Tuesday, April 22, 2008

TAKING NAMES

I have spoken with many of you personally and thru email. My immediate aim is small (yes I do have a bigger aim...but I am patient, sort of...) First I want to take away the license to practice law for those attorneys who have enabled this current administration to engage in war crimes. It is a start... you might even say it is a personal thing.
I happen to believe that the practice of law is an honor and that those who abuse or otherwise take advantage of this honor do not deserve the title of "attorney at law." So yes I will start small... but trust me I will not forget or give up.
So give me your names... If you post them on line here, that is great...but, if you want me to keep the fact that the name came from you confidential...
then email me at this site... It will be even more confidential than say... oh I won't say... but trust me I will never tell.....
So who are the worst lawyers in this administration? Who deserves to have their law licenses taken from them... not to mention their liberty?
As I receive the names I will research the individuals and make sure their names and deeds are not forgotten...

and when you tell me how much you respect what I am doing... remember you are doing it too...
Posted by H. Candace Gorman at 3:36 PM

6 comments:

danps said...

Hi Candace - I saw your comment at the Sideshow. I run the Pruning Shears site and admire your commitment. We should try to keep in touch since it looks like we may have common goals in this case. Thanks, Dan

April 22, 2008 at 7:56 PM
danps said...

And while I'm in the neighborhood - your link to Clinton's speech only had one concrete promise: "We'll release Justice Department interpretations so that you know exactly what our understanding is and how laws are being executed." The rest could be dismissed as feel-good blather. McCain has explicitly disavowed signing statements - she left the door open. Will she immediately open an investigation into the politicization of the Justice Department? Promise not to claim executive privilege to keep Secret Service logs from being released? There are lots of specifics she could have given but chose not to.

I don't mean to be too critical; every little bit of specifics we can get candidates on record with helps.

April 22, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Anonymous said...

Well, Candace, my votes are for the obvious choices … Jon Yoo and Alberto Gonzalez. I’m no (ahem) White House Lawyer … but it seems to me you can’t advise your “clients” to violate the law. Telling Bush that Common Article III was “quaint” and therefore inapplicable to the so-called war on terror was just that, in my view. Legally frivolous, at best; blatantly illegal at worst. As was the whole idea that the administration could redefine “torture” any way it saw fit (pain bordering on death or organ failure? Who thinks up stuff like that?) so that it could engage in conduct it knew or should have known to be illegal …

Imagine private lawyers engaging in that type of creative legal analysis on behalf of their clients: Oh, no – it’s okay to use lead paint on baby toys. After all, those consumer protection laws are “quaint” in these days of wide-open international trade. The Fair Labor Standards Act? Go ahead and ignore it; it’s “quaint” in today’s global economy. And while were at it … DUI laws? Quaint. Laws against selling drugs to school kids? Quaint. Age of consent laws? Quaint …

Yeah, I’m sure nobody’d yank your licensce for giving that kind of advice.

Then there’s just about anybody who told Bush the NSA warrantless wiretapping scheme was legal; but that’s another matter altogether I suppose. Felonious, to be sure; but at least no body got waterboarded. (Hey, that Fourth Amendment’s kinda “quaint,” too, come to think of it!)

April 23, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Anonymous said...

Good campaign, Candace.
Top of the list, without a doubt:
David Addington, Dick Cheney's chief of staff and former legal counsel.

April 24, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Thomas Nephew said...

Yoo, Haynes II, Addington, Gonzalez. Don't know if they have law degrees, but if so, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

It's a fine point, but since it gets discussed by other lawyers, I think "consciousness of guilt" (evasion, deception in the service of their advocacy for torture and other illegal acts) can be established for many of these people.

April 28, 2008 at 12:11 PM
H. Candace Gorman said...

I don't know about Rumsfeld either... somehow I don't think he is... but I know that Cheney is not a lawyer. In a few days I will be putting together the names that I have received either by email or here in the comments and you shall see the lawyers that will become the list... and then we will talk about the next steps...

April 28, 2008 at 3:36 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)