Hamdan, Khadr: What Happens When You Practice Law Conservative Style
Tweet
You reap what you sow.
A U.S. war crimes tribunal at Guantanamo came to a screeching halt on Monday when a military judge dropped all the charges against a young Canadian in a ruling that could preclude trying any of the 380 prisoners any time soon.
Army Col. Peter Brownback, the judge, said the military tribunal lacked jurisdiction over Canadian Omar Khadr because he did not meet the strict definition of those subject to trial under a law the U.S. Congress drafted last year.
Hamdan, Bin Laden’s driver, also had his case revoked. For years now the Bush administration has ignored the law in favor of the kind of conservative law taught at places like Regent University that – while it may get you somewhere in conservative circles – has no bearing on the real world.
One need only to look at this interview with John Yoo, former Bush administration former deputy assistant attorney general for the root madness at the heart of this perversion of common sense:
[Q] You said you were one of the first in the Justice Department to recognize this as war as opposed to an isolated attack, a law enforcement problem. What’s the importance of that? What advice did you give the White House?
[A] Well, it was my view at the time, which I wasn’t shy about sharing, that we were at war. I think that is important, because if you’re at war, the powers of the government change; the powers of the president change. They both generally expand. We had, as a nation, under administrations of both political parties, treated terrorism as a criminal justice matter, which primarily meant that we would wait for the crimes to occur, just as we do normally, and then try to piece together the events and hold people responsible after the fact.
When you switch to a footing of war, you are trying to use society’s resources, the military primarily, to stop future attacks, not just hold people responsible and accountable — which is impossible to do with suicide bombers involved — for things that have already happened. So, for example, the surveillance powers of the government, I think, expand. So, for example, in wartime you’re allowed to detain members of the enemy without having a trial; criminal trials are for peacetime and for crime. So powers of government expand once you’re at war.
In the world of Woo, and conservative legal “scholarship”, the President has war power because he said so. Except, he doesn’t. You only get war powers when you declare war.
I knew that, and I didn’t go to law school. I was, however, paying attention in Dr. Monroe’s World History class at Boyd Anderson High School in 9th grade.
16 Responses to “Hamdan, Khadr: What Happens When You Practice Law Conservative Style”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Guess that’s why he’s won the moniker of Professor John “Torture” Yoo.
I would feel very happy to see this twisted bastard indicted for war crimes and brought before the Hague.
Either Dr. Monroe forgot to tell you about the War Powers Act, or when you were in the 9th Grade, it wasn’t 1973 yet.
But try not to gloat over terrorists going free, Oliver; it might seem like you’re rooting for the wrong side (meaning no disrespect).
It’s your team letting the terrorists free, Frank, by pushing their cockamamie legal theories. If the War Powers act applied, these cases wouldn’t be thrown out – would they?
If the administration didn’t try to apply fairy tale law, terrorists would be tried appropriately. By erring on the side of the terrorists it might seem to some that you guys are on the wrong side, you moron.
I see your point, Oliver.
If i’m reading the story correctly this ruling doesn’t mean that these guys are “going free” per frank:
Which is just awesome. If this is correct, now we can’t legally try them but we can still legally keep them in prison forever. Anyone wanna bet this wasn’t a bug in the system but a design feature, as the saying goes?
My thoughts exactly. Besides if we really want to try them we can always just change the charges, right? …right??
Bush will keep getting “do overs” until everyone dies in a jail cell.
Justice delayed and all that.
the President has war power because he said so. Except, he doesn’t. You only get war powers when you declare war.
For somebody acting like Clarence Darrow in this entry, you need to dust off the ‘Lawyers For Dummies’ and read it a little better. Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (of which the joint resolution authorizing military action against Iraq was based upon), the President does have war powers.
The fact that this case was tossed has nothing to do with the War Powers Resolution. Crikey.
Jay, you’re an idiot.
The War Powers Resolution LIMITED, LIMITED! not GRANTED or EXPANDED the War Powers of the President!
Link
* It demanded the CinC consult with the Congress before any deployment of troops
* It forced the CinC to submit regular detailed reports to the Congress before and during any deployment.
* It forced the CinC to REMOVE forces whenever so resolved by the Congress
“…(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof…”
The issue was that the government had not diocumented them as ‘unlawful’ combatants. A technicality but an important one.
And only an idiot or a totally blind Bush hater would cheer these people being closer to freedom.
And only an idiot would suggest that anyone at Guantanamo is any closer to freedom after reading that this ruling has absolutely no impact on the government’s ability to detain anyone there.
Try to get reacquainted with reality, dugger, …
Wellstone, do you have any relevant point to make because I didn’t argue about expanded vs. limited powers? Oliver said, “You only get war powers when you declare war.”
Is that a correct or incorrect statement?
Bush is asserting full and unfettered war powers, such as when a president declares war on a nation (see FDR) without declaring war. The court keeps slapping back because it’s an invention of fevered minds and not legal.
Ollie’s right.
Under John “Torture” Yoo’s crazed guidance, the Executive Branch is now claiming EXPANDED powers because of the GWOT!
These include:
* The suspension of Habeas Corpus even for US Citizens
* The contravention of the Geneva Conventions and Treaties, of which the US is a signatory. Under Article 6 of our Constitution, “…all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding…”
* The suspension of the 4th Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable search in the FISA warrantless surveillance cases
* The suspension of the right to due process guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.
* The suspension of the right to a speedy trial and determination of status for all detainees and the granting of additional Geneva Convention rights following.
Many people think that the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers or combatants only. Not so. The Geneva Conventions set forth specific rights and procedures which apply to ALL persons caught up in a conflict.
Soldier, civilian, emergency worker, doctor, spy, press member, these are all discussed extensively in the Geneva treaties.
What “Torture” Yoo and Cheney and Gonzalez and their lackeys have done is destroy and/or pervert precedents enshrined in basic Human Rights law for decades, if not centuries.
“World of Woo”?
I think you mean Yoo.
Who?
Yoo!
Who me?
No.
Then who?
Yoo!
That’s what I asked. I asked you “Who?” and you said…
Yoo!
Well you don’t mean me.
You’re right I mean Yoo.
You?
That’s right.
Not me?
Right again.
You’re saying it’s you.
Now we’re getting somewhere…
…and so on.
“What “Torture” Yoo and Cheney and Gonzalez and their lackeys have done is destroy and/or pervert precedents enshrined in basic Human Rights law for decades, if not centuries.”
Let’s not forget, Jay supports this. indeed, advocates for it. He’s a torture boy. Loves it …