Terrorist's lawyers
- Thread starter Anvil11-87
- Start date
What if you're not a member of "whichever terrorist group", you are just ACCUSED of it? Priced any lawyers lately? The government could accuse you of being a terrorist and, unless you have deep pockets or a lawyer willing to work pro bono, you will probably be found guilty of terrorism. If you can't afford to fight it, you can be railroaded into prison or worse. Happens everyday in the other war, "The War on Drugs".
badbob
invention_45
New member
Sure looks like a call for a boycott to me. And a boycott against anyone who would take their proper role in due process guaranteed by the Constitution.
All of this said in his official capacity as a part of the US Government.
If that isn't treason against the Constitution, it skirts the line pretty closely.
Those who are enjoying the shredding of the BOR don't have a monopoly on being proud citizens, though they want everybody to believe that.
I'm proud to be a citizen of this country that was founded on telling noble authority where to stick it. And I haven't, like most "patriots", forgotten exactly where that place is.
invention_45
New member
Real knowledge is a slippery thing. That's why we have due process.
two issues here...
First an agent of the US government publicly advocating reprisal against lawyers who do stuff he (and the government he represents) doesn't like. I've got a real problem with that, and it's not because I hate America. Which leads into the larger topic:
The attempt by OUR government to deny due process to a particular class of people. That should scare the bejesus out of every American. It doesn't matter what the class is. The mere fact the the government is claiming the power to classify a group of people as beyond the reach of the legal system is the problem here.
Here's what you're advocating if you support this:
1. Government declares person X to be a member of group Y. Government also declares that people it has declared to be members of group Y have no rights.
2. Person X goes away. All on the government's say-so.
Are you really OK with that? And forget that group y is "terrorists." The principle you've just established will survive long beyond the existence of Al-Queda, or Muslim terrorism in general. That's the idea behind legal precedents. Once they've been set up, they're mighty hard to get rid of. See Plessy and Brown. There's a lot of years and a lot of misery between those two decisions.
So by establishing the precedent that the government can declare suspected terrorists to be beyond the reach of the legal system, you've automatically included whatever group the government comes up with next within that precedent. If that happens to be a group you're a member of, you're SOL, and guess what? It's your fault.
Now do you get it?
--Shannon
First an agent of the US government publicly advocating reprisal against lawyers who do stuff he (and the government he represents) doesn't like. I've got a real problem with that, and it's not because I hate America. Which leads into the larger topic:
The attempt by OUR government to deny due process to a particular class of people. That should scare the bejesus out of every American. It doesn't matter what the class is. The mere fact the the government is claiming the power to classify a group of people as beyond the reach of the legal system is the problem here.
Here's what you're advocating if you support this:
1. Government declares person X to be a member of group Y. Government also declares that people it has declared to be members of group Y have no rights.
2. Person X goes away. All on the government's say-so.
Are you really OK with that? And forget that group y is "terrorists." The principle you've just established will survive long beyond the existence of Al-Queda, or Muslim terrorism in general. That's the idea behind legal precedents. Once they've been set up, they're mighty hard to get rid of. See Plessy and Brown. There's a lot of years and a lot of misery between those two decisions.
So by establishing the precedent that the government can declare suspected terrorists to be beyond the reach of the legal system, you've automatically included whatever group the government comes up with next within that precedent. If that happens to be a group you're a member of, you're SOL, and guess what? It's your fault.
Now do you get it?
--Shannon
OKPatriot,
You are correct his initial post expressed displeasure that a government official apologized for taking an antifreedom stance. Got it.
But in later posts he specifically stated that he believes that terrorists should get no representation from American lawyers. The problem here is that ALL people have the same rights under the Bill of Rights..not just American citizens.
Worse, nobody can KNOW for sure which individuals are terrorists and which are not...by assuming that everyone charged is guilty..and denying them legal representation...you deny them the opportunity to prove themselves innocent in a court of law. And that is a violation of basic human rights.
You are correct his initial post expressed displeasure that a government official apologized for taking an antifreedom stance. Got it.
But in later posts he specifically stated that he believes that terrorists should get no representation from American lawyers. The problem here is that ALL people have the same rights under the Bill of Rights..not just American citizens.
Worse, nobody can KNOW for sure which individuals are terrorists and which are not...by assuming that everyone charged is guilty..and denying them legal representation...you deny them the opportunity to prove themselves innocent in a court of law. And that is a violation of basic human rights.
IIRC the original concept of an "outlaw" was someone who had been proscribed and was outside of the law's protection and could be killed with
impunity-"Wanted Dead or Alive". And its 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade the
Supreme Court declared unborn children to be outside the law's protection.
