« Illinois Bar Ripoff | Main | Job Application Insanity! »

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mowabb.com/mt32/mt-tb.cgi/5215

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Georgetown Law Isn't Buying the Spying:

» Sometimes... from Preaching to the Perverted
Law students do something to renew faith in the legal system. Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." But I don't see that as one of the administration's t... [Read More]

Tracked on January 25, 2006 12:17 PM

» More Thuggery, This Time At Georgetown from Three Years of Hell to Become the Devil
Via Ambimb, we see that there's been another infantile protest, this time of the Attorney General at Georgetown Law School. This act of staged immaturity consisted of five students in black hoods unveiling a banner with a 'quotation' from Ben... [Read More]

Tracked on January 25, 2006 10:41 PM

» Sometimes... from Preaching to the Perverted
Law students do something to renew faith in the legal system. Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." But I don't see that as one of the administration's t... [Read More]

Tracked on March 13, 2006 10:49 AM

I saw that on the news and thought it was distasteful and lacked a lot of class.

Posted by: JR at January 25, 2006 10:46 AM

Clarification: "that" refers to the protesters actions.

Posted by: JR at January 25, 2006 10:48 AM

I was cheered by the actions of these students. It was good to see someone finally do something dramatic to protest the scandalous actions of the current administration. The democratic failure to aggressively address the domestic spying issue (for me most concrete in John Kerry's waffling statement that democrats were "prepared to eavesdrop wherever and whenever necessary in order to make America safer" in this Reuters story) has been a disappointment, to say the least. It is heartening to see that some future lawyers place principle over propriety and conviction over convenience, especially as the nation's "top lawyer" makes a mockery of such things by attempting to defend the indefensible. Kudos to the Georgetown law students!

Posted by: Famous P. at January 25, 2006 11:05 AM

ROCK ON, Kids!!! Reminds me of my youth and protests around the country against the Vietnam war. We must stand up for what's right. Distasteful be damned. What's distastful is illegal spying!

Posted by: Denise at January 25, 2006 08:41 PM

This message being so difficult to get out, of course, that five masked students had to hijack someone else's venue. The brilliance of civil disobedience is that it's not at all civil, and given that there's so little risk of punishment, it's not really that disobedient.

Certainly they teach Bluebook rules 5.2 and 5.3 at Georgetown, don't they?

Posted by: A. Rickey at January 25, 2006 10:49 PM

What are supposed to do, Anthony? Bush doesn't let anyone protest him to his face. And obviously traditional discourse isn't working.

Posted by: monica at January 26, 2006 08:43 AM

And obviously traditional discourse isn't working.

What a peculiar conclusion. I wasn't aware of the fact that traditional discourse "didn't work" if it didn't have the results I wanted. My distinct impression was that discourse involved me making a case and then allowing for the fact that other people might disagree with me. I didn't know that if I didn't get my preferred results, it makes it socially acceptable for me to interrupt other people's speeches or steal other's stages.

Who knew?

Posted by: A. Rickey at January 26, 2006 12:27 PM

I saw that on Countdown the night of the protest and thought it was outstanding. The quote was awesome and I'm glad to see that law students think of something other than themselves.

Posted by: Beanie at January 26, 2006 02:46 PM

Seriously Anthony, what did they do? Gonzales didn't stop or even pause his speech, let alone acknowledge the protesters were even there. The failure for the continuity of his speech to be broken sort of begs the question as to whether or not they actually interrupted him. Or at least it did last time I checked the dictionary. Likewise, they did not heckle him, curse him, physically attack him or, for that matter, do more than stand up and turn their backs on him (yes, yes, hoods and a banner were all a part of the drama. It's all a rich tapestry of indignation). That also would seem to qualify as civil in a broad sense while yet being more narrowly disobedient. But that's just the dictionary again. In the context of the theory and practice of civil disobedience, I've never seen arrests mentioned as a necessity. But that's just me going by the things I've learned.

I admit I'm also at somewhat of a loss to understand what "results" have to do with anything if all you're going to allow of disagreement is that it is allowed (That's rather problematically vague). If that's the case, it would seem to me that you get results as soon as you open your mouth or put pen to page or stand up and turn your back on the Attorney General as he makes some half-assed argument (that there are other forms of expression besides speech or writing is an established point right?); you've made an utterance and, strictly speaking, that qualifies as discourse. Now if you act surprised that someone takes the invitation to dialogue that the allowance for disagreement implies and offers their own discursive utterance, then it seems to me the one didn't get their preferred results would be you and/or Gonzales as you would have preferred had no one actually disagreed with you. Otherwise, they're just taking you up on your offered allowance for disagreement. Free speech anyone?

Posted by: Famous P. at January 26, 2006 08:38 PM