Stuff I Wrote, and a Link Too
I’ve got thoughts on newsroom diversity and comments on another evasive piece by Andy McCarthy over at True/Slant — and my take on The Daily Caller’s excellent simulated lesbian sex scoop over at The Daily Beast.
Also, if I were handing out reporting grants, I’d give one of them to Glenn Greenwald to research the hell out of this story.
Interesting that the new standard is, “If I were handing out reporting grants…”
Not so long ago, you would have said something like, “If I were an editor at a major publishing house, I’d give this guy an advance.” Or maybe, “If I were the editor of a major magazine, I’d buy this story and give this guy a budget.”
Not that reporting grants aren’t cool. I got one once! Still… sign of the times. The whole concept of researching and writing a story on assignment: Kaput?
— Sam M · Mar 30, 04:50 PM · #
I couldn’t understand certain parts of this post, but I assume I only need to learn a bit more regarding this, because it certainly sounds interesting and kind of though-proviking! By the way, how did you first get started with this?
— true religion jeans · Mar 31, 03:17 AM · #
I have enjoyed your information,thanks.
http://www.mychristianlouboutinshoes.com/
http://www.bagsqueen.com/
— mike · Mar 31, 08:49 AM · #
Hey Conor,
Why don’t you practice a little intellectual honesty and talk about our AG’s appointing Patrick Fitzgerald to head up an investigation as to how several Gitmo prisoners were found to have photos of CIA agents in their cells. There is a suspicion that they got this info from their…wait a minute…lawyers!?
From Michael Isikoff in Newsweek: “The military lawyers representing al-Hawsawi were soon cleared. But one focus is on civilian lawyers retained by the John Adams Project—an effort the American Civil Liberties Union runs to provide topnotch counsel for the most high-profile Gitmo detainees.”
That McCarthy…what a fear monger…
Link to Newsweek piece: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/03/19/holder-taps-fitzgerald-for-gitmo-photo-probe.aspx
It will be ironic if the guy who put Cheney’s assistant behind bars uncovers evidence that belies all of the “Cheney pissed on the Constitution” dopiness on this site.
— PN Peterson · Mar 31, 09:46 PM · #
PN Peterson,
You write as if I don’t address those allegations in my post. In fact, I wrote, “In his piece, Mr. McCarthy alleges that some members of the Gitmo Bar broke the law in the course of representing their clients by unnecessarily, negligently, even maliciously showing them material that would endanger the lives of CIA agents. If that is correct, the lawyers in question should be punished. Unsurprisingly, Mr. McCarthy uses these allegations against specific lawyers he doesn’t name to tar the whole Gitmo Bar, a guilt by association tactic that is both dishonorable and intellectually dishonest.”
If these allegations are true — if one or several of the many lawyers who worked on Gitmo cases misbehaved — that would hardly be evidence that belies arguments that “Cheney pissed on the Constitution.”
— Conor Friedersdorf · Mar 31, 11:41 PM · #
If you don’t understand the difference between describing what’s happening with the Gitmo lawyers between, “Mr. McCarthy alleges…” (a charge made by McCarthy alone), and the fact that the AG is actually opening an investigation, appointing one of the top prosecutors in the Federal Government, then I guess we just have different understandings of “intellectual honesty”…
Now either you didn’t know the AG has opened the investigation, which makes you dumb, or you knew and wrote your blast in such a way that leads the reader to think that McCarthy is alone in his attack – just another right wing nut job with his conspiracy theories – which makes you stupid.
Maybe it’s time you started following what the AG is actually doing (or not) rather than what McCarthy is saying about what the AG is doing. And while you’re at it…hope, really HOPE that the results of this investigation don’t trickle back to the Gitmo 7. That’s an act of faith…
As reported in that right-wing rag, Weekly Standard, on Monday: “Gertz [from WaPo] attributes the Justice Department’s reticence to particular lawyers within the department who are “sympathetic to the John Adams Project.” One Justice Department lawyer who is clearly sympathetic is Jennifer Daskal, who previously worked for Human Rights Watch and was appointed by Holder to the Justice Department’s Detainee Policy Task Force last year. Prior to joining the government, Daskal was an outspoken critic of the CIA and the interrogation techniques authorized by the Bush administration.”
I’m sure you’ll stay on top of this, as you, (Heaven forbid McCarthy!) are my trusted resource on this story.
— PN Peterson · Apr 1, 12:18 AM · #
PN Peterson,
My argument — the focus of my writing on this subject — is that Gitmo detainees deserve legal counsel, that some of them were in fact innocent, and that the lawyers who provided counsel played a vital role in our system, as opposed to Mr. McCarthy’s position, which is that merely volunteering their services calls their loyalty to America into question.
Whether or not some lawyers broke the law in the course of providing counsel is irrelevant to the issues that I care about — in the same way, were I arguing that people accused of rape in California deserve counsel, it would be irrelevant to the discussion for someone to come along and say the a couple attorneys of accused rapists broke the law in defending their clients.
I mentioned Mr. McCarthy’s charges for two reasons: 1) to point out that I agree lawbreaking lawyers should be punished; and to point out that Mr. McCarthy is misleadingly writing as if every Gitmo lawyer engaged in illegal misconduct.
Beyond that, I haven’t written anything about lawyerly abuses because I don’t know what happened, and perfectly content for an investigation to go forward. If you’re looking for the most recent details on that particular aspect of the Gitmno controversy, you should probably look elsewhere for it, though if I come across anything, I shall certainly acknowledge and link to it.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Apr 1, 02:14 AM · #
I must start by apologizing for my “stupid/dumb” wisecrack in the earlier post. I doubt you’re either, and my dismissive language obscures a larger point…and it’s just not nice.
