce

PetePierce — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:51:50 +0000

Right on target as always Mary. It is reprehensible that DOJ at Main Justice has evolved into a stance that they need to go “off record” in reaction to a major opinion of the Supreme Court which reacts to their way of doing things. Make no mistake about it, the architects of these gitmo trials have not been military lawyers/prosecutors/judges although they have bought in, the military is taking its orders from DOJ.

By: skdadl

skdadl — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:41:05 +0000

Does the expression “perfectly ambiguous” have a meaning in law? (Excuse me, but I’m reading Scalia, who is a hoot in many ways, but it occurred to me that that might be some law-talkin’ mystery.)

By: peony

peony — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:27:12 +0000

Are you willing to see this as a process, a beginning of a restoration of the rule of law? IMHO, this Scotus decision is an indicator of a change in the zeitgeist that is reflected in the public mood, in the culture, and in many fields, which continues to build. Events will cluster or multiply around the time it peaks in the next two years or so.

By: drational

drational — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:08:20 +0000

only an issue if the martyr wannabes want to appeal. I think they hand-picked the 5 defendants based upon prior knowledge of rejection of counsel. they got al qahtani out back in may. the only glitch came with 2 of the 5’s lawyers protesting self-representation.

if they strip themselves of all representation and really just want to die, how will the sc decision result in justice for these 5 detainees? KSM at least, will not appeal. so Bush will get the big fish in time to help McC.

By: Leen

Leen — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:59:23 +0000

Ot Amy goodman had Kucinich on today talking about his 35 articles of Impeachment and Vincent Bugliosi on about bringing Bush to trial for murder. Worth the watch

By: Leen

Leen — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:29:32 +0000

Thank you Matt!