http://www.volokh.com/posts/1164816455.shtml

EDIT: Cross-posted at http://firstmovers.blogspot.com/2006/11/law-student-paternalism.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094500)

I'm shocked!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094514)

diversity of perspectives is irrelevant. we are talking about actions here... murderers and torturers and those that are accessories to those actions shouldnt be law professors

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094550)

You better go study your crim law again.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094607)

my paper isnt going to write itself. im done w/ you and this thread

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7095079)

As to pwnage, I beg to differ.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7095154)

Under your version of "accessories," I guess we need to start blackballing criminal defense lawyers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094621)

one is defending someones rights and/or saying they are innocent of a past occurence, one is seeing whether an action in the future is permissible and should go on

get it now?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094982)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094997)

yes what about them? they arent murderers as a fetus is not alive

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094993)

Clearly, providing legal advice regarding the prohibition against double jeopardy =/= supporting OJ's book deal.

Clearly, providing legal advice regarding the President's war powers =/= supporting the President's use of such war powers.

Despite what others say about you, you're not this stupid.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094612)

Lawyers are paid to give legal advice. If you tell your client that dumping X amount of Y chemical into Z river is not a violation of the law, that is legal advice.

It doesn't mean you support such actions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094633)

I had a crazy fucking old hippy for my con law professor. It wasn't a problem at all.

If your con law professor happens to have a view about torture, so what? Is the Commerce Clause going to be taught all wrong?

This is really just a political expression. We get it. The students don't like torture, and they don't like people who might -- however tangentially -- support or in some way facilitate it.

That's nice. Now everyone can get back to work.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094657)

I just find this whole thing truly stunning.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094716)

the prof. stated his view and the students are responding. why do people get so worked up about it?

i think its better to encourage people to state their views and have stupid ideas be stated, than to discourage people from speaking out

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094773)

They are stating that (a) someone shouldn't be hired because they did their job instead of doing that the protesters would have wanted, and (b) the school should never hire professors that have expressed a legal view that contradicts the legal view of the protestors.

Edit: What I mean by that is they are not simply saying "you're wrong," but "because you expressed something we feel is wrong, you shouldn't be hired."

Also, the people "getting worked up" are also simply expressing their views.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094788)

In response to point (a), the students do not want the school and its reputation damaged by hiring this professor. i'm not saying i think it will damage the reputation, but hiring someone who has controversial political views is a quasi-endorsement of those views and it does reflect on the school and by association the students.

I think point (b) is to general. they are responding to one specific situation.

also, when i said worked up, I was referring to a specific backlash that comes when people state political views (students, protesters, public figures, etc.) I'm not saying the people shouldn't be allowed to do so, I just don't understand why they do it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094885)

They're essentially clamoring for educational orthodoxy and suppression of legitimate, if differing, legal viewpoints.

"also, when i said worked up, I was referring to a specific backlash that comes when people state political views (students, protesters, public figures, etc.) I'm not saying the people shouldn't be allowed to do so, I just don't understand why they do it."

Seems like your statement applies equally (if not more so) to the protesting students, than to message board people.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094910)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094964)

Here a pardon, there a pardon, everywhere a pardon, pardon.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7095711)

Guerilla irregulars have never been granted protections under the convention. They can be summarily shot if they are out of uniform. Basically, they are considered spies and sabateurs instead of regulars.

I haven't read the terms of the convention, but I do know a little bit about the supposed rules of war. If you are caught out of uniform, you dont get the protections of the conventions. This is how it has always been. Spies and other irregular combatants are fair game.

If you want to start shit, put on a fucking uniform, and fight from a legitimate position. This is the risk you run if you start a war and you aren't in power of a state, if you dont wear a uniform, and if your operations and tactics are irregular to the commonly understood rules of war.

those commonly understood rules are, there is the enemy, you know him when you see him, you may kill him. He can identify you when he sees you, and you may kill him.

None of this shit about hiding in caves dressed like women, then running out into urban areas and blowing up civilians and shit......those people do not deserve protections under the convention. And if torturing those fuckers is the only way to get info about the rest of the cowardly irregular mud hut dwelling rats that refuse to conform to even basic expectations of civility then why would you have a problem with it?

fucking liberals man, they have no idea what they are talking about from a practical standpoint. None of you shit heads have studied war, know about the conditions of war, historically, or how the geneva conventions have been applied. You just see the opportunity to should something that on its face will get wide moral support, and so you shout from the rooftops as if your stand in principle has any application to the real world whic is not as innocent as you would like it to be. Fucking IDIOTS. At least have an informed opinion if you are going to have an opinion.

Understand that irregulars have never been protected under the convention. Understand that the convention itself does not bind its signers to its terms unless it is fighting another country that is also a signer.

Last time I checked, the taliban and al queda didnt sign it. They have no claim to its protections.

The rats are war criminals, not soldiers. Now stfu and go worry about the homeless people in your own fucking cities and stop wasting your time with mud hutters in fucking Kabul.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094845)

Interestingly, the professor in question would say that none of this matters.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094862)

Anything which causes the enemy to submit is acceptable. When the battle is for life and death, anything is permissible. I do not justify my views on the basis of law and order. I'm not such a fool as to think such a concept applies in relations defined by deadly combat.

I do not consider the 9-11 attacks to be acts of terrorism either, nor do I view those in the buildings as "innocent." Both targets were legitimate political targets.

However, since the attacks were an act of war in my view, even if despicable acts, the United States is justified in using any means of defeating the enemy. This certainly includes torturing irregular forces when captured, and holding them as war criminals instead instead of prisoners of war.

This distinction I believe is important. While I do not believe that there is such a thing as an illegal act or a terrorist act in the context of warfare, or even in the initiation phase of war, I do think we can make distinctions between regular combatants and irregular combatants.

Because irregulars are much more difficult to defeat and because the process of defeating them generally entails collateral losses to non-combatants in high ratios, I believe that states are justified in utilizing techniques that they would not normally use on regulars in order to facilitate the capture or destruction of other irregular cadres. The justification is purely utilitarian. Rational people are not interested in needless destruction of non-combatants and wastage of various resources provided there are alternatives available. Widespread destruction should only be employed as a last resort.

I do not believe that giving legal protections to irregular combatants justifies the wastage that results from their annihilation through either killing or capturing. This is especially evident by a survey of the history of war. Irregular combatants have never been afforded the protections of ordinary soldiers, who have traditionally been offered good treatment, because armies sensibly treat their captives the same way as they want their captives to be treated. There is a certain reciprocity at play in those "rules."

But there is no such tradition, either practically or historically, in conflicts between conventional armies or the forces of conventional states and irregular combatants, be they spies, partisans or rebels. What we have in Afghanistan is a collection of irregular, unconventional insurgent, guerilla, franc tireur. They are not regular combatants, they are classified with that group of combatants that includes spies and sabateurs known that are war criminals. And war criminals are only afforded the rights that their captors say they are afforded.

FUCK ISLAM and FUCK PUSSY BITCHES THAT WOULD PROTECT PSYCHOPATHS

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094967)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7095074)

There was much rejoicing when Andy Card stopped being Dubya's chief of staff.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7095012)

Your first part is valid, though. Opinion regarding a legal conclusion =/= support for all actions that could be undertaken as a result of that legal conclusion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7095270)

http://jointstrikeweasel.blogspot.com/2006/11/petition-on-professor-hiring.html

http://jointstrikeweasel.blogspot.com/2006/11/delahunty-cont.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7095836)