Author Topic: American Bar Assoc wants to represent terrorists (Read 896 times)

Gunthr · « **on:** February 07, 2002, 07:26:33 AM »

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,44750,00.html

At a time when the Al Quaida org is branching out and continuing to plot against innocents, the ABA wants to afford terrorists all the rights of American citizens, including public trial with examination of all evidence, the presumption of innocence, and the right to be represented by the DREAM TEAM of their choice.

Just how low can you go? Its about the money, the huge amount of terrorist organization resources that the lawyers thirst after.

Eagler · « **Reply #1 on:** February 07, 2002, 07:34:48 AM »

these lawyers need to share the cinder blocks I'd have tied to the ankles of the terrorist for their "trials at sea" ...

amazin ain't it

straffo · « **Reply #2 on:** February 07, 2002, 10:11:35 AM »

It just prove that you live in a democratia who can't forget it's own rule just because you were hurt in you soil.

Not that I endorse what AlQ* has done nor I'm a supporter of lawyer but it's better to work this way (IMO).

YetAnotherPostWhichSoundedBet terInFrench

straffo · « **Reply #3 on:** February 07, 2002, 10:13:26 AM »

great and wise words IMO :

Quote

"Our system does not work, democracy does not live, unless we are willing to give the same rights to the worst of us as to the best of us"

better than my franglish

Tac · « **Reply #4 on:** February 07, 2002, 10:35:21 AM »

As we say in spanish, those people deserve a good dose of democraCIA *wink* *wink*

Sandman · « **Reply #5 on:** February 07, 2002, 10:35:41 AM »

I disagree with the story's headline. I don't think that the terrorists deserve U.S. Constitutional rights. They are not U.S. citizens.

Do the terrorists deserve to be treated fairly? Absolutely. I think the ABA is correct in having concern for due process. Forget about the Constitution. I think it is everyone's right, U.S. citizen or not, to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Gunthr · « **Reply #6 on:** February 07, 2002, 11:00:12 AM »

I'm totally against granting US Constitutional rights to terrorists who are not US citizens.

I'm at a complete loss to explain why anyone would want to do that...

... unless you consider the money involved. Any terrorist case that would be tried in a US courtroom, defended by US criminal defense lawyers would be a million dollar case. Defense lawyers would be tripping all over themselves to get the cases... they would probably do it for free, just for the exposure.

Worse, it would be a public circus. Can you imagine the jury selection antics? Can you imagine Johnny Cockran holding up an Islamic headpiece - "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." ???

If summary judgement on a terrorist isn't done in the field, it should be done in a military tribunal according to established procedures.

.02

Gunthr · « **Reply #7 on:** February 07, 2002, 11:40:45 AM »

Straffo said:

"great and wise words IMO :"

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our system does not work, democracy does not live, unless we are willing to give the same rights to the worst of us as to the best of us"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree completely, Straffo. Certainly, all men are created equal.

However, the American Lawyers make this statement to support their position that they should be able to defend terrorists, including foreign terrorists, in US courtrooms. There is a lot of money to be made there.

I believe that the terms "the worst of us" and "the best of us" taken from the above quote refer to American citizens, not foreign terrorists in a war against America's culture.

These lawyers have twisted those noble words to thier own purposes... $$$$$

popeye · « **Reply #8 on:** February 07, 2002, 11:41:08 AM »

No mention of "citizens" in the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

There might be good reasons to deprive terrorists of due process, but lack of citizenship is not one of them.

Sandman · « **Reply #9 on:** February 07, 2002, 11:52:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunthr
Straffo said:

However, the American Lawyers make this statement to support their position that they should be able to defend terrorists, including foreign terrorists, in US courtrooms. There is a lot of money to be made there.

Really now? Who's paying? Last I checked, court-appointed lawyers aren't making all that much.

Quote

Originally posted by popeye
No mention of "citizens" in the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

There might be good reasons to deprive terrorists of due process, but lack of citizenship is not one of them.

If this is the way the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, the ABA is right in taking this position.

Gunthr · « **Reply #10 on:** February 07, 2002, 12:01:04 PM »

QUOTE

No mention of "citizens" in the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

There might be good reasons to deprive terrorists of due process, but lack of citizenship is not one of them.

- Popeye

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Popeye, I consider a military tribunal to be due process.

Gunthr · « **Reply #11 on:** February 07, 2002, 12:08:02 PM »

Originally posted by Gunthr

However, the American Lawyers make this statement to support their position that they should be able to defend terrorists, including foreign terrorists, in US courtrooms. There is a lot of money to be made there.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandman responded:

Really now? Who's paying? Last I checked, court-appointed lawyers aren't making all that much.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sandman, why do you think that accused terrorists would be represented by court appointed lawyers?

Don't you think Osama bin Laden might part with some of his wealth to obtain the best defense team money can buy? Say, Johhny Cockran, FL Bailey, et al?

If you think about it for a minute, you may realise that bin Laden may apply his wealth to the defense of any terrorist accused by the USA.

It is this wealth that the trial lawyers are after.

Sandman · « **Reply #12 on:** February 07, 2002, 12:08:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunthr
Popeye, I consider a military tribunal to be due process.

Ah... we get to the heart of the argument at last.

Goth · « **Reply #13 on:** February 07, 2002, 12:30:09 PM »

Quote

No mention of "citizens" in the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

There might be good reasons to deprive terrorists of due process, but lack of citizenship is not one of them.

It's called the US Constitution...not the World Constitution, or the Constitution of the Universe.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Doesn't look like it was established for terrorists.

Gunthr · « **Reply #14 on:** February 07, 2002, 12:34:30 PM »

Thats it mostly Sandman

The only mitigating factor here for this sorry position taken by the ABA is that their vote to take it was 286 to 147. That means there may be some lawyers with principles in the bunch.