Comments on: Finding Fights http://lawdork.net/2010/01/25/finding-fights/ Same dork, new year! Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:38:37 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1 hourly 1 By: Chris Geidner http://lawdork.net/2010/01/25/finding-fights/#comment-6506 Chris Geidner Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:13:49 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=4642#comment-6506 Anything that is "only natural to assume" is something obviously not stated in the piece. So, no, I don't think that's the answer. Anything that is “only natural to assume” is something obviously not stated in the piece. So, no, I don’t think that’s the answer.

]]> By: Mithras http://lawdork.net/2010/01/25/finding-fights/#comment-6504 Mithras Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:43:57 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=4642#comment-6504 <blockquote>Why wouldn’t Socarides’s words be read simply as stating — particularly in conjunction with the Uganda sentence — that people would like to see Obama show the same sort of moral leadership as to mistreatment of U.S. LGBT soldiers that he is showing about violations to the rights of detainees and Ugandans[?]</blockquote> Given the outraged tone of the op-ed and the controversial nature of the treatment of Gitmo detainees, it is only natural to assume that he meant, "Obama loves foreign terrorists more than he does LGBT Americans!" If he wanted people to know he thinks recognizing detainees' rights is a morally courageous act, he needed to say it.

Why wouldn’t Socarides’s words be read simply as stating — particularly in conjunction with the Uganda sentence — that people would like to see Obama show the same sort of moral leadership as to mistreatment of U.S. LGBT soldiers that he is showing about violations to the rights of detainees and Ugandans[?]

Given the outraged tone of the op-ed and the controversial nature of the treatment of Gitmo detainees, it is only natural to assume that he meant, “Obama loves foreign terrorists more than he does LGBT Americans!” If he wanted people to know he thinks recognizing detainees’ rights is a morally courageous act, he needed to say it.

]]> By: FlexSF http://lawdork.net/2010/01/25/finding-fights/#comment-6502 FlexSF Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:09:09 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=4642#comment-6502 Adam Serwer may be a gay rights infiltrator! Adam Serwer may be a gay rights infiltrator!

]]> By: PG http://lawdork.net/2010/01/25/finding-fights/#comment-6490 PG Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:57:15 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=4642#comment-6490 I am not positive about this, but my understanding is that DADT is Congressional statute that the president cannot unilaterally repeal, whereas the treatment of enemy combatants is dictated pretty much entirely by the executive branch. I suppose Obama could advise the Pentagon to try to circumvent DADT in their administration of the law, but that kind of goes against having the president faithfully execute the law. Why isn't Socarides singling out members of Congress whom he expects to be stepping up and cosponsoring a repeal? I am not positive about this, but my understanding is that DADT is Congressional statute that the president cannot unilaterally repeal, whereas the treatment of enemy combatants is dictated pretty much entirely by the executive branch. I suppose Obama could advise the Pentagon to try to circumvent DADT in their administration of the law, but that kind of goes against having the president faithfully execute the law. Why isn’t Socarides singling out members of Congress whom he expects to be stepping up and cosponsoring a repeal?

]]> By: Manostorgo http://lawdork.net/2010/01/25/finding-fights/#comment-6489 Manostorgo Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:21:34 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=4642#comment-6489 I agree, that is a very odd conclusion for people who read that statement. When I first saw it, I found it to be harsh and unfair in terms of representing Obama's views towards LGBT community. But even then it was clear that it was in no way an indictment of how we treat Gitmo detainees. It was clear his intent was a similar comparison of how German POW's were allowed to eat at lunch counters in the South while Tuskegee a pilots were denied the same right. In other words, not that we should mistreat POW's but rather we should show greater respect for the rights of those who serve our country. I agree, that is a very odd conclusion for people who read that statement. When I first saw it, I found it to be harsh and unfair in terms of representing Obama’s views towards LGBT community. But even then it was clear that it was in no way an indictment of how we treat Gitmo detainees. It was clear his intent was a similar comparison of how German POW’s were allowed to eat at lunch counters in the South while Tuskegee a pilots were denied the same right. In other words, not that we should mistreat POW’s but rather we should show greater respect for the rights of those who serve our country.

]]>