digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Open Letter to Gonzales, From the ENTIRE Harvard Law class of 1982

websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com — This ad ran in the Washington Post today, it is from ALL of his classmates from the Harvard Law class of 1982. It chastises his reckless disregard for the constitution for the wire tapping, suspension of habeas corpus, and the recent politically motivated firings.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • toddomatic, on 05/20/2008, -5/+502[PDF WARNING] --- Here's the text:

    Dear Attorney General Gonzales:

    Twenty-five years ago we, like you, graduated from Harvard Law School. While we arrived via many different paths and held many different views, we were united in our deep respect for the Constitution and the rights it guaranteed. As members of the post-Watergate generation who chose careers in law, we understood the strong connection between our liberties as Americans and the adherence of public officials to the law of the land. We knew that the choice to abide by the law was even more critical when public officials were tempted to take legal shortcuts. Nowhere were we taught that the ends justified the means, or that freedoms for which Americans had fought and died should be set aside when inconvenient or challenging. To the contrary: our most precious freedoms, we learned, need defending most in times of crisis.

    So it has been with dismay that we have watched your cavalier handling of our freedoms time and again. When it has been important that legal boundaries hold unbridled government power in check, you have instead used pretextual rationales and strained readings to justify an ever-expanding executive authority. Witness your White House memos sweeping aside the Geneva Conventions to justify torture, endangering our own servicemen and women; witness your advice to the President effectively reading Habeas Corpus out of our constitutional protections; witness your support of presidential statements claiming inherent power to wiretap American citizens without warrants (and the Administration’s stepped-up wiretapping campaign, taking advantage of those statements, which continues on your watch to this day); and witness your dismissive explanation of the troubling firings of numerous U.S. Attorneys, and their replacement with others more “loyal” to the President’s politics, as merely “an overblown personnel matter.” In these and other actions, we see a pattern. As a recent editorial put it, your approach has come to symbolize “disdain for the separation of powers, civil liberties and the rule of law.”

    As lawyers, and as a matter of principle, we can no longer be silent about this Administration’s consistent disdain for the liberties we hold dear. Your failure to stand for the rule of law, particularly when faced with a President who makes the aggrandized claim of being a unitary executive, takes this country down a dangerous path.

    Your country and your President are in dire need of an attorney who will do the tough job of providing independent counsel, especially when the advice runs counter to political expediency. Now more than ever, our country needs a President, and an Attorney General, who remember the apt observation attributed to Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” We call on you and the President to relent from this reckless path, and begin to restore respect for the rule of law we all learned to love many years ago.
    • wild, on 10/11/2007, -17/+278Wow. Talk about peer pressure. Here comes the eating disorder...
    • arcooke, on 10/11/2007, -73/+31You don't need to be warned about PDF's if you use FoxIt :)

      http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php
    • AntBing, on 10/11/2007, -141/+7Jealousy is a bitch.
    • geneikillua, on 10/11/2007, -55/+267This topic is inaccurate in the extreme. This was -NOT- from the entire Harvard Law class of 1982. It has only around 50 signatures. Harvard Law typically has around 600 students per year. So it was signed by less than a tenth of the 1982 class.
    • euphemizeme, on 10/11/2007, -85/+13It's a shame they're all lawyers, otherwise they might have some credibility. Not that I disagree with the letter.

      What do you call 20 lawyers on a bus? I don't care, but I hope it falls off a cliff and crushes another 20 lawyers that were at the bottom of it. ROFL I'm awesome I just came up with that.
    • AWeeBitInsane, on 10/11/2007, -42/+12Not tough enough. You'd think eloquent people (and lawyers no less) would have more passion for defending the constitution than this. It's almost a puff piece.
    • vertinox, on 10/11/2007, -18/+54Maybe they had less people graduating in the 1980s?

      Could someone look this up?
    • mikes1, on 10/11/2007, -44/+17Buried as inaccurate. It is NOT from the "entire" class of '82, nor is it from "all of his clasmates."

      I'd hazard to say that the submitter has misrepresented things worse than Gonzales has.
    • CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -15/+85@arcooke "You don't need to be warned about PDF's if you use FoxIt :)"

      or a Mac :)

      but seriously... this needs to be dugg at least 10,000 times. This country needs a giant Bush cleansing enema.
    • NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -30/+24I think we need to send our ever more tyrannical government our own Declaration of Independence...lol Each one of us... XD
      The longer thing's continue like this, the more freedoms we lose, and the more of our inalienable constitutional rights are taken away. We wont get them back unless we seriously do something about it...
      You may think I'm over reacting or an extremist, but if so I think you need to take a look at what is happening outside of your own life. Just because you may be comfortable in your life, does not mean millions of other people aren't losing their rights... If you don't stand up for OTHER people that are losing their rights, who will stand up for your's when you start to lose your rights?

