A traitor to America?

[Andy A]

What is the point to this? That our Founding Fathers were terrorists? Or, hypocrites?

Neither. They were intellectual rebels and human beings with all the normal human being frailties.

 

[scooterbug44]

Thank you, Scooterbug.
I don't see how we can even consider doing otherwise if we value the rule of law and the constitution. It's a slippery slope to start down if we decide the rules don't apply because the crime is particularly heinous, or we decide we think some accused deserve less than others because of the crime, or their associations, or politics, or citizenship, or whatever. The whatever doesn't cut it for me. We play by the rules or they become worthless.

Another issue is that if WE don't play by the rules, there is no reason for others to play by the rules when dealing with Americans.

I might be missing something, but foreign nationals committing crimes here do indeed receive fair trials. In fact, we are probably the only country that grants a fair trial. If they cannot afford legal representation, we will appoint one to them for their fair trial.

The legal rights of American citizens and the legal rights of others are 2 very different things in our legal system - I don't think that is fair - or wise!

They do get fair trials, but I think Scooterbug was focusing on the fact that the American lawyers who have been representing the accused in these cases have been stigmatized and some political groups are demanding they be fired for representing terrorists. Its crazy!

Yep - we give them lawyers and a fair trial and then noone can quibble w/ their sentences.

Let's face it - most of the people represented in court aren't exactly stellar human beings.

 

[Lynnie]

Thanks, Y'all! Was really confused with the original post as John Adams certainly did not betray this country. I have had discussions with lawyers regarding rights of non-citizens here as well as other issues regarding our Constitution from the recent past. If we waiver from the Constitution, we set ourselves up for disaster.

The terrorists deserve representation. As far as lawyers flocking to Guantanamo Bay to represent the terrorists, they should not be disbarred, but are they any different than the proverbial 'ambulance chasers,' of which we now have distinct laws against this type of solicitation.

Just a thought. Or, two.

 

[poppy]

Thanks, Y'all! Was really confused with the original post as John Adams certainly did not betray this country. I have had discussions with lawyers regarding rights of non-citizens here as well as other issues regarding our Constitution from the recent past. If we waiver from the Constitution, we set ourselves up for disaster.

The terrorists deserve representation. As far as lawyers flocking to Guantanamo Bay to represent the terrorists, they should not be disbarred, but are they any different than the proverbial 'ambulance chasers,' of which we now have distinct laws against this type of solicitation.

Just a thought. Or, two.

Yes they are different, they are volunteers offering their services pro bono.

 

[Lynnie]

Yes they are different, they are volunteers offering their services pro bono.

Wow. That's interesting. Pro bono for the terrorists? Self-serving, indeed. Most likely, this will backfire on them. I would just let these chips fall where they may. Because they will fall.

 

[poppy]

Wow. That's interesting. Pro bono for the terrorists? Self-serving, indeed. Most likely, this will backfire on them. I would just let these chips fall where they may. Because they will fall.

Using your logic, the free care a doctor might provide for those you call terrorists would also be self-serving.

 

[Lynnie]

Using your logic, the free care a doctor might provide for those you call terrorists would also be self-serving.

Why not simply ask me what my logic is regarding physicians instead making this assumption as to what you think my logic is or might be, poppy. Was the pro bono something mandated by the US Gov't or something the atty's chose for their resumes? Am I still missing something here? From what I am reading here in an earlier post, the attys flocked to the island to gain the terrorist as a client.

Have physicians flocked to render free care, then run ads stating as such? If you can't deduce from this post what my logic is, then please, just ask.

 

[poppy]

Why not simply ask me what my logic is regarding physicians instead making this assumption as to what you think my logic is or might be, poppy. Was the pro bono something mandated by the US Gov't or something the atty's chose for their resumes? Am I still missing something here? From what I am reading here in an earlier post, the attys flocked to the island to gain the terrorist as a client.

Have physicians flocked to render free care, then run ads stating as such? If you can't deduce from this post what my logic is, then please, just ask.

Damn if I know, you're the one who made an assumption and wrote "self-serving indeed".

 

[Lynnie]

Damn if I know, you're the one who made an assumption and wrote "self-serving indeed".

FTLOC! Sometimes these get so disjointed and ridiculous it is laughable. The words 'flock' and 'run ads' cause pause and yes my logic states that it is self-serving. If they were volunteers, would they have run the ads? Why would an atty run an ad like this, poppy? From I read in these posts, they 'voluntarily flocked.' From that verbiage, I can determine that this wasn't a situation of a Judge appointing an atty because the defendant could not afford his own representation. Trust me, I am not missing anything here. There could certainly be more to the story, however. But, thanks for the conversation.

 

[LuciferSam]

Thanks, Y'all! Was really confused with the original post as John Adams certainly did not betray this country. I have had discussions with lawyers regarding rights of non-citizens here as well as other issues regarding our Constitution from the recent past. If we waiver from the Constitution, we set ourselves up for disaster.

The terrorists deserve representation. As far as lawyers flocking to Guantanamo Bay to represent the terrorists, they should not be disbarred, but are they any different than the proverbial 'ambulance chasers,' of which we now have distinct laws against this type of solicitation.

Just a thought. Or, two.

Yes big difference, ambulance chasers tend to be involved in civil cases in which there might be some criminal elements. I think terrorism is way beyond negligence or carelessness.:roll: