How despicable can a Republican get? Do they understand the law?

Question

Many of the prisoners at gitmo are being represented by attys from some of the most prestigous corporate law firms. It's mostly pro bono, but some families have given some money. All that money has been given to 9-11 families charities.

Recently, Cully Stimson, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, has said he will be contacting the corporate clients of these firms and asking them to reconsider if they want to pay large legal fees to their terrorist supporting lawyers.

This is truly amazing.

Say what you want about terrorists, they are still just criminals, not some special group to be treated differently. And we don't know they are terrorists. That's why they have lawyers for upcoming trials. They are terrorism suspects. And lawyers represent clients they can't stand all the time. You think the public defender defending a child molester supports child molestation?

In the US every one is entitled to an atty. But it seems this Repub administration doesn't believe

Answer 1

It was the Republicans that formally recognized these enemy combatants and gave them rights under the Military Commisions Act of 2006. Prior to MCA:2006 they were simply ununiformed combatants and according to the Geneva Conventions could be treated as spies (tortured/subject to sumary execution) and no record of the kill or acknowledgment of the enemy's existence is necessary.

It was Bush and the Republicans who granted these terrorists the rights to a trial instead of summary executions. That is far from despicable.

Answer 2

So many areas to consider as well as many previous answers that need to be countered or clarified.

First - not all the detainees were taken in combat. Some were simply picked up for other reasons and then, often on minimal evidence, were deemed non-military enemy combatants. Actually, since there is no formal war, there aren't any POWs (Prisoners Of WAR); at least that's the argument made in relation to the Geneva Conventions of War to which we ARE a signee, so there is no need for us to.follow the established rules. They aren't citizens so they are not accorded the rights of an American citizen. Even there though, as the Padilla case shows, the executive branch claims it doesn't even have to worry about an American citizen's rights if they can be classified as "enemy combatants." Shoot, they even claim that habeus corpus (literally - produce the body - prove he is still alive and you have a reason to keep him prisoner) doesn't apply to an "enemy combatant" even if he IS an American citizen.

They don't have a right to a lawyer although one can volunteer to represent one. The description "criminal" though doesn't apply. They haven't really broken any laws - they've just been caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and may (repeat MAY) be aiding the enemies in our undeclared and never endable war on terrorism. Guess that means we (in the opinion of some in the the American government, NOT necessarily most of its citizens) can hold somone for the rest of his or her life, American citizen or not, with no disprovable cause or even the right to have a cause be given so it can be tried.

As to the actions in informing clients of another of their law firms clients I see no ethical way the government shoul,d be doing it. A newspaper, an NGO, whatever, but definitely NOT the government.

Answer 3

They aren't just criminals, they are terrorists, and the only thing they want to do is destroy the United States, everything it stands for, and everyone living here.
Additionally, these are not American citizens, and they are not entitled to representation, a fair trial or anything else our Constitution affords.
I think Mr. Stimson is absolutely doing the right thing by alerting corporate clients of these firms so they can be made aware that they are representing terrorists.

Answer 4

Terrorists are not criminals. They are enemies of our country. They are the enemy that we are at war with. Which is why they do not receive the same rights as American citizens.

The reason you see so many lawyers racing to defend the Gitmo terrorists is because its a way to make a name for themselves in legal circles. Most law firms are required by law to perform a percentage of pro bono work yearly and defending terrorists is a high profile pro bono job. Its not an altruistic gesture.

Answer 5

Err.. another uninformed democrat that wants to make a point about something stupid.

Guatomalo (gitmo) Bay is not in America, therefore it doesnt hafta follow american laws. Only laws it has are laws on war and international laws, which it does. Therefore it's fine.

All info that has been collected at gitmo bay is confidential.. therefore you dont know anything about any of the people being held. Its up to the people running it to take care of it. If you dont like that .. cry... theres a large scale genocide in africa in which people are being burned to death, one of the largest in history, theres a war in iraq, there are active fights between israel and palestine, and lastly 9/11... and there is worry of an oncomming world war underway.
You want to tell the billions of families who lost a loved one in any of these global disasters that protecting the moral, not lawful, rights of these terrorists takes priority? Tell them its more important to treat the terrorists who killed their son, not only their son- but theres sons entire community and nation, fairly than it is important to figure out how and who else was involved and WHY they did this --and serve justice!

Go Ahead.

"In the US every one is entitled to an atty. But it seems this Repub administration doesn't believe"

No, the Republicans are educated enough to know that gitmo isnt in america d**bass. I can do this all day to these ignorant democrats.

Answer 6

It's just more of the intimidation and bullying that has Scooter Libby on trial for lying about exposing a CIA agents identity.

There's no way of knowing who is in there. many have been released and proven to be innocent - sold with false testimony and kidnapped off the streets of foreign countries. It's such an embarrassment that we have government employees who can't set foot in Europe for fear of criminal kidnapping charges - not spying - CRIMINAL.

And Republicans didn't give them anything. They stripped them of their rights as both combatants, citizens of their own nations, and occupants of America. Just because they made up a category with few rights doesn't mean they did them a favor - they deny their rights beforehand to do that. It's like stealing diamonds and giving back a lump of coal.

I can't wait to have the Bush cabal all hauled up to answer for their conspiracies to intimidate.

Answer 7

Firstly, most lawmakers are lawyers.

Secondly, the detainees aren't Americans, and our laws don't really apply to them. If they did then why do we recognize the governments of other nations?

Thirdly, they are combatants seized during wartime operations. The US Constitution doesn't apply to them, so much as the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The media sure wants folks to be stupid, it seems, or else they would have explained that. But, then if half of the people would pay attention in US and World History, they would have already known this fact. What a country!

Answer 8

Uh, you really missed the boat on the nature of the people in Gitmo.

Most of them are, in fact, terrorists. They were either captured on the battlefield or in their hidey-holes, and they've been screened by several levels of commissions to make sure there is no mistake about why they are there.

They are illegal combatants, not "just criminals", and the standard treatment from even the recent past has been summary execution. They are not "suspects". And and understand that their military tribunal trials may end in the death sentence for a lot of them.

I remain flabbergasted at the continued ignorance about the prisoners at Gitmo.

Answer 9

You're an idiot to say that everyone in America is entitled to an attorney, and that applies to TERRORISTS. These people were captured on the battlefield fighting our troops, not caught steeling a candy bar from a convenient store. It took the Supreme Court to rule that terrorists were indeed protected under the Geneva Convention. By your rationality they're not protected by the Geneva Convention because they are criminals, not enemy combatants.

Those people should either executed or permanently imprisoned. They're not like troops from wars in the past where they were drafted and wanted to return home to their families. 95% of the detainees at Gitmo said that if they could they would gladly attack America if given the chance. When an interviewer for ABC went to talk to one, he started by saying he was going to kill the interviewers whole family. America has been overly generous to them.

Answer 10

Oh my "they are still just criminals not some special group to be treated differently" you really don't have a clue do you. Last summer as reported on many news stations and on the Internet 2 marine soldiers were found decapitated with their private parts stuffed in their mouths.How in the name of common sense can you say these terrorist barbarians deserve to be treated like common criminals and deserve the rights of American citizens. Your logic really scares the hell out of me. You are not based in reality but most hard core libs arn't. I sure hope you never run for office!

Answer 11

You're dead wrong when you say terrorists are simply criminals. Jaywalkers, car thiefs, and even murderers are not sworn enemies of the United States with the stated intention of its destruction.

Further, I'd like to see a source regarding your assertion that, "All that money has been given to 9-11 families charities".