What is the alternative to an ivory tower? An cabin hacked out of an enormous ebony bolus?
I've always rolled my eyes at the Ivory Tower/ Real World dichotomy. Why is working 9-5 for some government or business more real than working in academia?
Personally, I liked the University; they gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything. You've never been out of college. You don't know what it's like out there. I've worked in the private sector--they expect results.
JH: working for the government isn't "real world" either, unless you mean the military, in which case it is the most real thing anywhere ever. It doesn't matter if the military or a big company like Microsoft has the same problems with slow mving bureaucracy that Health and Human Services does. As long as you are making money or killing people, you have real world experience.
3 is disqualified for once having been quoted approvingly by Instapundit.
5: Back off, man. I'm a scientist.
to go with "Yoo Memo" this second post should be called "Yo Mama"
How many Universities have ever gone broke due to mismanagement or changing customer tastes or new technologies? I know they exist, but their failure rate compared to business? How many companies have made it to two centuries, let alone three or four? (Barretta is one, here are some others http://www.familybusinessmagazine.com/oldworld.html)
Is the feedback you speak of limited to students/faculty/etc.? I'm searching RMP and not finding anything on him.
Sometimes you just don't want to let the shame of a Godwin's Law violation keep you from making an observation. Here's mine: The legal architecture that Yoo, Addington, Rumsfeld and others created succeeded, in its totality, in recreating most of the contents of the notorious Kriegsgerichtsbarkeitserlass (Decree on Miltary Jurisdiction) of May 13, 1941. (The decree in English translation in abbreviated form here.)
This decree, which governed operations in the wake of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, contains the following.
- A preamble arguing that this is a war like none before it against a merciless enemy, and that existing judicial institutions (both civilian courts and courts martial) are inadequate, and that to ignore this reality would endanger German lives.
Then comes a series of orders...
- denying civilian courts and courts martial jurisdiction over hostile acts by enemy civilians
- ordering that unlawful combatants ("Freischärler") be "mercilessly dealt with"
- ordering that civilians who attack the army should be "suppressed" "by means up to and including the destruction of the attackers"
- giving officers the authority to order the summary execution of suspected unlawful combatants (even BushCo didn't go this far, to be fair)
- authorizing (arguably, ordering) collective reprisals against villages from which attacks emanate
- expressly forbidding the transfer of captured suspects to civilian courts or regular courts martial.
- giving the supreme theater commander authority to return jurisdiction to courts martial when the conquered territory is "adequately pacified".
Then comes a section regarding the legal treatment of soldiers who commit crimes against enemy civilians. This section...
- Expressly relieves the Command of any obligation to prosecute crimes against civilians by its soldiers
- Creates an affirmative defense for soldiers accused of war crimes based on legitimate feelings of grievance against the Bolsheviks for their well-known crimes against the German people
- Suggests a disciplinary reprimand as a substitute for prosecution in the case of war crimes, except for cases involving especially grave sexual offenses or wanton destruction of militarily useful property, or for cases where prosecution is necessary for the discipline and good order of the troops
- Instructs that testimony of enemy nationals is to be treated as prima facie not credible, except in the most exceptional circumstances.
Finally, the decree orders that
- legal staff are to be informed of the written orders of the Command, and also of the verbal intentions of the political leadership
- no verdict should be upheld that contradicts the political goals of the leadership.
I can see how the not the "real world" comment might be unfair with respect to most academics, but it is a frequent complaint in the law. Few professors at top law schools like Boalt Hall have much experience being practicing lawyers. Indeed, at top law schools, not a lot of time is even spent trying to teach you about the details of the practice of law, in part because there are not a lot of people qualified to do it. It does not mean that there are not great professors out there or even that they cannot do a great job teaching people to be practicing lawyers, but law school in many respects is trade school, and there is something a bit strange about being taught your trade by people who have little experience practicing it. It all works out--you learn how to practice when you start your practice or as a summer associate--but this is a common complaint about law professors.
this second post should be called "Yo Mama"
no, Yoo Two
common complaints about law professors:
1. They have little to no real world experience
2. They suck the soul from you like hideous vampires, like horrible slobbering beasts sucking marrow from bone, leaving you a husk of a man, a vacant-eyed automaton, a waiting receptacle, a sucking void, for evil
15.2 s/b "They make you into a lawyer"
As one of the non-lawyers around here, I'm going to join Emerson in making this "insult and degrade lawyers day"
||
This completely failed to attract a response on the other thread, but maybe here it'll give some lawyer a chance to feel like they've redeemed themselves:
Can anybody tell me the difference between a charge of "Felony Assault with a Deadly Weapon" and "Attempted Murder"? Why would a prosecutor charge one vs. the other? If you, like, kick somebody with a shod foot, it's the former, right? Could it also be an attack with a knife or gun? Is this usually prosecuted more like simple assault, or is it way more serious than that? If somebody has a history of things like not dealing well with DUIs, but no violent crime, does that mean they're likely to get a sentence in years, or months?