If that official said that terrorist suspects were not entitled to the protection of the law he was wrong, but in urging corporations not to emplo
y law firms that defend terrorist suspects he was exercising his First Amendment rights.
impunity-"Wanted Dead or Alive". And its 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade the
Supreme Court declared unborn children to be outside the law's protection.
If that official said that terrorist suspects were not entitled to the protection of the law he was wrong, but in urging corporations not to emplo
y law firms that defend terrorist suspects he was exercising his First Amendment rights.
Anvil11-87
Inactive
Bottom line is almost none of this was what my original post had to do with. I simply said I don't think the DOD guy should have to apologize. If it is against DOD policy for him to make such coments (as someone pointed out in a reply) then I agree he shouldn't have made them. But for some reason this deal was turned into a 2nd amendment, BATFE, due process, take rights away from Americans deal. Which was not in any way what the original post was about.
After I was told I should be ashamed, was no better then a terrorist, thought like a BATFE agent and whatever else was said, I'm kinda wishing I wouldn't have even posted on this site.
After I was told I should be ashamed, was no better then a terrorist, thought like a BATFE agent and whatever else was said, I'm kinda wishing I wouldn't have even posted on this site.
Anvil, did you even bother to read the post (#68) by tube_ee?
The man, an agent of the US Government, expressed an opinion. When this is done, it is not an individual, expressing their 1st amendment rights of free speech. It is the Government giving a statement of policy.
That's what you (and some others) fail to see. Such a policy, is where all that other stuff comes into play. That's what the rest of us are trying to tell you. Such a policy is inherently bad.
Now, if that wasn't meant as a policy statement, then the man should apologize. That he has yet to do so (make the apology), tells me that the Executive is fine with this policy.
I, for one, am not fine with the idea that the Government can just come and get someone and disappear them. I am not fine with the idea that because I've been accused of a certain crime, I don't get an attorney or even a trial.
Do you think I'm being facetious? That is exactly what happened to Jose Padilla. Padilla is an American citizen. He was snatched from an incoming flight when he debarked. He was held, without charges, for nearly 3 years.
This has nothing to do with my opinion of the man. Personally, I think he's guilty of being a terrorist. Personally, I think he's guilty of conspiring to commit a terrorist act. But he's still entitled to all the protections that the Constitution guarantees. Because if he's not guaranteed these protections, then neither are you and I.
The people who flew the planes and turned them into missiles, are all dead. A few of the people that masterminded this act are in custody. One has even been convicted and sentenced. That's the way it should be.
The prisoners on Gitmo are just that. Prisoners. Of what crime? Of supporting the then current government of Afghanistan? Of supporting terrorism? Of actually committing terrorist activities? We simply don't know, as they have not been allowed their day in court.
And you, sir, seem to be fine with that. You, sir, can't seem to grasp the power the Government is grabbing.
I find it reprehensible that an American, who enjoys all the Liberties and Freedoms of being an American Citizen, would deny those same rights to anyone that they don't like.
The man, an agent of the US Government, expressed an opinion. When this is done, it is not an individual, expressing their 1st amendment rights of free speech. It is the Government giving a statement of policy.
That's what you (and some others) fail to see. Such a policy, is where all that other stuff comes into play. That's what the rest of us are trying to tell you. Such a policy is inherently bad.
Now, if that wasn't meant as a policy statement, then the man should apologize. That he has yet to do so (make the apology), tells me that the Executive is fine with this policy.
I, for one, am not fine with the idea that the Government can just come and get someone and disappear them. I am not fine with the idea that because I've been accused of a certain crime, I don't get an attorney or even a trial.
Do you think I'm being facetious? That is exactly what happened to Jose Padilla. Padilla is an American citizen. He was snatched from an incoming flight when he debarked. He was held, without charges, for nearly 3 years.
This has nothing to do with my opinion of the man. Personally, I think he's guilty of being a terrorist. Personally, I think he's guilty of conspiring to commit a terrorist act. But he's still entitled to all the protections that the Constitution guarantees. Because if he's not guaranteed these protections, then neither are you and I.
The people who flew the planes and turned them into missiles, are all dead. A few of the people that masterminded this act are in custody. One has even been convicted and sentenced. That's the way it should be.
The prisoners on Gitmo are just that. Prisoners. Of what crime? Of supporting the then current government of Afghanistan? Of supporting terrorism? Of actually committing terrorist activities? We simply don't know, as they have not been allowed their day in court.
And you, sir, seem to be fine with that. You, sir, can't seem to grasp the power the Government is grabbing.
I find it reprehensible that an American, who enjoys all the Liberties and Freedoms of being an American Citizen, would deny those same rights to anyone that they don't like.
Bottom line we judge your views on all the posts you made in this thread, not just on your original post. If you don't want us to comment on your other posts, then don't make them.
