Terrorist's lawyers

A

Anvil11-87

Inactive
I just read a story from a local news channel (kfor.com) about a Senior Defense Department Official from the Pentagon who had to issue an apology for offending major law firms by saying he was shocked that they would represent terrorism suspects free of charge. He also said that companies who are looking for legal representation should look for law firms that don't represent terrorist suspects.

Maybe I'm missing something here but why should any of us have to apologize to anyone that has anything to do with these terrorists?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The comment that got him in trouble was that lawyers who represent terrorists should be blacklisted (i.e. no one should do business with them). The problem with that statement is that a gov't official really has no place speaking on the issue of legal representation nor suggesting retaliation for people taking up said representation.

He wasn't speaking against terrorists but was stating that individuals who were engaged in legal and lawful activities should be penalized for doing so. That was both stupid and wrong, from a limited gov't viewpoint as well as a civil liberties viewpoint
 
Maybe I'm missing something here but why should any of us have to apologize to anyone that has anything to do with these terrorists?
Click to expand...
An accusation does not make one a terrorist. Anyone can be accused of anything.
Link:http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1164860703106190.xml&coll=7
Oregonian:

Brandon Mayfield, the Portland-area lawyer wrongly linked to the deadly Madrid, Spain, train bombings of 2004, accepted a $2 million settlement Wednesday in his lawsuit against the federal government, setting up a legal showdown over the constitutionality of the USA Patriot Act.

The United States will pay the convert to Islam $1.9 million for the emotional toll he suffered from two weeks of imprisonment as a material witness to a crime he knew nothing about, with another $100,000 going to his wife and three children for their suffering.

The government also agreed to destroy all materials seized from Mayfield’s home and office. And it agreed to issue the 40-year-old lawyer another apology for FBI foulups that matched him to a fingerprint found in Madrid, leading to his investigation as a possible terrorist.

... At a news conference Wednesday in a downtown Portland high-rise, the lean, bespectacled lawyer likened his ordeal to an Orwellian nightmare.

“I am talking about the George Orwell frightening brave new world in which Big Brother is constantly watching you, complete with 24-hour surveillance, thought control and doublespeak,” Mayfield said. “Where war means peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Where torture is morality. And an act that strips you of your civil rights could be called a Patriot Act.”

badbob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that official was completely within his rights and he spoke for me and
a lot of other people. I have read of several case of individual lawyers and law firms who have suffered financially because they represented controversial clients and I read an interview with the noted criminal defense
attorney Bruce Cutler in which he lamented the fact that a lot people he would like to have as clients will not hire him because of his association with
notorious criminals. As an NRA member I make a point of boycotting those
firms who are anti-gun, I have a list of entertainers I boycott because they are anti-gun or otherwise objectionable and I think one of the rights we have
as Americans is to NOT put our money in the hands of those we object to.
 
Anyone charged with a crime by the United States of America should be entitled to competent counsel. Anyone who says different should be ashamed. Some comments remind me of a lynch mob mentality. In America the principle is innocent until proven guilty no matter what Dubyah and his cronies in the Executive Branch think. I think any senior official who voices opinions that contain unconstitutional values should apologize. If he used his official capicity to give a personal opinion thats wrong. If he was giving an "official opinion" thats different. I think he owes the law firms an apology and the United States his resignation.

That brand of thinking is why people voted to put the Democrats in control.
 
I have to wonder if those of you who think those statements are ok would feel the same way if a high ranking official from BATFE said any lawyer or law firm that represented a gun owner in a criminal trial involving gun possession or took a second amendment case should be blacklisted and/or boycotted.
 
Its strange that if you look down through history at terrorism. The nations that fight it usually take a walk down the repression of rights lane. I can understand how that works now after reading some comments. People are willing to trade freedom for safety. If you do you get neither freedom nor safety.
 
I just don't think a terrorist from another country that has attacked our country should be entitled to a lawyer at all. And I really don't understand why these law firm are representing these guys for free. They must have forgotten how many U.S. Citizens died in 2001.
 
I just don't think a terrorist from another country that has attacked our country should be entitled to a lawyer at all. And I really don't understand why these law firm are representing these guys for free. They must have forgotten how many U.S. Citizens died in 2001.
Click to expand...


First allow me to correct you; alleged terrorist. No one has been proven guilty of anything in a court of law yet.


Now, do you understand 'innocent until proven guilty'?

Do you understand the concept of trial by jury?