      "First they came for the Jews
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a Jew.
      Then they came for the Communists
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a Communist.
      Then they came for the trade unionists
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a trade unionist.
      Then they came for me
      and there was no one left
      to speak out for me."

      Maybe that's not the best quote, but to me, thats how I see the American public today. The public is not doing what it should be, to protect every and all right to freedom, that everyone in this country deserves... No matter who needs that freedom or not, all of it should be protected. No one is doing what is needed, to stop our government from striking down any laws in their way. Few people even know about those losing their rights each day in this country, our own citizens. Few people even care that ever more increasingly, the police/military and government can do practically anything they want too. They don't need a reason to take someone's rights anymore, they don't need a crime or a victim to lock someone away for as long as they want, and they continue to use things such as torcher, a barbaric and ineffective way to obtain information. The Court system is also corrupted by the same people, countless people are sent to prison even when they have logical arguments against their imprisonment and logical reasons why these new laws against them are wrong under the constitution...

      I'm not saying an armed rebellion is necessary, although in large enough numbers it would be effective, and even myself would gladly take part if it was organized somehow lol... Instead, I feel more that we need to become more political, more like activists if you will, for this situation. We would need to take part in very very large protests in DC and other major areas... many more people need to get into politics and many more also need to petition and protest politicians that aren't doing their job for the people, according to the constitution... I think an ongoing protest with thousands of people in DC, that lasted as long as it takes, is necessary... and would probably make a good start.
      This country needs to get back to the CORE of freedom... the reasons it was formed... The personal rights and freedoms all individuals should be allowed to have. Habeas corpus needs to be back into place, And our constitution needs to be used for what it REALLY is, freedom of speech is not just for talking, it is for actions and personal wills, personal freedoms and how each person has power over themselves to do whatever they want provided they hurt no one else... In fact that's what many parts of the constitution were for, and it no longer seems to have any baring, and that is just so wrong... Also more people in law seriously need to abide by what America's freedoms are, and not personal agendas... The government, Especially the Federal government, needs to get back in it's place, as a minimalistic governmental link between States and international affairs. And I think more laws need to pay attention to personal freedoms, instead of corporations if you ask me... far too many laws are created by corporate lobbyists, that restrict the people of America, so that the corps can make more money.

      Anyway I got off on a big rant there... excuse me... lol
      We as Americans, are supposed to uphold the constitution, not only for ourselves, but for everyone else in this country. People that immigrate to this country are required to uphold the constitution, they have to make an oath for it... And by living in this country and being born here, we too also have that requirement on us all. Far too many people for far too many Generations have gotten too comfortable, operating within the freedoms that only they themselves use. We gave up fighting for our rights a long time ago, and it's time we remember that is not what being free is about. We should never stop fighting to keep those rights, never stop to relax and ignore the rest of the world. No generation is truly free, unless they fight to keep those freedoms their whole life. Because if you don't, people that want to take away those freedoms, for their own personal gain, WILL ALWAYS find their way into politics to do so... They will creep up slowly and cut off freedom after freedom right after right, without our knowing it... And we wont complain until it's too late, until the rights that We really do use start to degrade... You can never stop fighting against those kind of people.... Don't ever stop fighting for the freedoms and inalienable rights we are given, by being born into life... Uphold what the Constitution stands for, what it really stands for, and don't let them ignore that...
    • screamingmango, on 10/11/2007, -29/+3Here's the rub: Harvard or not, we've got the best and the worst lawyers here. Everybody outside the Philippines are crying 'Bloody Murder!' and 'Free the People!'. Yeah right, but all that yammering mean zilch. Truth is, we are all thinking about the political situation here like as like a bikini > everybody is wondering what's keeping it up, and everybody is wishing it'll fall down. Fast.
      Maybe you're all just a bit scared that your precious school might get entangled with Gonzales' quirky personality.
    • screamingmango, on 10/11/2007, -20/+0Darn it I was so sure they were talking about my country.
      Darn.
    • thepaulm, on 10/11/2007, -1/+121Ok, you know you are really missing things up when *lawyers* are looking at what you've done and saying "dude, that's really ***** up right there".
    • Mysk, on 10/11/2007, -1/+71People like him and Dubya are not affected by the opinions and beliefs of others. Their detachment from reality, their greed, and their arrogance prevent this from ever happening.

      They don't care about you, your rights, or your or any one else's opinions. They never will.

      These words do not even fall on ears to begin with, let alone on deaf ears.

      Side note, his right to practice as a lawyer should be revoked. There's certainly proof enough that he has no regard for the law.
    • desqjockey, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2@thepaulm

      Actually thats what lawyers do alllll daaaaay.
    • Baconn, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3"While we arrived via many different paths and held many different views, we were united in our deep respect for the Constitution and the rights it guaranteed."

