Now, what the hell does that mean?

Yeah, ain't that a hoot? But no matter how hard the people who have worked overtime to undermine that principle, especially in Israel and the U.S. where these groups seem to influence the most, whenever the Supreme Court of either country has taken up and ruled on the nitpicking and parsing, they have never failed to come down solidly on the side of humanity and the public conscience as being the essence of the Geneva Conventions.

You can see it in Israeli Supreme Court rulings against IDF torture and the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla, you can see it in the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Hamdan and Boudemiene. So it must be consistent with, and even fundamental to, our constitutions, even if those who want to define a class of people as beyond law and humanity manage to torpedo ratification of those principles.

In a part of the Vienna treaty I didn't quote (Article 53), it states that if there is a conflict between jus cogens law and any treaty, that treaty is void at the time of signing. Note how the language prevents claims like the Bush people make that until it goes through the courts and gets ruled against, it's legal. These international law people have seen most of the Administration's excuses before, just not from the U.S. Prohibition of torture is considered jus cogens law. That's how strong the prohibition is. BTW, the Bush administration also tried to argue that the Convention Against Torture didn't apply anywhere that Geneva applied, in order to further the Feithian idea that inhumane treatment of people who violate the Geneva Conventions strengthens international humanitarian law.

Chapter 5 of The Torture Team discusses Douglas Feith's novel legal scholarship, as well as Philippe Sands' horror and shock listening to Feith expound it.

I meant "the essence of humanitarian and human rights law". Not all those court decisions are specific to Geneva.

"Why else do we big-head monkeys do things for? The basic question is, (as before, with trolls) How do you tell the difference between a typical lawyer and Dick Cheney? Why, you look at the facts, obviously. What was done that was wrong? What might have reflected bad judgment? One data point does not do anything."

We may have to just agree to disagree, because we can sit here and accuse each other of not having made our respctive points indefinitely.

Your statement seems pretty subjective, I see no ground rules, just your opinion. One data point may prove EVERYTHING, given the context. And this is not a job interview at Littler Mendelson. This is the job for the highest justice official, who will be making decisions that affect the right to fair justice for all people. Setting the scale between average lawyer and Dick Cheney is a bit of a strawman. The average lawyer most likely went into law to make money, not out of a strong belief in the rule of law. The AG, I think all would agree, should be someone who is in the biz as a protector of the rule of law, not capitalism. In such an circumstance, if there are other candidates available, the client list should be of concern.

If you'll allow me to expound a bit on the original premise. That client list should reflect a broad segment of the population, since the candidate would be serving the population, not just those who could afford to pay for their services.

Finally, I don't mind being wrong or even arguing with someone who is more knowledgeable than me. Ridiculing someone and reducing their argument to a caricature may be fun, but I can't see much to defend the habit.

the Feithian idea that inhumane treatment of people who violate the Geneva Conventions strengthens international humanitarian law.

Now I see how some people might be drawn to this view. It's an extension of "they only understand force" and "we have to fight dirty because they do." And the public conscience? Why, it's a fantasy for pussies. Fair trials are, logically, just another reward for misbehavior.

It's medieval. It sounds like Malleus Maleficarum or something.

I thought you like to refine your thinking through debate. What happened to that? Now we just agree to disagree?

I commented yesterday that I can see looking at evidence of specific patterns of bad judgment in a candidate's past (I gave examples). And I agree that you can ask an AG pretty much anything you want, because it's that important.

One data point may prove EVERYTHING, given the context.

Sure, if you find one thing that was bad judgment or worse. Where is that one thing?

The AG, I think all would agree, should be someone who is in the biz as a protector of the rule of law, not capitalism. In such an circumstance, if there are other candidates available, the client list should be of concern.

If you'll allow me to expound a bit on the original premise. That client list should reflect a broad segment of the population, since the candidate would be serving the population, not just those who could afford to pay for their services.

Now you're starting to make sense. But you're inventing a new definition of what an AG should be, and we can't be expected to already understand it. Has anyone ever heard of this? How would it work? How would it be enforced? What exactly are the new standards? How would you convince Republicans (or for that matter Democraps) to accept this?

Ridiculing someone and reducing their argument to a caricature may be fun, but I can't see much to defend the habit.

You're only just now making an argument---any argument---for this position for the first time.

Its possible that it took a while for my thoughts to coalesce. There's no reason to abort that process by telling someone their a dummy. The reason I want to agree to disagree is that I have to go back to work! This internet connection doesn't pay for itself you know.

Good day!