If you understand those two ideas, then you should understand why they should be entitled to a lawyer. He may very well be guilty, but due process is important. Logic like yours is a bigger threat to this country than almost any terrorist. Guilty upon a mere allegation by the government? No trial by jury? No legal representation? I would suggest you read the Constitution a little further than just the 2nd Amendment. And as for free, most major law firms do some amount of pro bono work.
 
I do understand these two ideas. I just don't think they should apply to
foreign TERRORISTS, who attack us on our on soil.

I also understand that law firms do pro bono work. I think it's kind of strange that they want to represent these people when there are alot of people in this country that could probably use legal assistance. I guess they don't get the amount of press coverage for helping them though.


Back to my original post, I don't think the Defense Department Official should have needed to aplogized for hurting some liberal lawyers feeling. With people like them around, I sure am glad we have the 2nd amendment.
 
Anvil11-87 said:
I just don't think a terrorist from another country that has attacked our country should be entitled to a lawyer at all.
Click to expand...
So, in your opinion, the Federal Government can label anyone as a terrorist and they have no rights to disprove the label? And you are comfortable with that?

This is no different than some federal agency (the BATFE?) arresting you for unlawful possession of a machine gun, and then denying you the right to an attorney and even a trial. You are comfortable with that?

How about when Officer Friendly pulls you over for speeding and just throws you in jail for a few weeks. No trial. No attorney. You were guilty, yes?

Once we go down the road of denying due process, it is just a short hop from the terrorist to the jaywalker... But hey! if it makes you feel safer...
I do understand these two ideas. I just don't think they should apply to foreign TERRORISTS, who attack us on our on soil.
Click to expand...
No you don't understand.

What terrorists are being held that attacked the US on our own soil? Are you talking about the vast majority of prisoners being detained in Gitmo? They never set foot upon US soil, until they were transported, as prisoners, to Gitmo.

So who, exactly do you mean?
 
Are they not part of a terrorist group that attacked this country? I think thats alittle different then getting picked up for speeding.
 
Everyone has the right to a fair trial, regardless of the crime they're accused of. Terrorism or not, until proven in a court of law they must be presumed innocent. Anything less than that - like our President's lovely "enemy combatant" descriptor allowing people to be detained indefinately in Gitmo - denies due process and goes directly against a very important aspect of the Constitution.


Every amendment is as important as the 2nd.
 
Are they not part of a terrorist group that attacked this country? I think thats alittle different then getting picked up for speeding.
Click to expand...
That's the point. We don't know that they're terrorists because they haven't had a fair trial. There is no Jack Bauer out there deciding who is or isn't a terrorist.

The BATFE would absolutely love to qualify anyone on this forum with more than one semi-automatic rifle a "terrist". Just because someone has been detained - note that is NOT an arrest - for something does not mean that person has done anything wrong or is associated with someone who has.
 
Ummm, the country was founded on the ideas that rights apply to ALL people, not just US citizens. So just because a person is not a citizen of the U.S. does not mean that they do not have the same rights as you and I.
 
Boycotting a firm that represents a certain group is certainly within your rights, as well.

Pro bono work on such cases is often done for the publicity value, getting your name out, that you are competent at what you do. Lawyers, for a very long time, could NOT advertize, per bar regulations. While that has erroded a bit, it's still not gone in many places. Working high profile cases fills that need.

Still, you make choices on which cases to take. One of the most important things to realize is the press is in the process of self-promotion, and selling news. If they can make you angry, as they have in this thread, you pay attention to them, and the case. I can safely say, with so far, 100% accuracy, that every case I've researched has been mis-represented by the press, or news media.

I lost a bet with my torts professor over this issue. In fact, I find the media to be completely worthless when reporting legal issues, and, go to legal publications, such as www.findlaw.com for accurate information, by reading the filing, case, etc. I also wait until judgment, since I do have faith in the system, and, it will at least give a readable, well written opinion, at the end.

My major complaint is District Attorneys, and judges, being elected officials...

S
 
Sounds like I hit a pretty good nerve with alot of people on this subject.

My original post had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, the BATFE or U.S. Citizens being persecuted by officer friendly or the government. I simply didn't feel like the Defense Department Official should have to apologize for his statements. I don't feel that he was against people being defended but feel the comment was more about attorneys from the U.S. defending these people for free.

Weather I'm right or wrong, my own opinion is that terrorist or terrorism suspects from other countries should not be afforded those very rights that they are trying to destroy or take from us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top