      This is pure claptrap. The Constitution has been dead for a long time because lawyers like these are unwilling to speak out against the orthodoxy of "interpretation," which has lead to asinine perversions of the commerce clause and the erosion of the BoR. Respect for the Constitution is almost always synonymous with adherence to an ideology.
    • AWeeBitInsane, on 10/11/2007, -14/+4Gonzales is a fag
    • nomadxx7, on 10/11/2007, -3/+55According to www.harvard1982.com (the 25th reunion site for the 1982 Harvard graduating class) they have 386 people attending the function and 27 classmates who died. So in total that would be 413 people with about an 1/8 signing the letter.

      http://www.harvard1982.com/register/attendform.php
      http://www.harvard1982.com/classmates/memoriam.php
    • crashingstar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+28@nomadxx7:

      I think that site is for the undergraduate class of '82. It states that their reunion is coming up in June, but I believe the Harvard Law reunion was a couple weeks ago. In fact, Gonzales attended and was protested by current students.
    • nomadxx7, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15@crashingstar

      Why can't they keep this ***** simple for the sake of digg arguments.
    • krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -9/+5open letters are the next evolution of online petitions.

      even though gonzalez is a complete *****, this is pointless.
    • scotch55, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Graduating law class does not have 600 grads, dont know if the number is the complete, but possible.
    • Urusai, on 10/11/2007, -5/+20"This is pure claptrap. The Constitution has been dead for a long time because lawyers like these are unwilling to speak out against the orthodoxy of 'interpretation,' which has lead to asinine perversions of the commerce clause and the erosion of the BoR. Respect for the Constitution is almost always synonymous with adherence to an ideology."

      Idiot. Interpretation is part of reading any document, otherwise you are merely viewing a bunch of squiggly lines which form semantically empty symbolic patterns. Law school, as far as I can tell not being a lawyer, is basically an indoctrination in respect for the concept of law, which is a human (and therefore imperfect) attempt to enforce reason upon human intercourse. The Constitution has not been killed by lawyers, but by corrupt men making an end run around sound legal opinion and playing to ***** conservative morons who couldn't recognize a coherent argument if Rush shoved it up their ass himself. I repeat: the Constitution has been ***** by evil men with no respect for law, with the consent of cretins with no comprehension of law.
    • polypropglop, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4@CannedMango

      It's called the Obama Enema 2008
    • Baconn, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4@urusai

      "Idiot. Interpretation is part of reading any document, otherwise you are merely viewing a bunch of squiggly lines which form semantically empty symbolic patterns."

      Note the quotes around "interpretation" in my original comment, and the explicating statement which followed it. Now tell me more about reading comprehension.

      "Law school, as far as I can tell not being a lawyer, is basically an indoctrination in respect for the concept of law, which is a human (and therefore imperfect) attempt to enforce reason upon human intercourse. The Constitution has not been killed by lawyers, but by corrupt men making an end run around sound legal opinion and playing to ***** conservative morons who couldn't recognize a coherent argument if Rush shoved it up their ass himself. I repeat: the Constitution has been ***** by evil men with no respect for law, with the consent of cretins with no comprehension of law."

      You're thinking of current events and the Bush administration; I'm addressing the problems with our legal system that have led to the slow death of our Constitution's protections over the last century.
    • snowbunnie678, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Love the part where they say "YOUR president", seeing as how Gonzales is one of the only people who still stand by him. He's sure not the people's president anymore.
    • johnvm, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I currently attend Harvard College. This is not a letter from the entire class of Harvard Law '82. Only ~50 of them (what they meant is every person on that list is a member of that class, not that the people on that list were the entire class). Nonetheless, compelling.
    • Danimalish, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1you guys are retarded. it says right on the bottom of the letter 'the signatories are all members of the harvard class...' Not 'all members of the harvard class signed this...'
      learn how to read idiots
  • cornswalled, on 10/11/2007, -356/+8Who knew Harvard graduated nothing but surrender monkeys who WANT to be killed in a terrorist attack?
    • PATSCRU, on 10/11/2007, -10/+200when we have actual harvard law grads submitting this statement, and you responding like that, one has to wonder how dismal your education was, cornswalled....it's people like you who are letting our rights be struck down one at a time in fear.

      grow some balls and stand up for your rights.
    • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -68/+6come on pat, that was obviously sarcasm.
    • epgyd, on 10/11/2007, -75/+3@Patscru

      If you're not absolutely sure if what you're responding to is sarcasm, why do you get so ***** indignant?

      It's called subtext, for God's sake.

      If sentences in literature can be ironic, why the hell can't sentences in comments?