This is not for me! Don't worry! Ol' Unconditional Surrender isn't in any trouble.
|>
My understanding is that at say Suffolk in Boston or John Marshall in Chicago students are taught the law and have very high initial pass rates for their respective state bar exams. At elite law schools, however, students are not taught the law, but The Law, οἱ νόμοι, or what have you.
More John Marshall students pass the bar on their first try than UofC students (or so I am told).
18: One reason no one is answering is that it's highly dependent on the particular jurisdiction in which this person is being charged. For instance, the New York Penal Code has no one crime called assault with a deadly weapon.
19: UofC has a 97.7% first time pass rate, John Marshall 87.5%.
"insult and degrade lawyers day"
Isn't that what partners do?
One reason no one is answering is that it's highly dependent on the particular jurisdiction in which this person is being charged.
Oh. That's a good reason. It's in Washington State. Is
anybody a lawyer there?
I guess it's kind of a pointless question anyhow without more details of the case, which I don't have.
Good for nothing lawyers.
Hmm. For Illinois?
I was told this by a U of C law professor (not Obama).
I was told this by a U of C law professor (not Obama).
Damn out-of-touch ivory-tower law professors, not even knowing how many of their own students pass the bar.
It sounds like it's "assault with a deadly weapon", which would include the possibility of serious harm or even death, but not "assault with intent to kill", which would be attempted murder. But I know nothing.
Thanks, John. I'm not looking for particularly accurate advice here, I just have very fragmentary information about what kind of trouble a friend might be in, and I'm trying to fill in what might have happened. It's tough talking to him about it because he (and his lawyer) are being cagey (understandably so), and I don't really know anybody who lives near him who might know more details.
If you want a free answer, just ask an irresponsible person who knows nothing.
"insult and degrade lawyers day"
Otherwise known as a "weekday."
If you want a free answer, just ask an irresponsible person who knows nothing.
Right. That's why I asked here. Not knowing is driving me nuts, and since I have no way to actually find anything out, I figured it might provide some reassurance to have somebody tell me something made up. So far it seems to be working.
Hitler was a vegetarian
John Yoo is a lawyer
Joseph Stalin sported a mustache
Mussolini was Italian
If there's a mustachioed, vegetarian Italian lawyer around, I see let's get 'im.
To be accurate, in their last meeting, the Lakers crushed the Supersonics. And that was without the Big Paella.
- giving officers the authority to order the summary execution of suspected unlawful combatants (even BushCo didn't go this far, to be fair)
Thanks for the write-up, Knecht. I'm not sure they haven't gone that far. Didn't we hear that the CIA or someone or other had the green light to use armed Predator drones against ranking Al Qaeda folks?
I would almost assume they've gone that far.
I'm not sure they haven't gone that far. Didn't we hear that the CIA or someone or other had the green light to use armed Predator drones against ranking Al Qaeda folks?
I frankly don't have a problem with that. Shooting off ordinance at the enemy's commanders is not inconsistent with the laws of war (though there are borderline cases where the targets are in amongst innocent civilians, and obviously the question of target identification is complicated when you're talking about Al Quaeda instead of a uniformed hostile army). Once someone is in the custody of our forces, though, that's a different story.
Assuming they've gone that far - regardless of to what action or policy "that far" is meant to refer - is a pretty safe bet.
Shooting off ordinance at the enemy's commanders is not inconsistent with the laws of war
And which war would that be?
Assuming they've gone that far - regardless of to what action or policy "that far" is meant to refer - is a pretty safe bet. a touchingly naive underestimate of how far they've actually gone.
One of the early drone attacks was in Yemen and was not aimed at a military post. Someone affiliated with AQ was there. Since quite awhile ago the "opposing army" has come to mean just about any Muslim group we care to attack. This is a war against an undefined enemy.
There's no possible way of declaring victory -- maybe our enemies are all in sleeper cells! The war will last at least a decade and almost certainly several decades. While it lasts law and civil liberties must be overridden.
The US is a classic bad guy by now. Not the evilest or worst ever, but recognizing no bounds whatsoever to its conduct or goals.
That would be the war against the perpetrators of 9-11, authorized by the October 2001 AUMF, which, notwithstanding the fact that the administration has stretched and abused it beyond all recognition, was a legitimate declaration of war in response to a belligerent act.
Didn't we hear that the CIA or someone or other had the green light to use armed Predator drones against ranking Al Qaeda folks?
Well, wouldn't ranking Al Qaeda folks qualify as combatants, or at least elements of the enemy command structure?
Not to get all I/P on folks, but I find it hard to get worked up over Hamas shooting rockets into Israeli "settlements" or the IDF killing Hamas commanders in the same way that I get worked up over blowing up nightclubs or random armed sweeps through Palestinian towns.
Doesn't Hamas randomly lob rockets into Israel proper from Gaza?
40: I don't think so. It would be if AQ were a territorial group, or if it were even a specific enumerated group of people with a chain of command, but as far as I know it was always a diffuse and polycentric collection of tendencies. A declaration of war against such an entity would be intrinsically open-ended even if not being taken advantage of.
Al Qaeda seems to be defined the way street gangs are, where you become a "gang associate" and possible target if you have any contact with any member of the gang.
||
You know what is really annoying and lame? Departmental politics, that's what.
|>
oh, and JE is quite right in 43. Of course, there was never any serious effort to address AQ, so it probably doesn't matter. At least, beyond a very short term there wasn't.
This thread is about random legal topics, right? This morning I heard a report on the radio which made it sound like Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan would charge more to out-of-state people who drive in to the congestion priced zone than it would to state-residents. I also heard that Governor Corzine was upset about this, as one might expect. It turned out I was wrong about the details, in that Corzine is actually upset about a plan which raises the already existing tolls on Hudson river crossings from Jersey into New York City unless the Port Authority (a bi-state agency) pays the MTA (a city agency) a billion dollars. But my misunderstanding left me wondering about potential dormant commerce clause challenges to congestion pricing, and while I'm pretty sure such a challenge would fail, it's an interesting question.
43: Al Qaeda seems to be defined the way street gangs are, where you become a "gang associate" and possible target if you have any contact, or share an ethnicity or religion with any member of the gang.
Doesn't Hamas randomly lob rockets into Israel proper from Gaza?
I'm pretty sure they do. But they also occasionally take potshots at settlements with mortars and such, which I think is qualitatively different in a moral sense.
43: so our stance is "if you're involved with AQ, you're a military target". Any good reason not to be OK with that? My understanding of AQ is that even apart from 9/11 they're not a group any moral person wants to exist. And their copycats worldwide are radical and violent.
I don't see explicit calls for tolerance of AQ in this thread, but it seems like it's right beneath the surface. If that's so, why?
but it seems like it's right beneath the surface
Whaaa?!
I don't know about this argument from implied subliminality.
my misunderstanding left me wondering about potential dormant commerce clause challenges to congestion pricing, and while I'm pretty sure such a challenge would fail, it's an interesting question.
I don't imagine there would be any legal problem with charging different rates for in-state and out-of-state drivers, since the in-state drivers are the ones who pay taxes that support road construction and maintenance. It's like in-state tuition at state universities. But I don't really know what I'm talking about here, so who knows.
"if you're involved with AQ, you're a military target". Any good reason not to be OK with that?
Because we don't know or trust the procedures used to determine whether someone is "involved" with Al Qaeda.
Michael, "involved" seems to mean things as tenuous as "in the physical vicinity of anyone anywhere who is thought to have had contact with al Qaeda at some point in the past".
With the best will in the world, granted that AQ is a secretive, migratory, decentralized terrorist group, defining the target (without making the whole Islamic world the target) would be difficult.
But what we've had is the worst will in the world. The first expansion of the open-ended war was into Iraq, which at that time was less implicated with AQ than Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Sudan, probably Egypt and Yemen, and maybe Malaysia.
I don't see explicit calls for tolerance of AQ in this thread, but it seems like it's right beneath the surface. If that's so, why?
I don't believe such a call the subtext of anybody's comments. The emphasis of this and other threads on Things About The Bush Administration That We Don't Like can't in good faith be taken as evidence of some tu quoque or self-hating American affection for the declared enemies of the democracy that the Bush Administration is misusing. It is a measure of the Bush Administration's malfeasance that Americans spend more time and effort attacking and defending it than figuring out how to defend against the inevitable next al Qaeda attack.
Of course, I suppose part of it is educated bourgeois passivity in the face of the energetic birth of the age of catastrophic terrorism, too.
"involved with" has been determined from telephone contact or cohabitation with a tainted person and also from information provided by paid informants. The US army in Iraq by and large doesn't speak Arabic, making police work difficult. So "involved with" is gathered by fallible means.
"involved" seems to mean things as tenuous as "in the physical vicinity of anyone anywhere who is thought to have had contact with al Qaeda at some point in the past". With the best will in the world, granted that AQ is a secretive, migratory, decentralized terrorist group, defining the target (without making the whole Islamic world the target) would be difficult.
Right. Which is why having a trigger-happy lunatic like GWB commanding the campaign is likely to lead to levels of collateral damage that cannot be justified on either moral or even utilitarian grounds (given the inevitability of backlash).
But, in the hands of a more rational and prudent leader, I don't see any moral reason why we shouldn't use military force to take out suspected AQ wherever we find them, subject to prudential discretion and the customary laws of war.
Ogged's original point was about delegating this authority to theatre commanders, a step that probably has certain practical advantages (response time) that have to be weighed against the gravity of potential mistakes.
52 gets it right. The reason it's okay to blow up enemy tanks or battleships is that they're clearly identifiable as military targets. A few swarthy dudes in a Toyota truck in Yemen or wherever could be al-Qaeda or they could be traveling to a wedding.
Let me stick my neck out and say that I think that the long-term threat of Islamic terrorism has been exaggerated from the beginning, partly from the shock of 9/11 and partly deliberately for cynical reasons.
And I will say this even if there is another attack, though I realize that there's another attack of any magnitude, my side will lose the argument forever. (There's a lot of moral hazard there for the Bush administration.)
This war on terror is not the biggest war ever against the biggest, scariest, evilest enemy of all time. It does not justify the extreme measures that the Democrats have allowed Bush to take.
A comparison I make goes like this. (The numbers are ball park figures.) Over the course of less than ten years, El Salvador (pop. 6 million) suffered at least 20,000 dead in a civil war in which one side was supported by the US -- 3 or 4 thousand a year. That level of casualties for the US would be 150,000 or 200,000 deaths a year. But total American deaths haven't reached 10,000 yet, after 6 years. Nobody in the world understands our hysteria.
I don't think that there are any customary laws of war allowing you to launch rocket attacks or other attacks on enemy individuals wherever in the world they happen to be. This may be a weakness of the customary laws of war in the face of international terrorism, but it's a reason why even the best case is difficult.
I don't see explicit calls for tolerance of AQ in this thread, but it seems like it's right beneath the surface. If that's so, why?
It isn't. What you're seeing is not trusting the phrase 'involved with al Qaeda' to indicate actual involvement with terrorism (as opposed to weak suspicions or being in the same city as other suspected terrorists) and not trusting the government or the American public to care to discern whether someone actually a terrorist or an innocent accidentally detained. The 'gang associate' analogy upthread was apt.
When 'being involved with al Qaeda' might mean 'an Afghan anti-Taliban ally swept up by mistake (and who died in custody)', skepticism about the government's claims seems to be warranted.
58: A long, extended joke or a moment of earnestness?
The US has harbored anti-Cuban terrorists for decades. As far as I know, no one concedes Cuba the right to bomb Miami, (though they have good prudential reasons not to try to do so too, of course.)
could be al-Qaeda or they could be traveling to a wedding
Or both!
Also: stories like this one ought to lessen our faith the government's interpretation of what it means to be "involved with al-Qaeda."
The US has harbored anti-Cuban terrorists for decades. As far as I know, no one concedes Cuba the right to bomb Miami, (though they have good prudential reasons not to try to do so too, of course.)
If the Cuban secret police had killed whoever that guy who bombed the one plane was, I wouldn't be too broken up over it.
63: Sorry, I should have been clearer. Were you serious about "stick my neck out," etc.? Everyone here agrees on that, don't they?
51: The dormant commerce clause is supposed to, generally, stop states from engaging in protectionism to favor in-state businesses at the expense of out-of-state businesses. In-state tuition isn't on point.
When 'being involved with al Qaeda' might mean 'an Afghan anti-Taliban ally swept up by mistake (and who died in custody)', skepticism about the government's claims seems to be warranted.
Once again, what happens once someone is in the custody of the US is a completely different matter. The laws of war permit a soldier to shoot an enemy combatant on the battlefield. They don't permit him to do *anything* to a POW except take care of him and detain him until the cessation of hostilities.
Firing on enemy combatants on neutral territory without that country's permission might make you guilty of aggressive war (or violating declared neutrality), but that is a totally different class of international law than targeting civilians or mistreating POW's.
could be al-Qaeda or they could be traveling to a wedding
They could be so devilishly clever that they are scheming to score propaganda victories for our enemies by deliberately getting themselves blown up by US planes and then turning out to be in fact a completely innocent wedding party.
Al-Qaeda operatives who don't yet know they are al-Qaeda operatives are the most sinister al-Qaeda operatives of all.
Al-Qaeda operatives who don't yet know they are al-Qaeda operatives are the most sinister al-Qaeda operatives of all.
Exactly. Just like Cylons.
OT:
dear mineshaft: if i had broken my finger, would it not be all swollen up rather than just bruised and painful at the site of the hammer-impact that caused this all mess?
73. it would swell if it was a bad break. A hairline fracture might not cause swelling. That's my experience.
i mean, you just ice and splint it, right?
68: Perhaps you thought I was making a different point, one about the treatment of prisoners instead of whether we should take the government's claim that everyone in Gitmo is a dangerous, dangerous terrorist at face value.
And quit hitting it with hammers, etc.
My XIXc Danish Mormon inlaw is named Munk, BTW. But my ex-wife says that that there are tons and tons of Danish Mormons, something I did not know.
Let me stick my neck out and say that I think that the long-term threat of Islamic terrorism has been exaggerated from the beginning,
No argument from me.
Jackmormon is interrogating herself.
Admit it, you know you're Al Queda.
quit hitting it with hammers
failing that, buy a hammer with one of those nail-holders on it. or use pliers. Or use Emerson's hand.
Jackmormon is interrogating herself.
A hairline fracture of the finger does not provoke pain on par with organ failure or death, so there was no torture involved.
While your thumb is healing, you could hit yourself on the knee or head instead.
A carpenter friend of mine had a coworker who could drive a nail all the way with one swing. I got so I could consistently do it with two swings, but this guy didn't even have to set the nail.
82. I didn't say she was good at it. Look, she still hasn't confessed. Next I suggest the comfy chair!
But my ex-wife says that that there are tons and tons of Danish Mormons, something I did not know.
Oh hell yes. Frequently in the 1800's converts in Europe would emigrate to Utah. In my family they were Scots, but names like Jensen, Hansen, Christensen, etc. are extremely common. Lots of tall blonds (like my wife) in this state.
actually, it wasn't even a real hammer. I was hammering with a set of heavy-duty pliers. that may have been part of the problem.
my danish lds relatives were named, wait for it, "christian/sen."
thank god i injured myself only with the pliers; afterwards i needed to use (for the first time ever!) a staple-gun. dangerous shit!
I've heard that tapping the end of your finger while keeping it straight will quickly determine if it's broken or not.
Pliers and blowtorch not pliers and staplegun, JM. Didn't you see "Pulp Fiction"?
Well, I suppose pliers are better than using your stiletto heels as a hammer, for that would be too 50's stereotype.
i mean, you just ice and splint it, right?
As the actress said to the bishop.
92.---ok, we're in good shape then. thanks!
So get the Cylon a paint-job.
Give it the Cylon touch.
Late to the thread, but I think the summary execution issue is raised in the Omar Khadr case. IIRC, the guy who was about to shoot Khadr -- who was on the ground, seriously injured -- was stopped. But I think the other guy with him was killed: which is a big deal, because there's some ambiguity as to whether Khadr or the other guy threw the grenade that's the basis for Khadr's war crimes trial.
Maybe one of you Canadians is following this a little closer than I am . . .
i don't understand the title and the post connection
at first i thought it's again a dating thread
i'm against all kinds of torture btw
that Yoo man i perceive as one morally confused man, but it could be that he is an overzealous conformist who will do anything for his pay
other post titles:
This Yoos For You
Do the Yoo
A (small, cold, windowless) Room with a Yoo
Yoosed and Abused
Google is really something. I just searched the post title (didn't know the reference) and this is the second result. Holy cow.
thank god i injured myself only with the pliers; afterwards i needed to use (for the first time ever!) a staple-gun. dangerous shit!
Are you using those canvas stretching pliers, JM? Because if so, I feel your pain. Ow! Ow!
the one thing you can't say about Yoo is that he never had an impact on the "real world."
Yoo himself is now tryinghard to say that, though.