Do you agree with Lynn Cheney and Bill Kristol's criticism of 7 Justice Department lawyers who provided legal representation to accused terrorists, calling them "The Al Qaeda Seven"? Here's a link to the controversial video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIxg7Lml … r_embedded
Seems like logical extension.
When the country was founded All men were considered innocent until proven guilty.
Under Bush that changed to Most Americans are considered innocent until proven guilty. However if the government throws the label on an American - 'enemy combatant' - he's to be considered guilty until proven innocent.
All Muslims foreign or domestic are guilty - you don't have to prove anything.
The logical extension is the persecution of any lawyer foolish enough to pretend that the original concept of innocent until proven guilty - actually applies to everyone in the US legal system.
"All Muslims foreign or domestic are guilty - you don't have to prove anything."
That's a ridiculous and offensive thing to say.
Sab, I THINK and HOPE that this was a sardonic comment, not an opinion.
Our society stands or falls on our ability to prove that we are fair and just NO MATTER WHAT the circumstances are.
If we cannot prosecute someone and clearly show that they were guilty, we have lost the war, not a battle, but the whole war.
Lynne Cheney is weird.
anyway, lawyers defend all kinds of people, not just accused terrorists. they also defend child killers, pedophiles, serial killers, wife beaters, animal torturers, etc.
why single out these guys?
she needs to remember this is America and everyone, however horrible, is entitled to due process. she needs to think of them defending that due process and not necessarily the accused scumbags.
FOUR LEGS GO~O~O~OD!! TWO LEGS BETTER!!!!
No. The US is just setting an example for the world.
We do not want US citizens captured or arrested in hostile, foreign countries to be automatically accused as terrorists as well.
I do not understand how someone connected to Dick Cheney can call US citizens that.
I guess this adage does that apply to them: "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones."
9 lawyers who represented terrorist detainees?
Who are these government officials?
Only 2 have been named. Why the secrecy behind the other 7?
Who's values do they share?
Seems like reasonable questions to me. Unless we are a country of lemmings who are too afraid or too deep in denial to ask questions.
"Whose values do they share?"
Arthur, I'm surprised you would ask such a question. As Kenneth Starr, Lindsay Graham and several other noted Republican lawyers have said, the lawyers were acting in the finest traditions and requirements of our American justice system.
Here's what Ken Starr had to say on the subject:
Tell me Arthur - Should the Catholics excommunicate a priest who heard the confession of a murderer?
Not being catholic that label does not apply.
Hearing a murder confession and keeping the secret can be interpreted as accessory after the fact.
Confession is a sacrament of the church and hearing confession is the priest's job. What is said during confession cannot be disclosed no matter how awful. Hearing the confession of a murderer can not be interpreted as being an accessory after the fact.
Is that why they did not report the pedophiles to authorities.
They get a lot of respect for not informing authorities.
Whoever hears a confession and maintains the secret should also be responsible for future crimes that the person commits. I care not about religious dogma.
If it was someone I knew that was a victim of a confessed person I would personally hold the priest responsible. Let the jury decide.
Somehow I doubt that the pedophiles confess. And perhaps the confessor is also a pedophile. The Church is like many other organizations, private corporations, government departments or churches--its first instinct is to preserve the organization from bad publicity or monetary liability.
It's just another political hatchet job. Terrorists are criminals and just like all criminals they are entitled to a defense under the law. Lawyers represent criminals all the time.
Even Ken Starr has spoken out on this and thinks Liz Cheney is out of bounds.
And, Arthur, the Justice Department has already released the names of the lawyers, according to the article I read earlier today.
Sorry but they committed acts of war. Therefore military tribunals are the only logical solution . If these people are so honorable, then whats to hide ?
In military tribunals ACCUSED terrorists are entitled to legal representation just as they are in criminal trials in civilian courts. Cheney and Kristol accused the lawyers who provided representation of being traitors and even urged clients of the legal firms who provided pro bono counsel in these cases to stop using those firms.
Here's a link to a NYTimes article from this morning's paper on the dispute--
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/us/po … rs.html?hp
It makes perfect sense that this type of imagery would be coming from a Cheney....or at least one close to the Dick...
The whole point of establishing the right to trial and gaining of representation was to 1) protect individuals and groups from abuse from government and 2) to ensure that the government isn't pulling some shenanagans....like making a fictitious connection between al Qaeda and Iraq...and then waterboarding captives in order to get them to admit to the link.....
The testimony from those arrested and tortured following September 11th, from what I have read, stated that the interrogators were constantly demanding detainees to admit to such a connection......as opposed to trying to find other, more important and relevant targets....
I still wonder how a man who needs kidney dialysis to live is able to hide so well....if only we hand'nt let him get away at Tora Bora....
Look at Addington...Cheney's lawyer....
Totally agree with you, Mike.
I'm a lawyer. And for most of my practice, I've been a trial lawyer (civil; not criminal).
Not long after becoming an attorney -- while still trying to decide in which direction I should go -- my then sister-in-law asked me during Xmas dinner, "Could you represent the rapist who nearly killed me?"
I knew, intellectually, that everyone is entitled to a full defense. Intellectually, I could've sat there and "gave the speech" justifying our judicial system. But in my heart, I knew that I, personally, would never be able to represent her rapist or anyone else's. Or a terrorist.
Cheney is confusing the heart and the mind. The mind says, "Yes, they are entitled to representation," when the heart says, "No. Eff 'em" Cheney is an idiot. And I bet HE would change his mind in a heart-beat if HE was suddenly accused of a terrorist act or any other illegal activity.
I agree with the popular opinion that this never should've come to a civil tribunal, that it belonged in the military tribunal -- but the issue of representation is the same, either way.
I live in a country where many innocent people where and continue to be wrongfully convicted - everyone is entitled to a fair trial and professional representation - sometimes even good representation is not enough to stop innocent people being convicted - The Birmingham 6 - were six Irishmen who served 18 years in jail for something they did not do - yet as it suited the British State and the British Tabloids at that time nobody was too bothered - The Guilford 4 spent 14 years in jail for crimes they did not committ - yet as it suited the British Tabloids and British State at that time nobody was too bothered - these are just ten examples of totally innocent people convicted and sentenced for terrorist related crimes that even today the most senior judges in Britan accept they were totally innocent - we must be careful when dealing with terrorists that we as a people and as a State do not become the terrorists - provide the procedures for fair trials and appeal processes - one innocent man in jail is too many.
I don't like the military tribunal in this regard....
The "terrorist" concoction, in my opinion, needs to be tried in an open forum so that the public can gain confidence in both our system, as well as our governments intentions.....
Precedent has been set, and I think it is a good one......
Having served in the military, I don't know how impartial a judge or jury can be on matters like this, especially if there is "influence" from higher ups or peers......
The problem I have with giving terrorists the same protections that I enjoy as a citizen is that they can just lawyer up and not answer questions. It is the responsibility of the President and all of the federal government to provide a defense to our country.
I am not at all concerned with the rights of a foreign terrorist, I am very concerned with the ability of our intelligence agencies to be able to do their job effectively. I think our President and his appointees to the DOJ are giving aid and comfort to our enemies.
Well, accused "enemy combatants" or accused terrorists are entitled to representation in civilian courts and in military tribunals. Perhaps you think they should just be lined up against the wall and shot without a trial. That would mean the terrorists have won by virtue of forcing us to violate our own Constitutional legal system.
They are protected but I don't have to like it. I as an American citizen I have to act in accordance with our laws, but the terrorist doesn't and indeed has no plans to, why again are we giving them the same protection?
Right, you don't have to like it. One more point, we scooped up a bunch of people and shipped them to Gitmo without being sure they were guilty of anything. Some were turned in for cash rewards. Others were young boys. The trials are what we do if for no other reason to try to make sure that the accused is actually guilty. That process requires representation for the individual. That's the way we do things in this country. And I'm proud of it. You should be, too.
I am proud that we treat our citizens that way, I do not think those same protections should apply to non citizens. I understand the SCOTUS has ruled on this in favor of giving them rights, but the SCOTUS does a lot of things I disagree with.
Mike, I have not been arrested because I have never given anyone probable cause to arrest me. I know the scenario is hypothetical but the reason I have offered up is not.
Just an FYI: Even though the law requires probably cause, I can guarantee you that a cop's definition will differ from that of an innocent man in many cases -- and is just as likely to be invented. It does NOT have to exist; it only has to be said to exist. And THAT is why things are so scary.
Were you proud of your country for the years that the residents of Guantanamo were being tortured without representation or trial just a little while ago ?
I was pretty damn happy that we weren't attacked again during that time.