      Oh, that's right; I forgot; being on the Internet completely changes the way language is read.
    • epgyd, on 10/11/2007, -79/+2I bet half the people digging down cornswalled aren't even reading what he said...because it's much easier to think it's just a stupid person got owned than to actually have some reading comprehension and to respond. There's just NO WAY everyone who reads his comment could miss the sarcasm.

      This coming from a hardcore libertarian...but I'm really unsure if some of you could even handle the autonomy. For all your talk of liberty, you're just gonna follow whoever seems to have the most righteous anger.

      I hate to say this...because I've owned 9/11 truthers for saying this, but many of you are simply sheeple...

    • EtherGnat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+52epgyd: "I bet half the people digging down cornswalled aren't even reading what he said...because it's much easier to think it's just a stupid person got owned than to actually have some reading comprehension and to respond. There's just NO WAY everyone who reads his comment could miss the sarcasm."

      If you actually read cornswalled's other posts you'd know it's not sarcasm at all. Unfortunately there really are people that stupid in this world. Be more careful before you attack others for poor reading comprehension.
    • epgyd, on 10/11/2007, -34/+0It's still really funny in a retarded way then, and pat just made the obvious reaction that wasn't funny or interesting on any level (They took er rights)...
    • satanatnmtedu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+31@ epgyd

      I read his comment before digging it down. If it was sarcasm, then it wasn't obvious. Obvious sarcasm comes from context, and we have no context for this poster short of looking up his other comments. So, because we are often not very good writers, it is a good idea to point out that you were being sarcastic, especially on a one liner.
    • epgyd, on 10/11/2007, -28/+1Eh, the sarcasm tag is the bane of creative writing.

      It might be "a good idea" but it destroys anything clever about the comment.

      The whole point of irony in general is to create two or more audiences...one for each possible meaning.

      And the point of literature is to explore the complexities and (often) the misunderstandings of the human condition. So irony is a totally vital and vivid way of capturing this...by saying /sarcasm you completely defeat the purpose of sarcasm, and you might as well have just said exactly how you felt. ***** that...I want ambiguity and contradiction. I want Barack Obama and Ron Paul '08 because contradiction is my objectivity, and Objectivism is my non-contradiction. I want massive essays of the most infinite elegance and eloquence to espouse the views of a rambling idiot child upset about the ruins of civilization, punctuated by brilliant, terse retorts completely missing the point. I want rights for all and freedom from tyranny. Don't Tread on Me for some, mini-American flags for all.

      /sarcasm
    • epgyd, on 10/11/2007, -23/+0Still:

      "when we have actual harvard law grads submitting this statement, and you responding like that, one has to wonder how dismal your education was, cornswalled....it's people like you who are letting our rights be struck down one at a time in fear.

      grow some balls and stand up for your rights."

      Can we agree that this was a pretty ***** mediocre comment and undeserving of almost 100 people agreeing with it as some sort of bastion of perceptiveness? I mean, the praise system on here is unbelievably skewed towards pith and self-righteousness and already having been praised. No offense, it's just that there seems to be no distinction between clever comments, funny comments, and comments you agree with, it's just "well he said something I sorta agree with, and others have given me the confidence to go forth with it, so I'll give this +1" It's as retarded and as useless as an online straw poll.
    • cyclopsface, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5corn just forgot the /sarcasm tag (i hope)
    • VaporBro, on 10/26/2007, -0/+18Yay for the block button. To bad it doesn't eject the person from the planet.
    • gwhardyiv, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@epgyd

      Digging you down for calling someone else self-righteous.
    • scaaven2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2you are the problem with this country. that 22% who approve of ***** pinocchio
  • fordicus, on 10/11/2007, -122/+32Inaccurate, as gonzalez himself didn't sign the letter, it was not from the ENTIRE Harvard Law class of 1982
    • wild, on 10/11/2007, -9/+134He would if Bush told him to.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -17/+27Amazing, Fordicus. We could diagnose your condition from that comment alone.
    • consonance, on 10/11/2007, -11/+51Well, it says "entire" because "all the law students from the class of 1982 that deserved their degrees and did good work in the world" just doesn't have that same punch to it.
    • totorototoro, on 10/11/2007, -6/+144Maybe he did, but doesn't recall it.
    • UCFMark, on 10/11/2007, -2/+46It doesn't even say for certain that the signatories represent the entire class sans Gonzalez. It says that all who signed were members of the class, but not that they represent the entire class...
    • catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -5/+132Here is a more credible article. It says 56 out of about 70-75 students in the graduating class signed it.

      http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=518918
    • cornswalled, on 10/11/2007, -60/+3@catalysis

      Ahh, good, so not EVERYONE who graduated from Harvard that year was a moron.

