Merlin1047
Senior Member
The Constitution of the United States is the document which safeguards the rights of American Citizens. Throughout history it has been relied upon to limit the power of government and to define individual rights. Unfortunately, the Constitution is being used against us by those who wish us ill. Terrorists use the Constitution in an attempt to escape punishment for their crimes and they find a willing ally among American lawyers.
The terrorist plot executed in the attack on this country on 9-11 was brilliantly conceived. Al-Qaeda terrorists used our own assets to attack us and kill our people. Now terrorists will seek to repeat that performance in our courts. Regardless if they are tried by military tribunal or in civilian courts, terrorists will receive representation by lawyers paid for with American tax dollars and protected by a Constitution designed to protect American citizens. So the end result is that terrorists may be defended by American lawyers who will be paid by American taxpayers money - possibly even those taxes paid by the victims of the terrorists.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/600389/posts
Michael Shaffer
Monday, Dec. 31, 2001
Lawyers may soon have to deal with another crushing blow to their industrys reputation, as an army is assembling for the chance to defend the alleged terrorists of the Al Qaeda and Taliban networks.
The New York Times states that even as Pentagon officials wrap up the rules governing the tribunals and forward them to Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld for approval, defense lawyers are anxious to take advantage of this controversial opportunity.
The chance of a lifetime
Three lawyers, including former United States attorney general Ramsey Clark, defended Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric convicted in the 1995 terrorist plot to blow up New York City landmarks. Now, these same lawyers are eager to represent Rahmans son Ahmed, who may have been captured in Afghanistan.
Virginia defense lawyer Charles W. Gittins, who defended Army Sergeant Major Gene C. McKinney, convicted in 1998 on one count of obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case, but acquitted of 18 other related charges, is eager to lend his services to the terrorists.
These types of cases draw the worst of the lawyer lot - Kunstler, Clark as well as any opportunistic vermin simply out to attain some notoriety. These shysters will make the OJ trial look like an efficient assembly line. They will pull out all the stops, play every dirty trick in the book, file every specious petition and introduce as many sleazy motions as possible to delay the progress of the trial. They will do this not because it is in their clients best interest, but because it is in the lawyers best interest. By prolonging the trial they keep their name in the public eye and they increase the billable hours for which you and I must pay them.
http://www.crimelynx.com/wantrepresent.html
New York Times
December 28, 2001
Just Who Would Want to Defend Suspects Before a Tribunal? Probably Plenty
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
David P. Baugh, former president of the Virginia College of Criminal Defense Attorneys and the Richmond Criminal Bar, said that it was exciting to represent someone who was "despised by everyone else" and that such cases had inherent drama.
"It's a `High Noon' standing-up against the vigilantes," Mr. Baugh said. "It's really putting the system to work."
Also from the same article:
As for fees, Mr. Gillers said that in the Oklahoma City bombing cases, defense lawyers were appointed, and "the court had to promise them compensation beyond the usual meager rates because they were committing years of their lives to these endeavors." How long the tribunals could last is an open question, though some critics have suggested they might be dispensed with in a matter of days.
As far as appointing military lawyers in any terrorist tribunals, Colonel Elliott said he expected the Pentagon to do so.
"We have to be practical," he said, adding of the suspects: "These are dangerous people and involved with a dangerous cabal of murderers and conspirators, and everyone at the trial will be at some risk. It won't be easy for them to find counsel of their own choice."
But, he added, "you will find people willing to defend these people just for the book rights."
And for many lawyers, Colonel Elliott said, representing suspects in such difficult cases is a badge of honor.
"I have no doubt that if we ever get one of these guys," he said, "there will be plenty of people who are willing to come in and defend them."
Besides terrorism, we have the ongoing problem with illegal immigration. People enter the country illegally, take advantage of social services and programs and if a female illegal should give birth while in the country, her offspring automatically becomes a citizen.
The courts are used by those who support illegals as a means of writing their own laws in support of illegal entry into the country. Lawyers once again come into the picture and once again the American taxpayer gets stuck with the tab.
I should provide links and documentation for the illegal alien assertion, but in the interest of brevity I will avoid belaboring facts which have been in evidence for years and are common knowledge.
So my question is this: Given the abuse of our Constitution by murderous terrorists and illegal aliens and given the fact that as taxpayers we are forced to pay the very people working against our best interest, is it time for another amendment to the Constitution?
Is it time to spell out very specifically to whom the Constitution shall apply and limit the rights of non-citizens? Obviously there are potential abuses, but why should we continue to support and finance those who seek to advance their own agendas and ambitions by using our own money and our own Constitution against us? Our Constitution is designed to protect American citizens. Why should foreign invaders be allowed to hide behind rights never envisioned for their use?
