A Gitmo terror lawyer who threw stones at Israel goes to the White House | World Israel News

Like one cartoon I saw a boy was walking through a cemetery and they passed a headstone that read "here lies a Lawyer and an honest Man" He asked, "Dad, why are there two people buried there ? "

SMSgt Lawrence McCarter lmfao!

If all the lawyers in the world were laid end-to-end . . . they'd deserve it! This is because NO ONE TRUSTS LAWYERS. Why? Because it's impossible that both lawyers in a case are working with INTEGRITY. One is wrong, and one is right, and they know it before the court fight. But don't be too discouraged. The vast majority of cases are settled out of court. But for those that do go to court, there is no such thing as legal ethics: both lawyers simply want to WIN.

MAJ Montgomery Granger that's my experience with them...some at all costs!

Then where do legal ethics fall if you KNOW your client is a criminal (guilty)? American justice is unfortunately NOT about a "search for the truth," it's about lawyers "winning their case."

MAJ Montgomery Granger The burden is still on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Entitled to representation does not just apply to innocent people.

Once again, I reference John Adams.

If your client is guilty, you work to get the best deal possible. If they do not want a deal, you still make the prosecution PROVE - beyond a reasonable doubt - that your client is guilty.

Raising reasonable dount is not unethical. Providing conflicting information (provided you do not know it is false), getting damning evidence excluded, raising objections, jury selection, all of these ate ways you can ethically aid your client.

But subborning perjury is wrong. Perjuring yourself is wrong. Admitting evidence you know to be tainted or false is wrong.

But vigorously defending g your client - even a guilty one - is still ethical.

I would Tage Capt Gregory prickett, but RP does not allow me.

I have had enough of Greg, thank you very much. He wears a mean cowboy hat, however! Watch the movie "And Justice for All," Al Pacino. Jury deliberations used to be done in a few hours, with no artificial light, no food, no water for the jurors until after they came to a conclusion. John Adams was right of course, to try the case, and I have no doubts about the right to due process, but unlawful combatant Islamists who want to kill us are NOT entitled to more than what a US soldier would be entitled to under the UCMJ. I object vociferously to the notion that the practice of LAWFARE should be allowed when it comes to those accused of war crimes. They are entitled to no more or less than those tried at Nuremberg after WWII. No jury trials, tribunals, based on FACTS. I am not one to submit that anything admitted under duress is inadmissible because someone decided ex post facto that the method was "torture." Torture had an internationally accepted definition in 2005-2006, and before, when "a handful of detainees at Gitmo were waterboarded in order to obtain valuable information that saved many lives." (G.W. BUsh, "Decision Points"). The "detainees" are unlawful combatants, and as such could have been executed on the battlefield. The only reason they are still alive is the potential to reveal valuable information that could save many lives. Yet 745+ have been RELEASED from Gitmo, and NONE have been beheaded, executed, blown up, hacked to death, dragged naked and lifeless through the streets, drowned or burned alive. All things our enemies have done to us and/or our allies. There is no moral comparison between Gitmo and the way our enemies treat their captives, and there is no comparison between the level of JUSTICE afforded them and the level of INJUSTICE they have afforded US and/or our allies who have been captured or murdered by THEM.

MAJ Montgomery Granger
The 1948 Iniversal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which A) the IS signed on to and B) substantially pre-dates the war on terror states in Article 5:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

I don't know about you, but chained in the fetal position for 18 hours and forced to urinate and defecate on yourself* certainly sounds degrading to me.

But at least we didn't TORTURE. Oh, wait, what *is* torture? Well, according to ANOTHER UN mandate - which we also signed on to, and ALSO pre-dates the global war on terror (1994) - turture is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted." Waterboarding causes severe mental suffering. Which means it is torture.

The minds that brought you "enhanced interrogation techniques aren't torture" are the exact same ones who accepted and operated under the Yoo memo for months. The memo that said because we are at war, we can ignore the laws of war if the President OKs it.

As far as your "they're unlawful enemy combatants, therefore they have no rights" concept, this too, is flawed. Either they were prisoners of war, which means they were entitled to those protections AND they were required to be released as soon as the war ended; OR they were unlawful combatants - i.e. criminals - and are entitled to THOSE protections. Even then, they are ALLEGED unlawful combatants with no burden of proof ANYWHERE in the system to actually justify their detainment. Intelligence says they are bad guys, therefore lock them up for as long as we want with no trial, no charges, no due process. You say the same Rights as a Soldier under UCMJ? Great. But they were denied even that.

Finally, your argument that "what's a little light torture between friends when they are straight executing our people?" Iis equally flawed. We do not stoop to their level. We do not even get close. We are the G-D U S of A. We hold our moral ground no matter what. Or at least we are supposed to.


*https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/18/usa.terrorism