      Just most of them.
    • wunch, on 10/11/2007, -10/+13@catalysis:

      70-75 still probably isn't the whole class. The article you linked says that 15-20 declined to sign, but that doesn't mean that constitutes the whole class either. It's possible many graduates either did not attend the reunion, were not asked to sign, or both.
    • boonesfarm, on 10/11/2007, -20/+4Who knew? 56 out of about 70-75 means "Entire"
      If 75-80% = 100%, my parents would have been a lot happier with my grades in college.

    • EtherGnat, on 10/11/2007, -11/+12It's out of a class of about 550, according to Wikipedia.
    • haydesigner, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@EtherGnat: "It's out of a class of about 550, according to Wikipedia."

      If you take the time to look it up, would you mind taking the time to post the link? Thanks.
    • darkciti, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6A class of 550 in 1982? or current class graduation sizes are around 550 people? There's a huge difference there.
    • xiojqwnko, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1@totorototoro

      oh man LOL

      : )
    • patch6, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1catalysis' link can be used to refute claims of the pdf being faked, as well
    • johnnyb3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The current class size is 550, but I'm sure 25 years ago the number wasn't at that same size (likely smaller, as were most institutions of higher education). It doesn't take a genius to figure these things out.
  • scooterh, on 10/11/2007, -25/+67Nice work on your logic, moran.

    The signatory area is entirely composed of Harvard Law 1982 graduates. This does not logically equate to each 1982 Harvard Law graduate signing the advertisement.

    You fail at teh intertubes.
    • rebrane, on 10/11/2007, -8/+10He's right, ya know.
    • razor150, on 10/11/2007, -26/+11lol "moran" I love irony.
    • scooterh, on 10/11/2007, -3/+21oof, razor150 you fail at teh interweb also:

      See http://www.toytowngermany.com/wiki/Moran
    • pollardito, on 10/11/2007, -14/+2you just called someone a "moran", i think that speaks for itself?
    • warget, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Yes, thank you. Read the message at the bottom of the page:

      THE SIGNATORIES ARE ALL MEMBERS OF THE HARVARD LAW SCHOOL CLASS OF 1982

      This means all the people who signed are from Harvard Law School, not Cornell Law School or some other law school. Very misleading title.
    • slythfox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What about the graduate class? :/
  • veganoob, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3great letter. good for them. I was going to say something about peer pressure but wild beat me to it.
  • jeepnut24, on 10/11/2007, -7/+29Pwned....
  • Ryan83, on 10/11/2007, -3/+24The bottom says that the signatories are all HLS graduates, not that all HLS grads of '82 were signatories. That list seems kind of small for a HLS class. Yale is the smallest top school with around 150 students. Harvard, NYU, and Columbia all have about 400 students per class. Unless things were drastically different in '82, this isn't everyone.
    • gerald13, on 10/11/2007, -2/+58"The letter was the result of a spontaneous, unorganized effort that arose at the class’s recent reunion, Mr. Abromowitz said. He said about 75 of the approximately 500 members of the class were contacted, and that more than 50 signed the letter."

      Source: NY Times
      thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/law-school-classmates-criticize-gonzales
    • TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2I could probably get 50 signatures out of 200 of my classmates that tell me I'm wrong as well....
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1It just has to be said;

      @TubaTechno
      I could probably get 50 signatures out of 200 of my classmates that tell me I'm wrong as well....

      >> Could it be that is because you are often wrong? I'd say you and Gonzales have things in common. Kind of hard to defend... I mean, when was the last time we saw a graduating class from anywhere write a letter like that? Total bitch-slap.
  • LoadStar, on 10/11/2007, -5/+15I believe the headline is inaccurate. Something tells me there were more than 56 graduates of the Harvard Law School in 1982. Something tells me the submitter read "The signatories are all members..." as "The signatories are all THE members..." The former just indicates a common characteristic held by the signatories, and does not imply that it is an all-inclusive list.
    • Srcc, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11I absolutely agree. All of the people that signed the letter were in the class, but do not encompass the entire class. It's english comprehension 101 here. Also, Harvard is know for the size of its law school (much bigger than 56 per class).

      "The signatories are all members of the Harvard Law School Class of 1982"= They were all in the class.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Wow, all this talk of "it wasn't the ENTIRE class."

      With you guys around, nobody could get convicted of stupid. I think you are missing the entire point here; Gonzales is a digrace to American Law. These people signing this are putting their reputations on the line as well against a well-known and vindictive administration.

      >> My only complaint is they should have done it sooner.
    • tammyster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I thought it to be a little weird that there would only be 56 in a class for 'Harvard Law'
  • prkchpsndwiches, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7^^^ He beat me too it. Not ALL of the class, just all of the signatories were from the class of 1982.
    • allenu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Yeah, for instance, I didn't see Gonzales's name at the bottom.
  • ruley, on 10/11/2007, -13/+4This is HARVARD!!!! (graduates pointing out the failures of the administration and the attorney general)

    sorry, haven't seen a good 300 reference in a week
  • revjustin2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12While I agree with the sentiment of the letter and hope that the combined credibility of a large portion of Harvard grads would mean something, I fear that, like the US Constitution, this will just be another piece of toilet paper to the Bush Administration.
  • a2fan, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0Minor nit - that's not the entire law class of 1982. It just says ... all the signatures were from members of the law class of '82. That's actually a big difference. Maybe the OP is a lawyer.
  • Jester13, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12This letter should be re-printed on every major news paper in the country. :
  • davebg8r, on 10/11/2007, -1/+48I am an independent conservative.

    Mr Gonzales, the American people no longer require your services. The locks and passwords have been changed, here is a box and a weeks severance. Please pack up your things and be on your way. By the way, dont go too far, we may need to question you again.
    • scaaven2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4sir, you may not wrap you belongings in the Constitution and tie it to a stick.
  • neurolance, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4Yeah its definitely not signed by the entire class. My roommate's father was HLS'82 and his name isn't there. Still a great letter though.
    • mythandros, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Hold on. I'm having trouble wrapping my head about this one. Roommates. Father. Spoken as if you're in college.

      ...but I have conscious memories of 1982...
    • juststeve, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Might want to ask him why the hell it's _not on there. He chicken or also sold out?
    • miles32, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Or they could just not have asked him. Its not always sell out or sign the letter you know.
  • nesterff, on 10/11/2007, -34/+0Lawyers, by their very nature, are for more laws. That's why they love democrats.
    This is nothing more than a political stunt. Probably arranged by pelosi herself to undermine the duly elected President and to curry favor with terrorist organizations like answer, cair and the dnc.
    • GnKnight1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7"duly elected President"? Please. That election was a total joke. Yeah, let's let our highly-conservative Republican sister be in charge of the recount in Florida! The same state where George Dubya's brother is governor. Regardless of whether he is duly elected or not, he has totally ***** things up with his anti-Constitution policies during his watch. Which is why so much of the Republican party is running from him like the Plague. This sort of unchecked power-mongering has occurred before when a country has seen tough times. (Germany anyone?).
    • kufu91, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6yep us libs loves us some judicial branch
      theys helps us with all those bombings that the dnc do every thursday
    • Visnik, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8"curry favor with terrorist organizations"

      Stop talking, you just show by making such statements what an un-educated, illogical moron you are.
    • moin1097, on 10/11/2007, -12/+0He's not wrong. Democrats have always been for anything that is against America. Just as long as it brings them political clout.
      Look at that spending bill they had to vote for. They would only approve of it if there was plenty of pork added to it.
    • MonsterChaOS, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1wow, you have to have 2 accounts to make it seem like SOMEONE agrees with you. How pathetic!
  • GnKnight1, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6I hope they CC:ed George Dubya on this letter.
  • Nutmegan, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8The source linked makes absolutely no claim that this is every graduate of Harvard Law School from 1982 and the list is 56 people. That can't be the entire graduating class. The signature at the bottom says: "THE SIGNATORIES ARE ALL MEMBER OF THE HARVARD LAW SCHOOL CLASS OF '82". The title of this submission is flat out wrong.
  • uselessexpert, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4WOW....that's more than peer pressure. That a slap in the back of the neck, fresh after getting a nice fade!
    WACK!.....ooh....

    Nicely put by his classmates.
  • nirvanix, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7So what, this will do nothing. We've already seen that the man has no shame and no conscience. This will not affect him in the slightest. The only way to deal with him is drag him out of office by his little weasel neck and throw him in jail.
  • vpofhaterade, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Wow, getting that many lawyers to agree on anything is a feat in itself!

    I wonder who paid for the letter to be posted? I hope it was split between the signatories.
  • badfrog, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Sorry, while it's a great story, no digg for innacurate headline.
  • pittpat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5It's a shame this won't do a damn thing to change their tactics!
  • ThisIsBob, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Keep Gonzalez. Jeeze, do you know what kind of damage some competent Bushie could do at the DOJ? With all this publicity, he is pretty much neutralized, I would think. Better the devil you know, than the one you don't.
    • lived666, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15"competent Bushie" that is an oxymoron.
      Name one competent Bushie.
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Carl Rove is competent at being a supervillain...
  • duchossois, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4For clarity regarding the signatures, per the NY Times Wednesday May 16:
    "Republicans often complain that the majority of lawyers have Democratic sympathies, and one of the signers, Eric Schneiderman, is a Democratic state senator from New York City. But David M. Abromowitz, a Boston lawyer and one of the signers, and another Boston lawyer who signed the letter, Matthew E. Epstein, said the lawyers who signed the letter were a varied bunch....The letter was the result of a spontaneous, unorganized effort that arose at the class’s recent reunion, Mr. Abromowitz said. He said about 75 of the approximately 500 members of the class were contacted, and that more than 50 signed the letter."
  • Rathmore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Comment removed by author
  • rationalthinker, on 10/11/2007, -18/+0***** this story... the real story that'll never be dugg is how Fox News outclassed MSNBC in the debates. It goes to show what can be done when you have real journalist ask relevant questions... thats why Dems are scared ***** to come on Fox, they might have to actually be accountable for they're positions.. they believe in talking to everyone but Fox News. Kim Il Jung, no problem. Iranian President Ahmadinejad no problem. Castro no problem. Hugo Chavez no problem. Fox News, we can't talk to them!
  • AZSanMan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8That letter is amazing. Thank you Harvard Class of '82 for helping us.
  • pbd1637, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0Enforce the law? Yes! Issue arrest and search warrants for all the terrorists in the world and let the FBI round them all up. Then the lawyers can collect the fees for all the criminal trials....
  • boonesfarm, on 10/11/2007, -15/+0Harvard-spawned laywers? Might as well be signed by each and every ghoul patrolling Dante's 3rd Circle of Hell.
    If you've got to disgust someone, Harvard law grads are a good group.

    • mythandros, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I would digg you down if I didn't find your bilous output intensely amusing when juxtaposed with your username and all the implications thereof.
    • boonesfarm, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Could you translate that into whino please?
  • knicks555, on 10/11/2007, -12/+0Are you serious? No one's gonna comment about how it wasn't actually signed by all of the Harvard law school graduates from 1982? Digg just died a little today.
    • moin1097, on 10/11/2007, -9/+0But it's sill fun to watch the liberal stew in their own juices.
      How's that impeachment going?
    • knicks555, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1don't know if you're referring to me, but either way i was being sarcastic....i've only posted a few times here and have been dugg down everytime ....i have one last word....fark you all
    • moin1097, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Don't worry about it. This site, like many others all across the Internet, is infested with liberals. They don't have jobs, so they have nothing to do all day but spam these sites.
      Digg allows them to get away with it because they are based on the left coast, and.........well, you can guess the rest.
      But, if you are a conservative (or of any persuasion other than liberal), you can be banned for typing too slow.

      You can get the real dirt on this site here:
      http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=digg.com&url=digg.com/

      As long as you keep in mind that this site is for entertainment and any posts up here have no meaning in the real world, you can have a good time.
  • artemis5, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9The point is the Ben Franklin quote, not the inaccuracy of the number of signatures referenced by the post. Please.
    • boonesfarm, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3True, but if this were Al Gore's class telling him to go to hell and somebody of the other political persuasion posted it with "entire" in the heading, can you imagine the fallout in a digg forum? We'd need a hazmat team to come in and extract the sarcasm and "innacurate" comments.
      Oh, and for good measure, "Clinton did it".
  • chaos7, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8he seems like he kisses the president's ass and does whatever bush wants. that and his "i do not recall" *****.
  • Adamesq, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Finally, my peeps are saying something when another lawyer is acting up! Dugg and blogged - http://thetechattorney.com/
  • charlie55, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1jesus ***** christ who believes this *****? you cant get an entire graduating class to agree on anything political. wildly and irresponsibly inaccurate.
    • michaeltw, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1It doesn't say anything about this being the entire class - it just says:

      THE SIGNATORIES ARE ALL MEMBERS OF THE HARVARD LAW SCHOOL CLASS OF 1982

      Like many other Digg posts the poster read the entire thing first and then wrote a totally accurate title - instead of just making it up and capitalizing the mistake in the title.
    • charlie55, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1look, i cant help you if you cannot ***** read. the word "entire" is in caps. it is not the entire class, that is a lie.
  • vader101, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0This is one of the weakest Digg titles I have ever seen. More than incorrect, it is quite misleading.

    HLS is well known for being one of the largest law schools in the nation. What fool would expect the ENTIRE class of any school to sign anything like this ... especially one that graduated 25 years ago. [And I am sure Gonzo had friends in law school who would never sign such a document.]

    Hmmm 25 years ago ... my, that is interesting. And it is late spring (reunion season at HLS) -- hmmm.

    Here is an educated guess about what happened: 25 year reunions bring larger turnouts (this year, our dear Gonzo went as well, meeting light student-led protest). Some of Gonzo's classmates got annoyed that he represents the institution to some degree. Given the easy mark that is the Bush administration, a letter was circulated at some fund-raising happy hour. People got interested and those with little to lose from such publicity signed on. Someone wrote a check and there we go.

