See this guy WM successfully muddied the waters and made this about something it wasn't. It was about a bunch of lawyers who abused the system, broke the rules and put themselves above the law. And many of those very same lawyers are now in policy making decisions at Justice. That's what the column was about.
Rog. I ask, because your assumption that these 7 cogs in a huge bureaucracy are "now making policy decisions" seems a bit unfounded. The op-ed insinuates it, of course, but doesn't provide any substance to back up this up.
To really be in a policy position, they've got to be either career guys (which they're not, since they just started in the last year) or they have to be political appointees and subject to Senate confirmation.
Additionally, the article only mentions one lawyer who did anything wrong, not "a bunch". From my perspective she bent the rules by providing the pamphlet. There's no mention of the other 6.
WM didn't "muddy the waters" by pointing out certain facts that don't mesh with your view of the situation.
She was an officer of the court who knowingly broke the rules. She got caught and entire leftist legal establishment came to her defense. The bitch should have been disbarred and I think 500 God-Damned lawyers would qualify as a bunch you dumb son of a bitch.
Hammer, you're just a merry little pot of sunshine, aren't you?
If you'd read the pamphlet (you didn't; it's pretty easy to tell you're not the reading type) you'd see that it's nothing like it was suggested to be in the op-ed. Like WM said, it doesn't incite anything or advocate violence (quite the opposite, actually).
Here's one of your evil, America-hating, terrorist-loving lawyers, in their own words: http://bit.ly/8X7CUa
I'll summarize for you: of 700 detainees, 30 have had habeus hearings. 25 of those have been released, even though the standard of proof is heavily in favor of the government (as it should be). So make sure you add all of the judges involved to the list of evil, America-hating terrorist-lovers!
Hammer, Her law firm came to her defense, not the entire "leftist legal profession." You tend to swing a very wide brush. I do agree with you she broke the rules. Enough to get her dis-barred? Probably not. Enough for the presiding judge to give her the boot, definitely.
Let's have a big chat about this on the radio show tomorrow night? Will any of the defenders of the Gitmo Bar like to call in? I think it would be a good discussion.
See this guy WM successfully muddied the waters and made this about something it wasn't.
ReplyDeleteIt was about a bunch of lawyers who abused the system, broke the rules and put themselves above the law. And many of those very same lawyers are now in policy making decisions at Justice. That's what the column was about.
Hammer, you've never served in gov't, have you?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRog. I ask, because your assumption that these 7 cogs in a huge bureaucracy are "now making policy decisions" seems a bit unfounded. The op-ed insinuates it, of course, but doesn't provide any substance to back up this up.
ReplyDeleteTo really be in a policy position, they've got to be either career guys (which they're not, since they just started in the last year) or they have to be political appointees and subject to Senate confirmation.
Anecdote - a short, free-standing tale narrating an interesting or amusing biographical incident.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the article only mentions one lawyer who did anything wrong, not "a bunch". From my perspective she bent the rules by providing the pamphlet. There's no mention of the other 6.
ReplyDeleteWM didn't "muddy the waters" by pointing out certain facts that don't mesh with your view of the situation.
She was an officer of the court who knowingly broke the rules. She got caught and entire leftist legal establishment came to her defense. The bitch should have been disbarred and I think 500 God-Damned lawyers would qualify as a bunch you dumb son of a bitch.
ReplyDeleteHammer, you're just a merry little pot of sunshine, aren't you?
ReplyDeleteIf you'd read the pamphlet (you didn't; it's pretty easy to tell you're not the reading type) you'd see that it's nothing like it was suggested to be in the op-ed. Like WM said, it doesn't incite anything or advocate violence (quite the opposite, actually).
Here's one of your evil, America-hating, terrorist-loving lawyers, in their own words: http://bit.ly/8X7CUa
I'll summarize for you: of 700 detainees, 30 have had habeus hearings. 25 of those have been released, even though the standard of proof is heavily in favor of the government (as it should be). So make sure you add all of the judges involved to the list of evil, America-hating terrorist-lovers!
Hammer,
ReplyDeleteHer law firm came to her defense, not the entire "leftist legal profession." You tend to swing a very wide brush. I do agree with you she broke the rules. Enough to get her dis-barred? Probably not. Enough for the presiding judge to give her the boot, definitely.
Let's have a big chat about this on the radio show tomorrow night? Will any of the defenders of the Gitmo Bar like to call in? I think it would be a good discussion.
ReplyDelete