The really good thing is that it was the will of the American people that got change eventually, the bad thing is that it is exactly the same will of the people that got you there in the beginning. About time things changed in politics generally I think - everywhere maybe.
The American people were lied by George Bush, Dick Cheney and a bunch of neocons into supporting the invasion of Iraq. They were told falsely that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the United States and that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to the 9-11 bombing of the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Moreover, the erroneous opinion was expressed that American troops would be welcomed by the Iraq people and that the invasion would result in a quick victory and brief occupation, a huge miscalculation.
That is not true. Mistaken is not 'lying,' Saddam did represent a threat in several ways, it was not claimed that he participated in the 9/11 attacks, destruction of the Iraqi military was quick, and no one defined a "brief" occupation prior to the war.
Bush and his henchman had made up their minds to invade Iraq long before using buggered intelligence to sell the war to the American people. Bush gave CIA director George Tenet a Presidential Medal in order to get him to keep his mouth shut. Even if all the "intelligence" about WMD had been true Iraq would never have used it to attack the United States. Saddam Hussein was not that stupid. Besides, he had no way of delivering nuclear weapons to attack the United States. At worst he might have used the alleged non-existent weapons against other countries in the Middle East. We lived for 50 years with a nuclear threat from USSR and China and we had to attack a little pissant country like Iraq? It just doesn't add up. I just heard Karl Rove still lying on NPR this morning about Iraq pushing his recent book.
It would have been irresponsible given the situation not have been prepared to deal with Saddam. Clinton had plans as well.
Saddam had proven his willingness and ability to threaten our interests. Delivering a nuke via ICBM is not the only kind of threat that exists.
To propose that big problems are proof we shouldn't take steps to prevent other problems from becoming bigger is wildly irrational.
UK the same - and the same issue of telling a straight lie to the public and enough mindless morons accepting it because they think they are clever, are racist, are christians who think it a good idea to attack any Islamic people.
Ralph actually I do not want the terrorists killed because I do not want them to get the martyrdom they so covet. But let em rot ! I don't want my tax dollars defending them.
Realize, padrino, that Americans can be lumped into this "illegal combatant" loophole too......
And if this happens to you.....too bad....
In a military tribunal hearsay evidence (like something taken from a torture session) can be used against you...without any corroboration otherwise (I may be wrong on this...but I don't think so)...
How would you like to be arrested and held indefinitely....with no voice or representation....
I wouldn't want that to happen to anyone....to give the government, or factions within it, the power to hold witch trials and keep them from being publicized for us all to watch....we will be in for one hell of a time.....
Here's a link to a discussion by several prominent lawyers of the issue of representing terrorists:
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/ … -and-left/
Judge Young to Richard Reid, the convicted (after a civilian trial) terrorist. This is why you don't use military courts.
"This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence. Let me explain this to you.
We are not afraid of any of your terrorist coconspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is all too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect.
Here in this court, where we deal with individuals as individuals, and care for individuals as individuals, as human beings we reach out for justice, you are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist.
And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.
So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You are no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders.
In a very real sense Trooper Santigo had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and where the TV crews were and he said you're no big deal. You are no big deal.
What your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today? I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing. I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record it comes as close to understanding as I know.
It seems to me you hate the one thing that is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose.
Here, in this society, the very winds carry freedom. They carry it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely.
It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their, their representation of you before other judges. We are about it. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden, pay any price, to preserve our freedoms.
Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. Day after tomorrow it will be forgotten. But this, however, will long endure. Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done.
The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged, and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.
See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. You know it always will."
This is an excellent argument for trying terrorists in civil courts - the issue of the thread is about defending terrorists. When you detain without representation, without the court, you are guilty of exactly the central point of the judge's speech. The only trivial issue I would have with it is the continued use of 'our', surely freedom is ours and yours?
Padrino, your arrest record is your own concern.....if you have heard of rendition....and if you are familiar with many of these actual cases, you will find that many of those detained, if not the majority, were taken with no probable cause as well...
Ending up in Gitmo...how many "probable cause" cases do we really have there?
Of course...if you don't have representation...there is no probable cause....because that is only a claim that someone with a voice can make...otherwise you have a vaccuum.
In general, not just on this situation, I believe that every accused person has the right to an adequate and genuine defense lawyer doing their best. Hopefully, the veracity of the charges can be proved, but me, I'd rather see a court of law find innocent on benefit of the doubt and let one guilty person go than to put multiple innocent people in jail for crimes they have not committed.
In other words, the alternative is much much worse.
Sad.....Saddam was put in power with a mission....which he failed to fulfill: the invasion of Iran.
It is interesting to notice that American pressure against him didn't begin until the end of that horrific, needless war....
Saddam, after his expulsion from Kuwait, was living in his nation as if he were on house arrest.....the no-fly zones were in effect....his moves were all observed...our satelites, intel operatives, and antennae arrays listening and watching... Meu after Meu, from the east and west coasts of the United States patrolled, waiting to strike......Saddam couldn't do anything.
The American government likes to plead ignorance......but I remember the creed from the sigint community "In God We Trust, In All Others We Monitor".........we are not so naive....
A war, one backed by "conservatives" in the legislature during Clinton's tenure in office...the New American Century group lobbying away....and of course they dissolved after we took control of Iraq....... They are very liberal in terms of using American military power in other places, and spending tax dollars to fund these endeavors (Cheney's "blank check" statements only one type of example)...
(Foreign Affairs-"Can Saddam Be Toppled?"-January/February 1999)
That date is a little to close to another in 2001 for my liking......
Shameless exploitation I calls it!
"Saddam, after his expulsion from Kuwait, was living in his nation as if he were on house arrest.....the no-fly zones were in effect....his moves were all observed...our satelites, intel operatives, and antennae arrays listening and watching... Meu after Meu, from the east and west coasts of the United States patrolled, waiting to strike......Saddam couldn't do anything."
He could pay for suicide bombers in Israel, he could pursue a program of 'Islamization' to consolidate his position regionally - including sending a boatload of Egyptian domestic workers home dead to give Mubarak a message about who is boss, he could profit handsomely from a corrupt oil-for-food program with the aid of France, Germany, and Kofi Anan's son, and he could play UN inspectors for fools for years while deliberately crafting an 'image' that he was indeed pursuing weapons of mass destruction.
So, I call big BS on the above post.
Saddam was a joke in the middle east! Remember the drawings of the chemical labs on wheels? All made up from scratch to scare the American people.
We demanded he give up weapons he didn't have or we would attack. How could he do that,TK? The chemical weapons so touted as extremely dangerous only had a shelf life of a couple of months at most.
But you know what? I believed Bush when he told all of those lies. Remember, "the oil will pay for the war?" What an extreme coincidence Cheney's former company reaped the benefits of "no bid contracts." If nothing else, this deal convinced me of the corruption regarding the Iraq War.
At one time this deal with Haliburton would have been protested all across the country because of the very smell of it. I do not recall this type of contract being made before in any situation regarding the amount of money involved.
If any of you watched the hearings regarding the Blackwater investigation you learned how Haliburton handled their end of the deal.
They charged the U.S. Government $1200 a day for security guards, then subcontracted to someone else for $800. This went on through five subcontractors with the last one finally hiring security guards from Africa for $200 a day.
We were told "only Haliburton could handle the job." Why could they subcontract better than anyone else. Blatant thievery by the administration and then they move headquarters out of the U.S. to avoid paying tax to the U.S. Yeah, Iraq was about money, not WMDs
I do not trust our officials handling trials behind closed doors. They lie too much out in plain view.
"Saddam was a joke in the middle east! "
Not to Egypt, the Saudis or Iran (to name a few).
Really? What threat was he to them while we were monitoring him? He had no jets, he gave them to Iran if you've forgotten. What could he have done to those countries,TK? His SCUDS were junk.
Most people believed because we are kept at a low level of information by the media, mixed in with religious 'ideas' of what should be done which is terminally confusing. Most of those people quite quickly realised the lies, and the rest got it when Bush and Blair were dragged out and forced to admit they lied, or got someone to do it for them.
Some people refuse to accept what is plain to everyone else and some, like at least one poster on this thread, just talks ignorant b******t, empty words with no grounding or intelligence. This is just attacking other people and refusing to discuss and this is EXACTLY what the US and the UK did to Iraq.
There are many who still support the decision to invade a sovereign country on mere lies. They do not think about the thousands of innocent people, including children, who were killed or injured for our "mistake."
Now these same people support having trials behind closed doors overseen by the same military who screwed everything up the first time. They refuse to share the guilt of our country for the most embarrassing event in this country's history. No surprise at this point!
