Scott Fenstermaker attorney for the 9/11 terrorists on O'reilly

[Adam-12]

Adam-12 a criminal defense attorney would not be forced to represent a person unless they were a public defender...

You are very much mistaken. Did you miss the part where I related a recent incident in which an attorney was forced to do just that?

If I am practicing real estate law I would not be forced to represent a person in a felony case or even one of the parties in a divorce.

Sure, that's different--if you're not a defense attorney, then you'll never have to defend anyone. That's true. Same as you'll never have extract teeth if you aren't a dentist.

If one chooses to accept a client they do not wish to because of financial reasons they are still choosing to do so and are not being forced.

That's true. But when they accept a client because a judge orders them to, they ARE being forced.

[Elmar]

I agree with the trials being held in New York - its the right venue as they were the ones most wronged.

I guess the convictions of these united States are only to look pretty in the window but get discarded when we really really want to?

Living up to convictions when it easy to do so is nothing, its living up to them when its hard that matters.

This shouldn't be a political issue and the talk show hosts that are trying to make it a wedge issue while trying to paint themselves as patriotic are hypocrites.

[n1fhpa]

Living up to convictions when it easy to do so is nothing, its living up to them when its hard that matters.

This is correct. However looking at it from a different perspecive, it is the AG that is being political. The hard left wants all of the clandestine operations and tactics hanging out like so much laundry for all to see, analyze and ridicule. This administration is complying with their demands.

This shouldn't be a political issue and the talk show hosts that are trying to make it a wedge issue while trying to paint themselves as patriotic are hypocrites.

Again, it is the administration making this political and hosts are calling them out. In Obamas' own words he explains that they will be convicted sentenced and likely executed. Fenstermaker goes on to say that even if found not guilty that the government will not let them walk. So then, why the freak show?

The hypocrisy is in the details, if they are to be granted the constitutional rights of a US citizen then why won't they be "free to go" as any other citizen would be if found not guilty? The underlying motivation for this show trial is not pretty and very damaging to the country. Nothing good will come of this.

If they are not to walk even if found not guilty, then this trial should not take place at all. A military tribunal should wrap it up and we should move on, but that's the hard thing for the AG to do. Instead this administration forges ahead towards another epic fail because their convictions are unlike the majority citizens in the country.

[Adam-12]

This is correct. However looking at it from a different perspecive, it is the AG that is being political. The hard left wants all of the clandestine operations and tactics hanging out like so much laundry for all to see, analyze and ridicule. This administration is complying with their demands.

The federal court system has extensive procedures in place for dealing with classified evidence--so extensive that they straddle the line of violating the defendant's rights already. Among other things, there are procedures to make sure the defendants never even learn any of the classified evidence against them. The issue has come up long before the "War on Terror," and courts are more than capable of handling them.

The worry about "giving terrorists a platform" is also inaccurate. Courts are perfectly capable of excluding the media, imposing gag rules, or taking any number of other measures.

All the administration is doing is pretending to follow the rule of law by giving these particular defendants their show trials. They've already made it clear that they will remain in detention even if they're acquitted, and the administration has also remanded plenty of other detainees to military commissions. So the reality is that the administration is claiming the right to decide who gets a trial and who gets a military commission, based on where they're likely to get a conviction--and they're also reserving the right to imprison indefinitely even after an acquittal. If that's not jack-booted enough for any Bushite, I can't imagine what it would take to satisfy them.

[Elmar]

I don't know if Holder is making this a political issue. The legal aspects of the case being held in NY are all valid. Even if he is making it political it's outcome of being held in NY is the outcome that would be had via apolotical means.

I commend Holder for doing this. Just because someone is wrong an awful lot doesn't mean we should assume they always are. The merits of this decision stand up to scrutiny regardless who made them.

There are plenty of bigger issues to hold against the administration, Obama, and his appointees.

[n1fhpa]

I don't know if Holder is making this a political issue. The legal aspects of the case being held in NY are all valid. Even if he is making it political it's outcome of being held in NY is the outcome that would be had via apolotical means.

It is absolutly political. There would not be a civilian criminal trial at all if not for politics. Apolitical does not apply here.

I commend Holder for doing this. Just because someone is wrong an awful lot doesn't mean we should assume they always are. The merits of this decision stand up to scrutiny regardless who made them.

The pitfalls of this decision are glaring. It does not stand up to scrutiny.

There are plenty of bigger issues to hold against the administration, Obama, and his appointees.

Then why add another issue? This one does not qualify as a small one, perhaps it is an intended distraction from the "bigger" issues.

The federal court system has extensive procedures in place for dealing with classified evidence--so extensive that they straddle the line of violating the defendant's rights already. Among other things, there are procedures to make sure the defendants never even learn any of the classified evidence against them.

Procedures and laws are only as good as those who follow / enforce them.

The issue has come up long before the "War on Terror," and courts are more than capable of handling them.

The worry about "giving terrorists a platform" is also inaccurate. Courts are perfectly capable of excluding the media, imposing gag rules, or taking any number of other measures.

I don't agree for a moment that "giving them a platform" is inaccurate. We will all see it all unfold so there is no point is arguing the difference of opinion presently. The media will not be shut out and gag rules even if implimented will be violated with respect to media coverage. "Sources will say".