The terrorist plot executed in the attack on this country on 9-11 was brilliantly conceived. Al-Qaeda terrorists used our own assets to attack us and kill our people. Now terrorists will seek to repeat that performance in our courts. Regardless if they are tried by military tribunal or in civilian courts, terrorists will receive representation by lawyers paid for with American tax dollars and protected by a Constitution designed to protect American citizens. So the end result is that terrorists may be defended by American lawyers who will be paid by American taxpayers money - possibly even those taxes paid by the victims of the terrorists.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/600389/posts
Michael Shaffer
Monday, Dec. 31, 2001
Lawyers may soon have to deal with another crushing blow to their industrys reputation, as an army is assembling for the chance to defend the alleged terrorists of the Al Qaeda and Taliban networks.
The New York Times states that even as Pentagon officials wrap up the rules governing the tribunals and forward them to Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld for approval, defense lawyers are anxious to take advantage of this controversial opportunity.
The chance of a lifetime
Three lawyers, including former United States attorney general Ramsey Clark, defended Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric convicted in the 1995 terrorist plot to blow up New York City landmarks. Now, these same lawyers are eager to represent Rahmans son Ahmed, who may have been captured in Afghanistan.
Virginia defense lawyer Charles W. Gittins, who defended Army Sergeant Major Gene C. McKinney, convicted in 1998 on one count of obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case, but acquitted of 18 other related charges, is eager to lend his services to the terrorists.
These types of cases draw the worst of the lawyer lot - Kunstler, Clark as well as any opportunistic vermin simply out to attain some notoriety. These shysters will make the OJ trial look like an efficient assembly line. They will pull out all the stops, play every dirty trick in the book, file every specious petition and introduce as many sleazy motions as possible to delay the progress of the trial. They will do this not because it is in their clients best interest, but because it is in the lawyers best interest. By prolonging the trial they keep their name in the public eye and they increase the billable hours for which you and I must pay them.
http://www.crimelynx.com/wantrepresent.html
New York Times
December 28, 2001
Just Who Would Want to Defend Suspects Before a Tribunal? Probably Plenty
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
David P. Baugh, former president of the Virginia College of Criminal Defense Attorneys and the Richmond Criminal Bar, said that it was exciting to represent someone who was "despised by everyone else" and that such cases had inherent drama.
"It's a `High Noon' standing-up against the vigilantes," Mr. Baugh said. "It's really putting the system to work."
Also from the same article:
As for fees, Mr. Gillers said that in the Oklahoma City bombing cases, defense lawyers were appointed, and "the court had to promise them compensation beyond the usual meager rates because they were committing years of their lives to these endeavors." How long the tribunals could last is an open question, though some critics have suggested they might be dispensed with in a matter of days.
As far as appointing military lawyers in any terrorist tribunals, Colonel Elliott said he expected the Pentagon to do so.
"We have to be practical," he said, adding of the suspects: "These are dangerous people and involved with a dangerous cabal of murderers and conspirators, and everyone at the trial will be at some risk. It won't be easy for them to find counsel of their own choice."
But, he added, "you will find people willing to defend these people just for the book rights."
And for many lawyers, Colonel Elliott said, representing suspects in such difficult cases is a badge of honor.
"I have no doubt that if we ever get one of these guys," he said, "there will be plenty of people who are willing to come in and defend them."
Besides terrorism, we have the ongoing problem with illegal immigration. People enter the country illegally, take advantage of social services and programs and if a female illegal should give birth while in the country, her offspring automatically becomes a citizen.
The courts are used by those who support illegals as a means of writing their own laws in support of illegal entry into the country. Lawyers once again come into the picture and once again the American taxpayer gets stuck with the tab.
I should provide links and documentation for the illegal alien assertion, but in the interest of brevity I will avoid belaboring facts which have been in evidence for years and are common knowledge.
So my question is this: Given the abuse of our Constitution by murderous terrorists and illegal aliens and given the fact that as taxpayers we are forced to pay the very people working against our best interest, is it time for another amendment to the Constitution?
Is it time to spell out very specifically to whom the Constitution shall apply and limit the rights of non-citizens? Obviously there are potential abuses, but why should we continue to support and finance those who seek to advance their own agendas and ambitions by using our own money and our own Constitution against us? Our Constitution is designed to protect American citizens. Why should foreign invaders be allowed to hide behind rights never envisioned for their use?
