- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,969
- Reaction score
- 1,209
- Location
- Dallas TEXAS
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
How long were they held before given access to military tribunals and legal counsel?
Your horror doesn't move me.
Well, clearly, they aren't in favor of innate human rights.
Sounds like you would prefer to talk about that instead of what an un-American bitch Liz Cheney is.
Without delay? Do you even have a clue how long they "delayed" releasing the names?
Have you even bothered to do any research whatsoever?
Here's a clue. This has been going on for months. Only after Liz Cheney showed up on the O'Reilly Factor did they release the names.
I see you ducked the point that they work for the government and not a private firm.
There is a big difference between fighting for your client and trying to reshape the law to fit Islamic terrorists and afford them American civilian rights.
That's the point.
Look up the word. Clearly you do not know what the word means.
in·di·gent
/ˈɪndɪdʒənt/ Show Spelled[in-di-juhnt] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
lacking food, clothing, and other necessities of life because of poverty; needy; poor; impoverished.
2.
Archaic.
a.
deficient in what is requisite.
b.
destitute (usually fol. by of).
Again, how do you know this? How do you know they are poor and have no money at all? Where is your proof?
No see its not just about representing a client. This kind of thinking is what gives lawyers such a bad name.
You cannot pretend you hold personal morals and defend Islamic terrorists and think they can be separated.
The stupidity of your argument is amazing. When was the last time someone who was a mob lawyer got hired as a DOJ lawyer to go after the mob?
There are limits to such rank hypocrisy
Have I missed this subject matter elsewhere on this message board? When both the right and the left attack the former Vice President's daughter, I am surprised that no one here has posted about this.
Liz Cheney makes me sick, and I am glad that people who served under Bush I and Bush II agree that her attacks are out of line. When Ken Starr shows up on Keith Olbermann, that says a lot about Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol's stupidity.
I hope her stupid group "Keep America Safe" loses credibility as a result of her foolish statements.
No one on the right listens to her do they? I mean, she's gay... doesn't that usually disqualify you as being someone a conservative let alone a neocon would listen to?
Somehow lawyers defending people in court has become aiding the enemy.
It's only a matter of time before people start arguing that rapists and pedophiles don't deserve a lawyer. After that, why have a trial at all? After all, they're rapists and pedophiles.
I saw forums poster American dancing with the devil!
It's really amazing how people don't even seem to understand American values. And often those same people are the ones saying they do.
And arguing that only they are "real Americans".
And arguing that only they are "real Americans".
Yep, and it's funny how they actually support things the enemy wants, such as certain people having no legal representation. Then there are the talibangelists like Pat Robertson who literally agree with bin Laden that God was punishing America for its sins on 9/11.
This is the essence of neo-cons, the extreme conservatives. Whatever they want is ok. Anybody who argues against them are not Americans. :doh What I find so amusing is that they really don't see how marginalized their off the chart views corral them in a smaller and smaller corner..
She might not be Palin, intellectually, but she is just as far out there. I'd love to see her run for any office. Watching her own party eat her up and spit her out would be great entertainment. :mrgreen:
No one on the right listens to her do they? I mean, she's gay... doesn't that usually disqualify you as being someone a conservative let alone a neocon would listen to?
This is the essence of neo-cons, the extreme conservatives. Whatever they want is ok. Anybody who argues against them are not Americans. :doh What I find so amusing is that they really don't see how marginalized their off the chart views corral them in a smaller and smaller corner.
But imagine that John Ashcroft had stocked the Civil Rights Division with appointees who had done extensive pro bono work for white supremacists. Would people’s positions be the same?
The best argument I've heard so far for why the substance of her criticism is correct:
Still don't know that it holds water, but it doesn't seem like as one-sided of a debate as it initially does.
Cutting against this analysis is the argument that lawyers often defend even unpopular and unlikeable clients in order to preserve an important principle. In that well-worn narrative, lawyers bravely stand against the tide of popular opinion to vindicate a principle, not to help a particular client.
I believe this is their true motivation due to the Bush administrations penchant for propagandizing the war on terror. (They are still touting the Los Angeles Library Tower as proof water-boarding is effective when it has been totally debunked.) Given that, lawyers strongly believing in the rule of law would not want to see the Bush administration run these kangaroo courts, obtaining guilty verdicts, in order to justify how they prosecuted the WOT. Their involvement would assure that any guilty verdict was rendered according to law not because:
So, for example, the rules for Hamdan's trial admit hearsay evidence in ways that American courts (both civilian and military) do not. The New York Times reported over the weekend, moreover, that the detainees have not been given access even to the names of the people who will testify against them.A real Guantanamo trial begins. - By Neal Katyal - Slate Magazine
This is completely different from representing White Supremacists.
What about it is so different though? In both cases, you're agreeing to represent a party that would otherwise be unrepresented in order to ensure that they're receiving justice.
As to the argument that it's different because the military trials have different standards of evidence - that doesn't really work, because the bulk of this legal representation was performed in the civilian courts.
It's different because the grievances I cited, would help a Presidential administration obtain global political goals; the conviction of terrorists that will then,indirectly, justify the detention of those prisoners (which they had been harshly criticized for) and then additionally, the treatment of those prisoners. White Supremacists do not rise to that level, politically, not even close.
Could you please cite an article supporting your assertion the bulk of representation was performed in civilian courts? I can find no source for that on my own.
The best argument I've heard so far for why the substance of her criticism is correct:
Still don't know that it holds water, but it doesn't seem like as one-sided of a debate as it initially does.
I still don't think it holds water. Cheney's attack is predicated on the idea that a defense lawyer automatically agrees with or sympathizes with their client. That's absurd and wrong.
An attack on a lawyer who volunteered to represent white supremacists would be predicated on the same thing, but I think that attack would be treated differently.
So you're saying that it's okay to provide pro bono legal services to terrorists because it helps thwart the Bush administration's political goals, but it wouldn't be okay to provide pro bono legal services to white supremacists because they're not important?
I'm not sure what type of article you're expecting - this is common knowledge. >95% of that representation occurred in the civilian system. Think of every single case you've ever heard of involving terrorists - that was heard in the civilian system. Every single big name case that these people worked on was heard in the civilian system.
In a manner of speaking, yes, (bolded portion) because Bush administration was violating the rule of law in order to obtain their goals. They wanted to admit hearsay evidence and not give access to the names of those who would testify against the accused, as I cited, in order to accomplish their goals. Kangaroo courts, if you will.
So, again, in a manner of speaking, it's fine by me to thwart political goals of a President when the means used are not in keeping with the rule of law.
Cutting against this analysis is the argument that lawyers often defend even unpopular and unlikeable clients in order to preserve an important principle. In that well-worn narrative, lawyers bravely stand against the tide of popular opinion to vindicate a principle, not to help a particular client.
I think these lawyers were doing just that (the bolded portion).
As far as the White Supremacists, I never said they weren't important, they just are not equivalent (at this time anyway) to prosecuting terrorists in the desire to meet a global political goal.
Not to my common knowledge. I haven't come across those facts, though I started with your link and clicked around on various other links in the articles and used search terms I thought would yield the answer. If 95% of the cases these lawyers worked on, every single big name case involving terrorists, were held in civilian courts, that might be an interesting discussion for another thread, in light of the castigation of Holder and Pres. Obama for planning to try KSM and 4 others in civilian courts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?