tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post110418134115659288..comments2005-08-08T00:11:06.146+09:00Comments on Riding Sun: Why people hate lawyersUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1105575289701544612005-01-13T09:14:00.000+09:002005-01-13T09:14:00.000+09:00Monster Cable,
It is with great regret that I mus...Monster Cable,<br /><br />It is with great regret that I must inform you that I have Monster Nuts(tm). As such, I am obligated to notify you that your Monster brand audio interconnect cables conflict with my mark - Monster Nuts(tm).<br /><br />Although they will never be confused with your semi-decent quality audio interconnects, I hereby invite you to license the use of my Monster Nuts(tm) at a flat rate of $500 a year, with an additional %.05 of your annual gross revenue sent to me as licensing costs.<br /><br />You have 10 days to comply with my licensing demands, otherwise I will unfortunately be forced to take stronger actions.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Owner of Monster Nuts(tm)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1104505876857220922005-01-01T00:11:00.000+09:002005-01-01T00:11:00.000+09:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.fasteddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03326121556687224060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1104484584504941632004-12-31T18:16:00.000+09:002004-12-31T18:16:00.000+09:00"because they are not members of a fighting force ..."because they are not members of a fighting force recognizable by a common uniform,"<br /><br />It is technically not breaking the rules, but it is breaking the standards of what humane treatment of fellow human beings should be.<br /><br />Legally defensible? Yes. Morally evil? Yes. I can't believe we allow it to happen, and I strongly condemn these rationalizations as cold hearted and lacking in empathy. Do you approve of these practices also?fasteddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03326121556687224060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1104484024879122222004-12-31T18:07:00.000+09:002004-12-31T18:07:00.000+09:00No it doesn't. Liberal, Conservative. always the...No it doesn't. Liberal, Conservative. always the political defence, politcs are starting to sicken me. How about what it is morally right or wrong. People can fucking justify anything they want, even find "legal" loopholes it does not excuse doing something that is morally reprehensible. You know the Nazis were just following lawful orders handed down through the chain of command! <br /><br />You excuse actions authorized by the president blindly, out of patriotism that anything that the administration does is okay? Politics sicken me.fasteddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03326121556687224060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1104464203809020952004-12-31T12:36:00.000+09:002004-12-31T12:36:00.000+09:00Hard to say whether it's "kosher" -- if you mean, ...Hard to say whether it's "kosher" -- if you mean, is it legal from a procedural standpoint, I think that the President has a pretty wide scope to do what he wants until Congress or SCOTUS calls him on it.<br /><br />You should understand that the Times article is filled with the usual liberal bias -- for example, it claims the methods "clearly violated the Geneva Conventions" when in fact the Bush administration's view (shared by at least some well-known legal scholars) is that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the prisoners held at Guantanamo for several reasons, i.e., because they are not members of a fighting force recognizable by a common uniform, etc.<br /><br />Therefore it is incorrect for the Times to state that the White House's briefs concluded that Bush could "suspend the Geneva Conventions when he chose" -- to the contrary, the briefs concluded that the Conventions did not apply to the situation in question.<br /><br />It may be the case that there was disagreement among different groups of lawyers (Navy, civillian, etc.) as to what interrogation methods would be legal and/or appropriate, but that is not surprising. Different people have different opinions.<br /><br />At any rate, the article you quote doesn't really touch on the subject of my post, which is that some lawyers seem to put their personal financial gain above their duty to give their clients responsible advice.Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01718423915101499217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1104441292414164932004-12-31T06:14:00.000+09:002004-12-31T06:14:00.000+09:00why people really hate lawyers: this just in from ...why people really hate lawyers: this just in from the NYTimes http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/30/opinion/30thu4.html<br /><br />an excerpt:<br /><br />When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved the initial list of interrogation methods for Guantánamo Bay in late 2002 - methods that clearly violated the Geneva Conventions and anti-torture statutes - there were no protests from the legal counsels for the secretary of defense, the attorney general, the president, the Central Intelligence Agency or any of the civilian secretaries of the armed services. That's not surprising, because some of those very officials were instrumental in devising the Strangelovian logic that lay behind Mr. Rumsfeld's order. Their legal briefs dutifully argued that the president could suspend the Geneva Conventions when he chose, that he could even sanction torture and that torture could be redefined so narrowly that it could seem legal.<br /><br />It took an internal protest by uniformed lawyers from the Navy to force the Pentagon to review the Guantánamo rules and restrict them a bit. But the military lawyers' concerns were largely shoved aside by a team of civilian lawyers, led by Mary Walker, the Air Force general counsel. The group reaffirmed the notion that Mr. Bush could choose when to apply the Geneva Conventions.<br /><br />Okay. Is this kosher?fasteddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03326121556687224060noreply@blogger.com