The most embarrassing event in U.S. history? You're being generous. What about how Native Americans were treated? What about slavery? I think it would be hard to point out a worst terrible mistake!
Much of what you mention took place before we actually became a country and was accepted by many nations. I like to think we are a little more civilized in modern times and I know our modern weapons can murder much more effectively.
America's credibility took a major blow during this fiasco. And exactly what did we gain by the Iraq war? The country with the most terrorists involved in 911 were Saudi Arabians. How many of them did we bomb?
I clearly agree with the sentiments you express - however I have to point out that it was not the military but the politicians who direct them. The military do their job regardless of right and wrong and it cannot be argued that they did the job they were given. The job is wrong not the military.
I certainly agree with you for the most part, but I am also counting the mercenaries who were under neither U.S. or Iraqi laws. Many needless murders and of course the theft of billions of dollars in cash which has never been accounted for. Who hired these guys?
"They do not think about the thousands of innocent people, including children, who were killed or injured for our "mistake." "
And some people refuse to consider the thousands and thousands who died (not at all by 'mistake') and the millions who lived in terror under a dictatorial regime of unimaginable horror. Oh, that part's not important because it isn't part of the political agenda...
This was happening in other parts of the world too! Sadam was supported by the U.S. and was sent weapons by us when fighting Iran.
And the murder and tyranny was part of a "political agenda," just not ours. And I was being sarcastic when I said it was a mistake. I don't think we bombed the hell out of the civilians by mistake.
"Bush and Blair were dragged out and forced to admit they lied"
Neither of them ever 'admitted' any such thing.
Randy, you know history better than that. Many Indian massacres and tortures were done after we were a nation. And slavery still existed until the mid-19th century.
I'm not excusing the Iraq war - in fact, I wonder why we're still there. Like most Americans, I was kinda in favor of the war when I thought there were WMDs. After the truth was out, I saw no need for us to be there. I also don't understand why we're in Afghanistan - look what happened to the Russians. As bad as these conflicts are, however, I still think the treatment of the NAs was worse. After all, this was THEIR country first! US soldiers killed and tortured women and children and carried away their body parts as trophies. An entire culture was systematically eradicated.
We were supposed to kill or captured Bin Laden and his crew in Afghanistan due to 9/11. However, for some reason Bush W and Dick Cheney decided to start the futile Iraq War also.
That move is sort of similar to Hitler shifting his focus from Great Britain to starting war with Russia during WWII.
No, it was more like declaring war on Italy as well once we had entered the war against Germany.
You know how I feel about the way the Native Americans were treated and the slaves too. Unfortunately, the rest of the world either didn't know or didn't care. We did not have the communication technology we have now to tell the world how stupid and cruel we were.
But just like the Iraqi war, it was done for greed by those already rich and powerful. These are the people we should be putting on trial, and not behind closed doors either.
"After all, this was THEIR country first!"
No, they lived here first.
The American Indian way of life was doomed. Numerous peoples were converging on their lands including Russians, French, Spanish, and the Brits. Slavery is not to be condoned in any form. But what happened is what happened. White slaves were taken by North African pirates for centuries. There is not a country on this globe that's without sin. America is still the greatest country on this planet. That's why so many people come here (illegally).
Oh, is this where anti-semitism comes into the discussion?
Nothing of the sort, even though it would probably please you. Israel claims they have the god given right to the land they now occupy. Even though it has been in dispute for ages. Why do we support them if land belongs to no one?
"Nothing of the sort, even though it would probably please you."
Why would that please me? And why did you bring it up?
I mentioned nothing about anti antisemitism, that was you. You insinuated no one ever really owns the land. I asked about Israel, not about their particular religious or ethic position in the world.
I think everyone deserves a fair trial, no matter who they are or where they are from. Why would we want to convict innocent people? To what end would this serve justice? What is everyone afraid of if we give the "accused terrorists" a fair trial?
If you were tortured and made to give a false confession because you were in extreme duress, would you want this forced confession used against you in a military or civil trial?
"I mentioned nothing about anti antisemitism"
Really? Couldn't have come up without you.
"If you were tortured and made to give a false confession because you were in extreme duress, would you want this forced confession used against you in a military or civil trial?"
If you were guilty would you want anything used against you in any way? If you were caught in the middle of an area lousy with circus folk while you were performing a circus act would it not be reasonable to suppose you were circus folk?
Read back and show me where I used the word antisemitism first. Your "circus" reference makes about as much sense as anything else you profess.
Many of the accused terrorists were abducted from their homes in their own country, not in a circus situation. The mercenaries were paid to pick up these people, some of which had been outed by others with personal grudges against them.
I see you do not agree with the "innocent before proven guilty" concept our country has long extolled as a virtue. You are not alone, it seems. I certainly hope you are never in such a situation.
I would bet you would feel differently if you were falsely accused and didn't receive legal representation in a closed trial setting. Or would you?
"Read back and show me where I used the word antisemitism first"
I didn't say you used the 'word' first. Pay attention.
Right! You used the word and then accused me of bringing it up.
No, you brought it into the discussion so I used the word.
Keep trying,TK! I used Israel as an example of people claiming land which was occupied by other people. There was no reference to antisemitism until you brought it up.
I have no problem with any culture or ethnic group and feel everyone is entitled to justice, despite your insinuations to the contrary. Not even a nice try by you, but no surprise there
The antisemitism thing is a way to silence debate on Palestine/Israel- just as that Keep America Safe nonsense is an attempt to silence debate in court.
Why are so many people so afraid of facts being aired?
Possibly because those protesting helped put those responsible for the Iraq war into power. They are afraid an open trial will show the corruption and lies associated with this stupid war were due to those they helped put into power. They still refuse to admit they have any responsibility at all.
" They are afraid an open trial will show the corruption and lies "
Trial over what?
"I would bet you would feel differently if you were falsely accused and didn't receive legal representation in a closed trial setting."
If I were a terrorist I sure would want victi...I mean people like you to do exactly what you espouse.
So you have already decided these people are terrorists even though they haven't been proven to be so at this point.
And if you were innocent you would also like to have a fair trial, wouldn't you? Why even have a trial at all when we have people like you who can decide someone's guilt before they even go to trial. We could just allow those of you with special abilities to convict them and no trial is needed.
We did that already by attacking Iraq for having weapons they did not possess. We decided they were guilty without any proof. Now you want more of the same?
You are arguing pointless points with a pointless troll. I would advise ignoring it completely.
Yes, I am well aware of this particular troll and his MO. And so are many others who have read his posts on these forums. He does serve a purpose though. He is indicative of those who espouse beliefs which do not represent justice for anyone but themselves. They think they should decide what is right for everyone else. Let him dig his hole a little deeper.
You shouldn't be so cruel about Sab. He is slowly gaining a voice (he uses whole sentences these days)and one day he may have the courage to take off his mask. As it is, just think of the good you are doing by allowing him to direct some of his distinct brand of aggression into cyber space rather than the real world.
You shouldn't feel the need to resort to childish insults.
Ah well - another interesting thread turned into babbling nonsense.
Without reading the lengthy responses to this question I must say that I don't think that singling out these lawyers is a good precedent. All people MUST have equal and adequate legal representation when they are being accused of wrong doing. The legal process is there for a reason - and I don't fully agree with the justice system all the time, but all people must be treated the same when they enter it. Fast tracking these accused terrorists to some hole in the ground or an execution would make us look horrible, and would undermine justice and the foundations of our legal system. That would do more damage to America than any suicide bomber and some C4 could ever do. IMO
This about agrees with the consensus of opinion here - of course it is a little late - "Fast tracking these accused terrorists to some hole in the ground or an execution would make us look horrible, and would undermine justice and the foundations of our legal system. That would do more damage to America than any suicide bomber and some C4 could ever do. IMO" IS Guantanemo and the damage is already done.
True - I agree. Obama promised to shut Guantanamo down but hasn't. I do think that scrutinizing these lawyers for doing their job is a bit reactionary. The Patriot Act did quite a bit of damage also - and if Osama Bin Laden is to blame for the attacks of 9-11 I'm sure he would be pleased with the results of the Patriot Act
Yes you are right - I think.
Bin Laden seems to have out-thought your administration in every way - the knee jerk reactions of the neo-conservatives that got in partly because of the activities of Bin Laden - has played exactly the way he wanted because it favoured the neo conservatives to play his game.
If there are no defense lawyers how can you pretend there is a fair trial?
This is either a blatant attempt to intimidate the legal profession or simply a way to harness the baser instincts of one section of US society for purposes not clear from the video.
Speaking of Israel and Palestine, Israel's announcement of more settlements while Joe Biden was meeting with Netanyahu in an effort to encourage peace talks was a major diplomatic blunder on the part of Israel. It's possible that Netanyahu wasn't aware the announcement was going to be made while Biden was in the country, but he surely was aware that the plan for more settlements was being formulated by his rabid, right-wing interior minister Eli Yishai.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/world … amp;st=cse
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/ … amp;st=cse
Israel has been steadily erasing the Palestians from history for sixty years. They will carry on until they have finished the job regardless of what the world thinks.
Without foreign military aid (money and materials) Israel would have collapsed a long time ago...
In my opinion, though world leaders may speak publicly against Israels actions, they privately support them......
And we gave them nuclear weapons to be able to be more than just a presence in the middle east. Remember when Russia tried to do the same in Cuba?
I think you are wrong there. Israel is pretty much an international leper, loathed by governments across the world. Their delegations to conferences are ostracized in Europe and they have no voice on any world stage except the UN where many representatives walk out as soon an Israeli speaker appears. There have been brief thaws when peace talks with the Palestinians appeared to be genuine but in recent times I don't think any government believes Israel has any sincerity when it come to a settlement.
"Without foreign military aid (money and materials) Israel would have collapsed a long time ago..."
And would that make you happy?
Where did Israel get the materials for their weapons, for their vehicles, to fight the Six Day War?
How is it that they have nuclear weapons, and not intense sanctions and inspections, the way Iraq, North Korea, and Iran have been subjected to?
Does Israel make its own jet fighters?
There is tough talk, at times, by world leaders, but how Machiavellian a pursuit that is I don't know (doing one thing in public, but really supporting something else).
I think, Will, that someone needs to push you off your territory, segment your people into artificial "nations" that turn you into minority populations......like the Palestinians....I think your nation should be segmented so that, while you have a port, you have no way to actually use it because another country has walled you off....
We will see how "genuine" you are then, perhaps?
This isn't a slight against you....I jost would like to open a path to different perspective for you....take a walk in someone elses shoes for a second...
The "American Indian way of life" as if it was all one thing, eh?
Doomed? They are still here.......and have not left or forgotten....
"Countries"....well, the nation-state is a relatively new thing, and most of these "countries" didn't exist even 100 years ago.....they have been created since...
When I look at the Palestinian people, now divided amongst Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, and elsewhere, I see a nation that hasn't done anything to anyone.....and yet they are considered outsiders and are unwanted on their own soil.....
The "everybody does it" excuse is poor.........Just because selfish, greedy, and brutal people raped, robbed, and murdered does that mean that I should do the same?
America likes to paint itself as a "distinct" nation...different from all the others in terms of its value of freedom and liberty...just look at the ongoing textbook debate in Texas.....
But when faults are pointed out, this "city on a hill" image becomes "one of the rest."
Good job foreignpress of living up to the image of denial and hypocrisy that founded this nation...
Like the Puritans who massacred native peoples after they arrived here............
""Countries"....well, the nation-state is a relatively new thing"
There you go again with your unusual concept of time...
"Like the Puritans who massacred native peoples after they arrived here............"
The Puritans received about as much massacring as they dished out, but I'm sure you will now tell us how it all relates to unions, the Mexican-American War, and that the arrival of the Puritans was 'relatively recent.'
by ahorseback3 years ago
Why is it that the rights of the accused have morphed into a very slanted advantage to the accused , thereby seemingly surpassing all the rights of the victims ,this is a constant in the American courts system ,...
by Oztinato5 months ago
Why has the "rule of law" suddenly disappeared?The Weinstein effect seems to accidentally show that the rule of law is now non existent. "Innocent until proven guilty" is now passè.Or is it?Will...
by paarsurrey7 years ago
DoubleScorpion says:And Lack of knowledge is not the same as sin. Just because my kids have not learned all the survival tools required to live on there own does not mean that they are sinners. Kids don't not know how...
by Paula2 years ago
Within days of the attacks on Paris, the news is saying France is being merciless in their bombing of certain sites n Syria. The United States intelligence shared with them, so they knew where to potentially...
by SunShineSnow8 years ago
What do you believe to be true, innocent until proven guilty or the opposite?Do you have to prove yourself innocent or do they have to prove you guilty? The law says innocent until proven guilty.
by The Medicine Man11 months ago
Was Zimmerman innocent or just not enough evidence to convict him?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.