I nonetheless hold to my contention that by describing the current investigation into what might become treasonous actions by non-military Gitmo lawyers as only something “McCarthy alleges” without pointing out that there is sufficient enough “smoke” for the country’s top legal official to launch a significant investigation headed up by Patrick Fitzgerald (of all people) you are being less than forthright.
In an earlier piece you take McCarthy to task for questioning where these lawyers’ loyalties may lie. In today’s Washington Times, the aforementioned Bill Gertz reports that Holder took this step to open a broader investigation after, “A team of CIA counterintelligence officials recently visited the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and concluded that CIA interrogators face the risk of exposure to al Qaeda through inmates’ contacts with defense attorneys.” Notice it is the CIA forcing this, after an earlier DOJ “investigation” resulted in zippo. Those CIA guys – what a bunch of paranoids…
Again, while all are innocent until proven otherwise, Gertz goes on to state, “Regarding the interagency dispute, some CIA officials are said to be concerned that Justice Department investigators may have been advocates on behalf of the Guantanamo Bay detainees prior to joining the Obama administration.”
Hmmm. The CIA is “concerned” that DOJ INVESTIGATORS “may have been advocates” for Gitmo detainees? Why should that “concern” the CIA? How dare they question the loyalties of these lawyers!
…unless of course some of the ACLU lawyers illegally gave photos of CIA agents compromising their identities. And the DOJ lawyers tasked with investigating this possible breach are, in fact, former Gitmo lawyers who might be dragging their feet due to their…great patriotism? Clearly the CIA wonders…not McCarthy…the CIA. What you seem to be missing here is that this case is bringing together not just the current Gitmo lawyers, but the past who are now working for DOJ. And you don’t think, given the charges being pushed by the CIA that this merits a serious questioning of loyalties?
But this is all something “MCCARTHY alleges”…
— PN Peterson · Apr 1, 06:26 AM · #
“…as opposed to Mr. McCarthy’s position, which is that merely volunteering their services calls their loyalty to America into question.”
Nice straw man.
I’m pretty sure that had these attorneys stayed in private practice, there would be no problem with them doing pro bono work for whomever they please. But these lawyers who provided unprecedented advocacy for captured-on-the-battlefield, non-resident, non-citizen, non-uniform-wearing combatants and who now work for our government and get paid with our tax dollars should indeed be viewed with suspicion. Nobody was forcing these firms to advocate for these detainees…. I can find no record of ANY law firm offering free counsel to the German saboteurs that were captured during WWII…Yet these folks were only too happy to offer their time and effort and knowledge to advocate for these captured combatants.
Why? The fact that the AG is now investigating whether or not the datainees were given photos of CIA agents by their attorneys kind of makes me think there was something else in play here besides support for “unpopular clients”.
— tomaig · Apr 1, 02:43 PM · #
Plenty of these guys weren’t from battlefields, though. Many were detained on the basis of anonymous phone tips. German soldiers captured in WWII were prisoners of war, not civil detainees. They had advocacy through the Red Cross.
— Chet · Apr 1, 05:53 PM · #
They should wear a damn uniform and carry arms openly then Chet! That’s a good way to avoid mistakenly imprisoning innocents.
— BrianF · Apr 1, 06:02 PM · #
“…German soldiers captured in WWII were prisoners of war, not civil detainees. They had advocacy through the Red Cross.”
I wasn’t talking about POWs captured in Europe, I was talking about the German saboteurs who were captured in the U.S.(Operation Pastorius) They were given military lawyers and tried by a military tribunal, found guilty and (all but two) executed. All with the OK of the Supreme Court and the President. From the Supreme Court ruling that denied their military lawyers’ attempts to have the cases tried in Federal court:
“ …the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals. “
Sounds fair to me…
— tomaig · Apr 1, 06:27 PM · #
<P>This is<A title=”“ href=“http://www.christianlouboutintrade.com/”><FONT color=#ee1196>christian louboutin shoes</FONT>.</A> We offer the cheap and high quality shoes.Welcome to the website <A title=”“ href=“http://www.christianlouboutintrade.com”><FONT color=#ee1196>www.christianlouboutintrade.com</FONT></A>. </P>
<P><A title=”“ href=“http://www.christianlouboutintrade.com/christian-louboutin-shoes-c-3.html”><FONT color=#f70997>christian loubintin shoes</FONT></A></P>
<P><A title=”“ href=“http://www.christianlouboutintrade.com/christian-louboutin-boots-c-2.html”><FONT color=#f70997>christian louboutin boots</FONT></A></P>
<P><A title=”“ href=“http://www.christianlouboutintrade.com/christian-louboutin-pumps-c-1.html”><FONT color=#f70997>christian louboutin pumps</FONT></A></P>
<P><A title=”“ href=“http://www.christianlouboutintrade.com/christian-louboutin-sandals-c-4.html”><FONT color=#f70997>christian louboutin sandals</FONT></A></P>
<P><A title=”“ href=“http://www.christianlouboutintrade.com/christian-louboutin-wedges-c-5.html”><FONT color=#f70997>christian louboutin wedges</FONT></A></P>
<P><A title=”“ href=“http://www.christianlouboutintrade.com/christian-louboutin-evening-c-6.html”><FONT color=#f70997>christian louboutin evening shoes</FONT></A></P>
— christian louboutin · Apr 2, 03:30 AM · #
Mr. Laboutin,
I am a whoor. I checked out your shoes and loved them. DO you make undie-ware too?
— cw · Apr 2, 02:47 PM · #