The Weekly Standard pulls a Cully Stimson

Avatar

Dave

Dave is a part-time blogger that writes about whatever suits him at the time.

Related Post Roulette

30 Responses

  1. Avatar Gold Star for Robot Boy
    Ignored
    says:

    Well done.
    But how many times does Weekly Standard, caught up in its ideological zeal, get to screw up before it is rightfully treated along the same lines as, say, World Net Daily?Report

  2. Avatar Rufus F.
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m really glad you’ve brought up the issue of foreign nationals. When we start talking about denying legal procedures to captured combatants as non-citizens, the first question I have is where does this leave refugees?Report

    • Avatar Dave in reply to Rufus F.
      Ignored
      says:

      Habeas applies to citizens and non-citizens alike, at least it should. I think the law is still on the books with respect to being able to deprive habeas rights to foreigners on US soil (since the al Marri case was withdrawn) but it would surprise me to see that take place. I could be wrong though.Report

      • Nob Akimoto Nob Akimoto in reply to Dave
        Ignored
        says:

        Foreigners have due process rights, and not even Scalia would say they don’t if they’re detained inside the US. (see his dissent in Boumediene)

        As for refugees, the way the Boumediene decision was written, it’s likely that they’d fall under the same broad heading and be allowed a habeas hearing.Report

  3. Avatar North
    Ignored
    says:

    The Weekly Standard publish moronic right wing screeds with little to no basis in reality or law? That’s unpossible!!Report

  4. Avatar Koz
    Ignored
    says:

    Well you’re talking about a bunch of different things here, but about the Stimson thing in particular, I never got why it was such a big deal.

    If AQ can afford it, they can spend $500/hr and hire Barry Scheck. If they can’t, they can hire somebody out of the phone book who makes a living defending DUI cases. In any case, one thing the WoT defendants don’t need is free representation from our law faculties and prominent firms.

    Pro bono is actually short for pro bono publico, and I can’t see how the public is better off for their work.Report

    • Avatar Dave in reply to Koz
      Ignored
      says:

      Stimson was interviewed in his capacity as a government official working for an administration that was actively litigating many key cases against many of the people and firms he was specifically discussing. It was a completely inappropriate thing for someone in charge of detainee affairs at Gitmo and a former JAG lawyer. He should have known better.

      In any case, one thing the WoT defendants don’t need is free representation from our law faculties and prominent firms.

      Defined how? What do you think determines need? Are you a lawyer? If law professors decide to take on pro-bono work based on the belief that they think they have a winnable case and the defendant chooses to have this attorney represent him/her, so be it.

      Pro bono is actually short for pro bono publico, and I can’t see how the public is better off for their work.

      Can you please elaborate?Report

  5. Avatar Gold Star for Robot Boy
    Ignored
    says:

    This site deserves better trolls.Report

  6. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    “Surely the Constitution doesn’t mean *THAT*!!!”

    This is why I vote for the crazy people party. The two parties dedicated to sanity just don’t do it for me.Report

  7. Avatar Publius
    Ignored
    says:

    Dave,

    Excellent post. We had an interesting back and forth on which rights accused terrorists must be afforded over at our site (some frequenters of Ordinary Gentlemen participated). I’m sure you are busy, but I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts on the debate.

    The link is here.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *