Col. Janis Karpinski, Ret.
FREE LYNDIE ENGLAND!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/ENGLAND.HTM
=============================================
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Harriet Miers, President Bush and Abu Ghraib; Roe v.
Wade, or Abu Ghraib?
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:51:09 -0700
From: ENVAX
To:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=113614
Editorial
See other Editorial Articles
Title: Harriet Miers, President Bush and Abu Ghraib; Roe v.
Wade, or Abu Ghraib?
Source: BayouBuzz
URL Source:
http://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx? aid=5284
Published: Oct 15, 2005
Author: Sarah Whalen
Post Date: 2005-10-18 23:02:51 by Brian S
Ping List: *Restore the Republic List*
Roe v. Wade, or Abu Ghraib?
Which one´s the real reason U.S. President George Bush is
fighting so hard to place White House Counsel Harriet Miers on
the U.S. Supreme Court?
If Bush is genuinely concerned about Roe V. Wade, why not just
side-step arguments Miers is credentially, intellectually, and
experientially lacking, and nominate someone else?
Think about what lurks beneath this squabble´s surface.
Think--Why isn´t the White House touting Alberto Gonzales,
Bush´s former White House Counsel, as a "dream" U.S. Supreme
Court Justice? After all, he´s the son of Mexican farm workers,
he´s patriotic enough to have joined the U.S. Air Force, and
smart and scrappy enough to have worked his way through the Air
Force Academy, Texas´ Rice University, and prestigious Harvard
Law School. Like Miers, Gonzales joined an elite Texas law firm.
And unlike Miers, he´s been a Texas Supreme Court justice. His
loyalty to Bush is as unquestionable as Miers´.
So why is Bush fighting for Miers and not Gonzales?
Think "Abu Ghraib."
Abortion´s horrible, but so is torture. What kind of protection
do laws against killing the unborn provide when laws permitting
torture become part of America´s jurisprudence?
You don´t have to be a Bush "hater," a Cindy-Sheehan "lover," or
even a Democrat to be appalled at Abu Ghraib´s cruel
excesses--the sexual sickness of it. You don´t have to "be with
the terrorists" to be shocked by Guantanamo prisoners´
mistreatment. You don´t have to have any special sensibility to
be concerned that America sends prisoners abroad solely to be
tortured. You only have to be decent. Most Iraq War supporters
understand war is hell. But should war degenerate into
depravity? Doesn´t Bush say we´re fighting to show America
offers "freedom" and a better way?
The Geneva Conventions seek to prevent—and also punish--just the
kinds of Abu Ghraib abuses so graphically splayed across the
front pages of our family newspapers. And there are even more
photographs so horrible and inflammatory that the Pentagon´s
fought their release, arguing they´d ignite more anti-Western
terrorist acts.
Does Bush need Miers on the Supreme Court to protect Gonzales
and all others involved—and perhaps even Miers herself--in Abu
Ghraib´s sordid fiasco?
Someday soon, legal cases may arise on America´s Iraqi
misadventures like Abu Ghraib. Traditionally, there´s no statute
of limitation on crimes against humanity. Such cases can pend
for the accuseds´ entire lifetimes. But putting Miers on the
bench could ensure such cases are never heard.
Does Gonzales primp wearing the U.S. Attorney General´s morning
suit rather than a Justice´s black robe because he oversaw,
cleared, and reportedly authored official memorandums claiming
the Geneva Conventions´ prohibitions of torture and excesses
were inapplicable, "obsolete," and "quaint?"
The same gray eminences whose number Gonzales wanted to join
examined his handiwork, and warned that the same "outrages upon
personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" Gonzales claims are
permissible could make U.S. officials and military leaders
subject to the 1996 War Crimes Act.
Sounds like Gonzales has some polishing up to do.
And Gonzales isn´t alone. Miers´ ties to Gonzales are close,
going back many years. As Bush´s personal lawyer, Miers
reportedly introduced Gonzales to Bush and recommended he be
Bush´s General Counsel when Bush became Texas´ governor. The
U.S. Senate should pay close attention to how close Miers and
Gonzales were then and have since become. Although Miers enjoyed
a seemingly lower-level job—Bush´s staff secretary--than
Gonzales, her supporters claim she´s long been "the person in
charge of all the paperwork that crosses the Oval Office desk."
And she reportedly "screens" all Bush´s paperwork.
That means she reads it first. And she decides what´s important.
What did Miers, as Bush´s secretary-lawyer, make of Gonzales´
"torture memos?" Did she add her own legal-eagle touches?
Gonzales and Miers aren´t the only newly glum faces in
Washington, D.C. Justice Antonin Scalia was intellectually the
late Chief Justice William E. Rhenquist´s rightful heir. But a
green newcomer, John G. Roberts, is now Chief Justice. Why?
Think--Scalia´s defiant refusal to recuse himself from Vice
President Dick Cheney´s high court case after he´d enjoyed a
costly weekend duck hunting with Cheney just three weeks before
the hearing.
Will Miers willingly recuse herself on any Bush White House
matters, especially those involving Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?
She needn´t. Although Title 28, Section 455 of the United State
Code sets out criteria for Supreme Court Justices recusal,
Rhenquist wrote of Scalia´s duck hunting misadventures: "[T]here
is no formal [recusal] procedure for Court review of the
decision of a Justice in an individual case…because it has long
been settled that each Justice must decide such a question for
himself."
Or "herself."
U.S. Senators should think "Abu Ghraib," and think again before
voting "yea" on Harriet Miers.
FAIR USE NOTICE: The above may be copyrighted material, and the
use of it on LibertyPost.org may not have been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made
available on a non-profit basis for educational and discussion
purposes only. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 USC § 107. For
more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish
to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your
own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from
the copyright owner.
Post Comment
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/postcomment.cgi?113614+0+Brian%20S