You're right, Omooex. Bad people shouldn't be defended!

If only there were a way to figure out who the bad people are.

Like, if one person says what he thinks the bad guy did wrong, and then, like, another guy can say, no, that's not true. prove it! And the first guy says, well, here's my evidence.

Then some other people would sit and think about it.

Does anybody know of such a system? Maybe we can brainstorm and start a movement.

You're right, Omooex. Bad people shouldn't be defended!

If only there were a way to figure out who the bad people are.

Oh, no -- he already has this figured out.

Rich corporations are guilty and don't deserve representation -- especially if they have lobbying arms.

How about rich unions with lobbying arms? Or rich civil liberties organizations with lobbying arms?

Do they get to have lawyers?

All depends on whether Omooex likes them. That's how it's determined.

How about that "war" on "terror", to which Mr. Holder clearly subscribes?

Maybe not a consideration in terms of assessing his candidacy for Attorney General (he really does care about the rule of law when it comes to Americans!), but it speaks volumes about his (lack of) morality as a human being.

Daschle tapped for HHS

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/19/122138/78/523/663588

or click sig for linky

OS is goin' all "we need Universal Healthcare" supposedly.

Glenn, I took a course in the laws of war from Telford Taylor and have done both some legal work and independent research on the Geneva Conventions, so I wanted to chime in on this one particular point:

I think you're getting a bit down in the weeds on this issue of conferring POW status to Gitmo detainees and in a way that suggests Holder was at one point a little soft on the Geneva Conventions. The POW distinction is really not that significant to the issue of humane treatment; its relevance is primarily related to legal liability of the captured individual for the acts he has committed. POW status is something that is conferred upon "lawful combatants." An unlawful combatant, in the most general terms (I don't have the conventions in front of me, so bear with me), is someone who is not part of the armed forces of a sovereign nation, someone who is not in uniform, who is not himself adhering to the laws of war and should fairly be considered a murderer rather than a soldier following orders in warfare.

Regardless, however, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions guarantees humane treatment for all captured combatants, both lawful and unlawful. Being designated an unlawful combatant does not take away certain basic rights.

What occurred shortly after 9/11 is that the Bush Administration announced that *none* of the captured combatants at Gitmo Bay would be considered lawful combatants. Powell and the State Department Legal Adviser's office took the position that, while Al-Qaeda members may not be considered lawful combatants, the Taliban members should have been, as they were members of a military acting as directed by a sovereign nation. They were thus entitled to POW status.

None of this discussion, however, should have taken away from the basic principle of humane treatment embodied in Common Article 3. Quibbling over POW status somewhat obfuscates this very central point.

"If people thought the way you did -- it's evil to represent big, rich corporations -- then the Government would have the extraordinarily dangerous power to imprison or ruin whatever companies they wanted, since they wouldn't be able to get legal representation."

Yes, luckily the government only has the power to do that to poor people.

I never argued that rich corporations didn't have the right to counsel or should be denied counsel. I argued that attorneys should be judged by the clients they take on, and the rationales they use to justify taking on those cases. Taking on a case such as Chiqita, a case which no doubt about a billion very ethical attorneys were willing to shoulder the burden of to prove that everyone, even lonely multinational corporations, is any attorneys business. But to argue that the attorney should then receive a free ticket past the judgement of society, is indefensible.

You are apparently arguing that people who find the actions of attorneys unethical should keep their mouths shut or face the wrath of the ACLU. As usual, when faced with an argument you don't like, you simply reduce it to a caricature (such as I just did), throw some insults around and call it a win.

What are you afraid of? As nuff pointed out, I'm not only illiterate, I'm unable to differentiate between different European wheat strains. You certainly should have no trouble arguing the issue based on what I said, not just what's easier for you to defend.

Ah. For the same reason one of my friends hates telling people that he's a dentist when he first meets them.

People often respond "Eww, I hate dentists, lawyers, insurance companies, etc..." Then you have to add a shudder to get the total effect of how loathsome your career choice was.

No doubt admitting you were a mortgage broker or real estate agent will now carry the same sort of stigma in certain parts of the country, though a couple of years ago they were perceived as acceptable jobs.

I don't list all my clients I have done work for in the engineering business for the same reason. I'm not ashamed of them, I just don't feel it necessary to defend every client that I've ever done a project for.

"Arguing that a lawyer should not be criticized for the million dollar cases he takes on at the behest of slimy corporations "

Perhaps you could start an organization to defend the rights of your peoples to never be criticized.

of the Geneva Convention which ignores the dictates of the Convention's Article Three, which requires humane treatment of all those under control of a power, regardless of whether they are represented by another signatory to the treaty or are 'legal combatants'. I don't like someone who cites the Convention as if he knows it, but doesn't cite that aspect of the treaty.