From all your posts, we can tell you weren't unhappy that a man had to apologise for exercising his first amendment rights, instead, you felt that (alleged) terrorists do not have any rights, and what the lawyers were doing were at best wrong, and at worse, evil.
Nacht und Nebel
Night and Fog
The name given to the German law passed by the Nazis (I believe after the start of WWII) which allowed the German Govt to make German citizens "disappear.
Prior to this law German citizens (those it the politically correct class, not the "untermenschen") had the legal recourse to petition a court to force the Nazi police to divulge the whereabouts and the charges against German citizens they had arrested.
So, if Onkel Otto had a few too many beers and said "Hitler is a stinker!" and the Gestapo picked him up you (as a German citizen of good standing) could go to the court and and say "the cops have Onkel Otto, and won't tell me where he is being held, or what he is charged with, etc.." and the German court would order you informed.
After Nacht und Nebel, that right no longer existed, even for "good German Citizens".
I mention this as a drastic example of the depths a govt can "legally" sink to. I am not implying our current govt is the same as Nazi Germany in any way. But there are some parrallels in the situation of "people detained by govt", and out to be considered.
With the detainees at Gitmo, we are on treacherous legal ground, because there has not been an accepted set of rules for us to operate under. Civilian law is one set, and is favored by many. Military law is another option, and is also favored by many. To correctly judge the detainees may require a fusion of the two, but exactly which rules should be used is still under argument. Which court system of the US actually has the jurisdiction to rule on this matter is also under argument.
The detainees, we have been told, are "enemy combatants", taken on the battlefield, under arms against the forces of the United States. There are likely a few who are not in this category, and should be considered as a separate case.
"Enemy combatants". What else can we call them? They are not soldiers in any nation's military, they are individual citizens of several different nations. We do not have provisions in the recognised laws of war that recognise a situation like we have currently.
Are we even "at war"? And in what sense? Buildings destroyed and thousands killed have been a justification for war in the past, when war was something against nation states. And against the military forces of nation states, we have long been signatories to international treaties and accords which provide a framework for determining what is and is not legal conduct in war.
Our adversaries do not recognise anything beyond their own ideology. Nothing they do is evil in their eyes.
Our Congress legally voted the "War on Terror" into being. I have always felt they acted rashly in giving a virtual blank check/hunting license to the Executive, but they did it, and it is a fact we have to live with.
Nearly all the political wrangling going on today is over how/where/when/why the Executive uses that blank check/hunting license. Which bring us back to the detainees, and the oringinal post over the remarks of a govt official.
Whether or not the sentiment expressed by the official appeals to you depends alot on how you view the legal status of accused terrorists.
I do believe that, that official's personal opinion should not have been aired as govt policy. In that he is in error, and it should be publicall admitted.
The protections from govt that are considered "Constitutional" are for US citizens. We extend them to anyone physically in US jurisdiction under our civil law. This allows us to prosecute anyone for crimes comitted in our jurisdiction. But does standard civil law cover terrorists taken in foreign countries if they have not comitted a crime within the US? Or should it be the rules of war? And if so, Which rules of war?, considering the kind of "terrorists" we are dealing with are specifically excluded from coverage by the rules of war by the same treaties and accords we are signatories to?
We cannot be justly accused of denying rights to people we have no legal obligation to recognise. However we do have a moral imperative to recognise certain basic rights. But do these basics (food, shelter. etc) include legal representation? And if so, equality with US citizens?
Isn't this the basic question we are all dancing around? And until it is answered, arguments on who should defend them, or not are not very constructive.
Govt authority is held in check only by adherance to our framework of laws, by citizens in and out of govt. But this same framework provides for people who are not covered by our laws.
There is a huge element of what we legally can do vs what we should do. And until this issue is resolved as to which rules legally apply to foreign Terrorists, (and it hasn't been yet AFAIK) we are all just arguing over how many winged dieties can dance on the head of a pin.
Night and Fog
The name given to the German law passed by the Nazis (I believe after the start of WWII) which allowed the German Govt to make German citizens "disappear.
Prior to this law German citizens (those it the politically correct class, not the "untermenschen") had the legal recourse to petition a court to force the Nazi police to divulge the whereabouts and the charges against German citizens they had arrested.
So, if Onkel Otto had a few too many beers and said "Hitler is a stinker!" and the Gestapo picked him up you (as a German citizen of good standing) could go to the court and and say "the cops have Onkel Otto, and won't tell me where he is being held, or what he is charged with, etc.." and the German court would order you informed.
After Nacht und Nebel, that right no longer existed, even for "good German Citizens".