    It really is that simple.

  • EtherGnat, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Digg really needs an option to mark a summary/title as inaccurate. While the letter itself is interesting the title and summary couldn't be more wrong. Boo to the submitter for his poor reading comprehension.
  • sethdfowler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Why does everyone keep going off on the proportion of 1982 graduates represented? The point is that Gonzales is a weasel and ill-fit to be Attorney General.


    ...Holds up shiny object to distract everyone.
    • charlie55, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1because the title is wildly innacurate. i do not accept lies as teasers. you want me to read something, dont lie to me. you want to lie to get my attention, ***** off. it is just an opinion piece anyways, not news to me.
  • Kugli, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I think everyone has had enough of this post about the fact that NOT the ENTIRE class of '82 signed this letter. Seriously though, one post is enough and we do not need everyone pointing out that the actual class was bigger, that the title is wrong, or that India has a monkey population of 50 million--all interesting facts, but hearing it once is enough

    So, can we all just move on and get to the ACTUAL ARTICLE?! I admire that a bunch of Harvard guys got together to give Gonzales his rightful bashing, but that still doesn't change the fact that 99% of the population probably did not want to read it, did not know about it, or just did not care. I'd definitely like to see these lawyers use their collective powers to get the word out through TV and online media because not everyone reads digg, and it's those that DON'T that need to hear this the most.
    • moin1097, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0If you can't trust the title then how can you trust the article?
      Buried.
    • Kugli, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1@moin1097

      The TITLE everyone is talking about is the Digg title. It has no relationship with the article, which is probably a bad name for it as it is titled as an open letter. The title and the letter have nothing to do with each other, so I do not see what there is to "trust." Clicking the link, you can see that in itself it makes no claims of being the "entire" class, and that I am pointing out that people are wasting time arguing over the poster's exaggerated title.
    • charlie55, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1submit the article again with an honest hook, maybe i will read it.
  • jonathan95060, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10From the Harvard Crimson article:

    “I think the fact that he came to the reunion made us think that its really time for us to make a statement on what’s been going on in this administration,” he said.

    The classmates debated whether their criticism of Gonzalez should be made publicly. About 15 to 20 individuals declined to sign out of courtesy or because “their job prevented them from joining,” according to David M. Abromowitz of Boston, who helped write the letter.

    ...

    Abromowitz added that none of those who declined to sign the letter did so because they disagreed with its content.

    “There were differing views on the method of presenting them, but there was no disagreement over the importance of the civil liberties issues that it raised,” he said.
    • charlie55, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1it should be added that abramowitz doest actually know if they agree with he content or not.
  • m00nb34m, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5No big deal. Just a tiny little college. Nobody's heard of Harvard.
    • moin1097, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Didn't Charles Emerson Winchester III go there?
      You're showing your age if you know that name.
  • dailyshowboy23, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I have a newfound respect for the harvard law class of 1982. They seem to be with the times.
  • michaelb1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3All those lawyers on the list will soon get a 1 way ticket to Gitmo.
    • bsiviglia9, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Hence the need for the country's aforementioned Bush-enema?
  • wiremonkeymommy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Extremely gratifying to read, however, I was struck with an "uh, took you guys long enough, wasn't the suspension of Habeus Corpus a nuclear-powered clock alarm going off next to your ear?" perspective.

    Gonzo fits in well with his peers in, and out of, the Administration; all willing to sacrifice personal integrity, both public and privately, to obviate the Constitution and ransack the people's Treasury.
  • Nerys, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1MORONS the lot of them. The last time I checked Gonzales's Signature is NOT THE ONE marking all the bills made into laws. Regardless of his culpability the HEAD of the serpent is BUSH not gonzales. he is just one more corrupted scape goat.
  • max4077, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Look, don't worry. Gonzo is young. And that means... yep, it means sweet, sweet justice.

    Bush and Gonzo have the next three decades full of derision and blame to look forward to.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0As much as I like this letter from Harvard -- where were you guys 3 years ago when this jerk was writing Torture Memos?
    I can't tell if you guys are showing backbone (finally), or are just piling on to preserve what shreds of credibility you have left.

    I'm glad they are saying this... but let's not forget that we've bot about 80% of our Judges and Prosecutors infiltrated by the Federalist Society. Let's not forget that our Judicial system, the Supreme Court, and Harvard CEOs are breaking the back of America right now.

    So sure, Gonzales has been found out. Welcome to the party.
  • chancefavors, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1as has been stated numerous times, very inaccurate title.
  • BoyWithBigHands, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"are all members" means something different than "are all of the members".

    reading comprehension courses are a good thing.
  • MacintoshSauce, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1It's pretty bad when your graduating class does this to a person. LOL Gonzales is a bloody idiot.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.