Gitmo Lawyers Strangely Unenthused About Romney

I don't know how many Gitmo lawyers there have been (email me and I'll update) but 80 of them are endorsing Barack Obama, says Charlie Savage.

The attorneys praised Obama for being a leader in an unsuccessful fight in the fall of 2006 to block Congress from enacting a law stripping courts of jurisdiction to hear Guantanamo detainee lawsuits. The constitutionality of that law, which was part of the Military Commissions Act, is now being challenged before the Supreme Court in one of the most closely-watched cases this term.

"When we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration's bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us," they wrote. "Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates."

Much, much more reason on Gitmo here. Make sure to check out the wonderful day I fell for a head fake about Gitmo getting scrapped.

Comments

Bill | January 29, 2008, 12:32pm | #

Next time, use the actual word 'unenuthiastic' instead of the pseudo-word 'unenthised'.

:-)

Thank you.

R C Dean | January 29, 2008, 12:57pm | #

And BIll gets a Joe'z Rule for the typo "unenthised" in a comment on the pseudoword "unenthused".

lunchstealer | January 29, 2008, 1:08pm | #

Oh, Gitmo defense lawyers. From the headline, I was thinking that that one former prosecutor actually had company in the having-a-soul-and-not-feeding-on-human-blood-by-night department.

Kwix | January 29, 2008, 1:21pm | #

Wait, former Gitmo defense lawyers support Obama?
Lawyers who defended radical Muslims support a man raised in a radical madrassa? See, Obama is a radical muslim! I knew it!
[/nutjob]

Wow, did I get that right? I had to close my eyes to type it.

P Brooks | January 29, 2008, 1:23pm | #

We need Gitmo to stockpile all the terrrists[sic] we nab once the Protect America by Flushing the Constitution Down the Toilet Act is successfully passed. We'll probably need to expand it. Expand Gitmo, that is.
Although we'll probably need to expand the PAFCDTAct, too, in order to round up our homegrown malcontents and wannabe Constitutional scholars.

de stijl | January 29, 2008, 1:25pm | #

Wouldn't Romney be good for business, though? He did promise to double it.

e | January 29, 2008, 1:27pm | #

No surprise here. These left-wing useful idiot lawyers support Obama. who would have guessed. one more reason to oppose Obama and his radical left wing ideas.

joe | January 29, 2008, 1:35pm | #

Damn those uniformed military lawyers who were assigned the role of defense!

Damn their left-wing useful idiot hearts!

Oh, and support the troops.

lunchstealer | January 29, 2008, 1:39pm | #

Wait a second. Is e some weird bizzaro incarnation of Dan T?

notjoe | January 29, 2008, 1:40pm | #

joe,

read article. volunteers for habeas corpus suits. not active duty. some retired military.

lunchstealer | January 29, 2008, 1:44pm | #

RC - Match that with "Unenuthiastic" I'm enuthed about their unenuthiasm.

Also, you miscapitolized BIll.

R C Dean | January 29, 2008, 1:48pm | #

Also, you miscapitolized BIll.

And another Joe'z Rule award to luncstealer for "miscapitolized"!

Its the gift that keeps on giving.

Not sure if you can get a Joe'z Rule for a typo in a comment awarding a Joe'z Rule. Lets go to the source:

joe?

R C Dean | January 29, 2008, 1:49pm | #

Arrgh! lunchstealer.

nj | January 29, 2008, 1:51pm | #

"Guantanamo detainees don’t lack for legal representation. A list of lead counsel released this week in response to a Freedom of Information Act request reads like a who’s who of America’s most prestigious law firms: Shearman and Sterling; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr; Covington & Burling; Hunton & Williams; Sullivan & Cromwell; Debevoise & Plimpton; Cleary Gottlieb; and Blank Rome are among the marquee names."

GILMORE | January 29, 2008, 2:10pm | #

Maybe this wont exactly play in Obama's favor.

I mean, he's already got the "Obama~Osama" problem in some parts of the country, and now LAWYERS FOR TERRORISTS are claiming he's their man.

I mean, most Americans put "lawyers" in a class of human sightly above child molesters and terrorists, but probably still below "con men, embezzelers/abortion-clinic bombers"

joe | January 29, 2008, 2:12pm | #

R C Dean,

It's "joez law," not "joe'z rule." Get a brain, morans!

On the question, invoking joez law is NOT a commentary on the violator's intelligence, so it should be possible to call joez law without subjecting one's self to it.

As an added protection, "joez law of teh intertubez" is pre-misspelled for your karmic safety.

GILMORE | January 29, 2008, 2:12pm | #

Aw, Kwix beat me to the same point. Durn

Cesar | January 29, 2008, 2:16pm | #

I still can't believe that tool actually said "We should double Gitmo!"

lunchstealer | January 29, 2008, 2:27pm | #

RC - What's really sad is that when I used the wrong spelling of 'miscapitalization' I actually had to look it up to make sure that the letter kind didn't use the 'o'.

:P

R C Dean,

It's "joez law," not "joe'z rule." Get a brain, morans!

On the question, invoking joez law is NOT a commentary on the violator's intelligence, so it should be possible to call joez law without subjecting one's self to it.

As an added protection, "joez law of teh intertubez" is pre-misspelled for your karmic safety.

OK, but we can, for comic effect, point out misspellings in invocations of Joez Law which are responded to misspelled complaints about misspelled words, right?

Also it is the violation of joez law to misspell during complaining about spelling, or is it just complaining about misspelling, or is it complaining about complaining about misspelling? I want to make sure I get the nuance right.

Does anyone else think this is getting needlessly metameta?

joe | January 29, 2008, 2:31pm | #

joez law is not a complaint about misspelling, but about a commenter's intelligence.

Ideally, the complained-about statement doesn't contain any misspellings at all, and the accusation of stupidity is based purely on disagreement with the ideas expressed.

For example:

"Count all the votes!"

"Get a brain, morans!"

lunchstealer | January 29, 2008, 2:35pm | #

I still can't believe that tool actually said "We should double Gitmo!"

What? The guy's a tool. That's what tools do. Say tooly things.

Another Phil | January 29, 2008, 2:38pm | #

joez law is a conspiracy by the Democrits.

lunchstealer | January 29, 2008, 2:39pm | #

joez law is not a complaint about misspelling, but about a commenter's intelligence.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, retard.

joe | January 29, 2008, 2:57pm | #

Oh, sure. You THINK you can be joez law, with your proofreading and your spell-checking, but you're just fooling yourself, lunchstealer.

It's still out there. All you're doing is making sure that you will misspell something, making you look like a idiot, in an even more prominent manner, at some point in the future.

Bronwyn | January 29, 2008, 3:10pm | #

joez law is cumulative?

Wow, I did not know that. Anybody know where I can get a good rate on karma insurance?

lunchstealer | January 29, 2008, 3:28pm | #

but you're just fooling yourself, lunchstealer.

Gah! Now I've got Styx songs stuck in my head. That's just mean. You statists are cruel, aren't you?

TrickyVic | January 29, 2008, 4:40pm | #

"""""Guantanamo detainees don’t lack for legal representation."""

What they lack is compentent legal representation. It's not so much that their lawyers are incompentent, it's the framework in which their lawyers must operate that lacks.

B | January 30, 2008, 11:33am | #

"Damn those uniformed military lawyers who were assigned the role of defense!

Damn their left-wing useful idiot hearts!

Oh, and support the troops."

Hey dipshit, this endorsement is not from uniformed personnel joe, you stupid fuckup.
I don't know which is worse: the fact that you are a fucking idiot, or the fact that you think your posts are funny.