I mention this as a drastic example of the depths a govt can "legally" sink to. I am not implying our current govt is the same as Nazi Germany in any way. But there are some parrallels in the situation of "people detained by govt", and out to be considered.
With the detainees at Gitmo, we are on treacherous legal ground, because there has not been an accepted set of rules for us to operate under. Civilian law is one set, and is favored by many. Military law is another option, and is also favored by many. To correctly judge the detainees may require a fusion of the two, but exactly which rules should be used is still under argument. Which court system of the US actually has the jurisdiction to rule on this matter is also under argument.
The detainees, we have been told, are "enemy combatants", taken on the battlefield, under arms against the forces of the United States. There are likely a few who are not in this category, and should be considered as a separate case.
"Enemy combatants". What else can we call them? They are not soldiers in any nation's military, they are individual citizens of several different nations. We do not have provisions in the recognised laws of war that recognise a situation like we have currently.
Are we even "at war"? And in what sense? Buildings destroyed and thousands killed have been a justification for war in the past, when war was something against nation states. And against the military forces of nation states, we have long been signatories to international treaties and accords which provide a framework for determining what is and is not legal conduct in war.
Our adversaries do not recognise anything beyond their own ideology. Nothing they do is evil in their eyes.
Our Congress legally voted the "War on Terror" into being. I have always felt they acted rashly in giving a virtual blank check/hunting license to the Executive, but they did it, and it is a fact we have to live with.
Nearly all the political wrangling going on today is over how/where/when/why the Executive uses that blank check/hunting license. Which bring us back to the detainees, and the oringinal post over the remarks of a govt official.
Whether or not the sentiment expressed by the official appeals to you depends alot on how you view the legal status of accused terrorists.
I do believe that, that official's personal opinion should not have been aired as govt policy. In that he is in error, and it should be publicall admitted.
The protections from govt that are considered "Constitutional" are for US citizens. We extend them to anyone physically in US jurisdiction under our civil law. This allows us to prosecute anyone for crimes comitted in our jurisdiction. But does standard civil law cover terrorists taken in foreign countries if they have not comitted a crime within the US? Or should it be the rules of war? And if so, Which rules of war?, considering the kind of "terrorists" we are dealing with are specifically excluded from coverage by the rules of war by the same treaties and accords we are signatories to?
We cannot be justly accused of denying rights to people we have no legal obligation to recognise. However we do have a moral imperative to recognise certain basic rights. But do these basics (food, shelter. etc) include legal representation? And if so, equality with US citizens?
Isn't this the basic question we are all dancing around? And until it is answered, arguments on who should defend them, or not are not very constructive.
Govt authority is held in check only by adherance to our framework of laws, by citizens in and out of govt. But this same framework provides for people who are not covered by our laws.
There is a huge element of what we legally can do vs what we should do. And until this issue is resolved as to which rules legally apply to foreign Terrorists, (and it hasn't been yet AFAIK) we are all just arguing over how many winged dieties can dance on the head of a pin.
The courts have held
mostly, that any person under the control of the US Governmenet is afforded all of the protections of the Constitution. That makes sense if you remember that the Constitution does two things: It defines the structure of the Government, and it defines and limits the powers of that Government. In shorter words, it's about US, not about THEM. There's no exemption in the Bill of Rights for wartime, non-citizens, or anything else, with the exception of Habeus Corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion, neither of which applies to a bunch of people we picked up in foreign countries, many of whom we paid money for.
The amendments define a set of things the Government MAY NOT DO. Mess with that, and you throw the idea of limited government over the side, and America with it.
Be very careful what powers you give them, because it's much, much harder to get them back than it is to not give them in the first place.
--Shannon
mostly, that any person under the control of the US Governmenet is afforded all of the protections of the Constitution. That makes sense if you remember that the Constitution does two things: It defines the structure of the Government, and it defines and limits the powers of that Government. In shorter words, it's about US, not about THEM. There's no exemption in the Bill of Rights for wartime, non-citizens, or anything else, with the exception of Habeus Corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion, neither of which applies to a bunch of people we picked up in foreign countries, many of whom we paid money for.
The amendments define a set of things the Government MAY NOT DO. Mess with that, and you throw the idea of limited government over the side, and America with it.
Be very careful what powers you give them, because it's much, much harder to get them back than it is to not give them in the first place.
--Shannon
Patriot Act anyone. I wonder how many of our elected officials actually read it?
313/435 in Congress voted for it.
98/100 Senators voted for it. There was only one who voted no.
How many came back later and said if I only knew I wouldn't have voted to pass it?
So no, in the emotional throes of an national attack it would be pretty easy to slip some stuff in.
Even the Supreme Court has said that the detainees are entitled to basic legal rights. I guess they are just a damn bunch of Al Queada sympathizers.