All the administration is doing is pretending to follow the rule of law by giving these particular defendants their show trials. They've already made it clear that they will remain in detention even if they're acquitted, and the administration has also remanded plenty of other detainees to military commissions.

Ok, so why bother pretending? It's a waste of taxpayer dollars and court time. If they remain in detention after acquittal, then they do not really have the rights they were supposedly afforded by the US constitution in the first place. So, why the show?

So the reality is that the administration is claiming the right to decide who gets a trial and who gets a military commission, based on where they're likely to get a conviction--and they're also reserving the right to imprison indefinitely even after an acquittal. If that's not jack-booted enough for any Bushite, I can't imagine what it would take to satisfy them.

Not clear on what you mean about "jack-booted" enough for Bushites. It should be pretty clear by my opinion that I am a much bigger fan of W than Obama. Sorry, but "reserving the right" to incarcerate after acquittal doesn't satisfy me. This should be a Military trail, period.

In the previous response I asked, why bother with this trial? It seems that some agree that these scumbags should have the constitutional rights of a US citizen. If, I was on trial for a crime and acquitted, I would be free to go my merry way when the gavel fell. That is not the case here, they will be incarcerated indefinately regardless of the outcome. Nothing good will come from this and the motivation is purely liberal.

I guess they have "semi-constitutional" rights. Taking it a step further, if these foreign nationals are to have the same rights as us, that means they have the right to trial by a jury of their peers, right? So, who's to say that the jury must be comprised of US citizens if we are set on providing US constitutional rights to foreign nationals? Potential jurors could be selected from any country based on this perception, no?

[kingsporadic]

I am not in favor of giving these people fluffy media circus trials in cream-puff civilian courts in the US. I am in favor of them going through an expedient and efficient military system that will (hopefully) not have to account to the media and the ACLU. They still get their due process, but it's a process that will be executed based upon a ruleset that is more appropriate to their situation.

Tell me please: what would be wrong with conferring the Bill of Rights upon every living human being on the planet? Should not every person in the world enjoy the right to disagree with their government, defend themselves against attack, confront their accusers in a court of law in front of an impartial jury, be free of unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, and so on?

I think it's despicable what these people have done and they are the lowest form of life there is, but just the same, I would sleep better at night knowing that they were convicted by court of law and deprived of their lives after due process, than if we just took them out back and stoned them to death in a vat of boiling acid.

Maybe I'm doing a 180 to some degree here, but I think the world would be a very different place if people everywhere enjoyed the same freedoms that we do.

SO VERY MUCH THIS

[Adam-12]

In the previous response I asked, why bother with this trial? It seems that some agree that these scumbags should have the constitutional rights of a US citizen.

Due process is guaranteed to "every person," not to "the people." The Constitution was carefully written to give some of its protections to everyone, not just citizens. Due process is one of them. The previous administration denied due process to non-citizens and citizens, which proves the founders' point: if we let them get away with that shit, we're next. I'd rather suffer a 9/11 every year, than give the government the power to create a holocaust. Every country that let its government have that kind of power has had millions of deaths to show for it.

If, I was on trial for a crime and acquitted, I would be free to go my merry way when the gavel fell. That is not the case here, they will be incarcerated indefinately regardless of the outcome.

I was hoping people would respond, "What? No freedom even if they're acquitted in a court of law? Who said that, so we can tar and feather and beat the shit out of and hang him!" It's disappointing for people to say instead, "Then why bother with the show trial? Lets jump straight to the punishment, whether or not these men are actually guilty."

I guess they have "semi-constitutional" rights.

None of us have any rights. José Padilla proved that. Now all we can do is hope the government doesn't take an interest in us. We'll be allowed to play like we have rights, except when the government decides otherwise.

[GunLawyer001]

Due process is guaranteed to "every person," not to "the people." The Constitution was carefully written to give some of its protections to everyone, not just citizens. Due process is one of them. The previous administration denied due process to non-citizens and citizens, which proves the founders' point: if we let them get away with that shit, we're next. I'd rather suffer a 9/11 every year, than give the government the power to create a holocaust. Every country that let its government have that kind of power has had millions of deaths to show for it.
. . .

What you forget is that there is less process "due" to enemy combatants.

What sort of procedural safeguards have we maintained in the 200+ years since the Constitution was ratified , with respect to random soldiers who are shooting at us? Normally, it's been "identify and kill before they kill you, unless they surrender". And that's for the ones in uniform. Combatants out of uniform, we've traditionally left off the "...unless they surrender" part. Guerrillas and spies are shot at the next convenient opportunity.

If the government were pulling citizens out of Dallas and Boise, and executing them within 24 hours, then I'd agree that there's been neither substantive due process nor facial due process. But foreign nationals captured by our military while working to kill Americans? No way that they get cushy civilian trials. it's insane to give them preferential treatment because they were not drafted by a government to wear a uniform and fight according to the laws of war, but instead chose to hook up with their buddy Achmed and kill some aid workers. Screw that, if they want to be warriors and be treated under the rules of civilized warfare, they have to wear uniforms and fight for a nation, instead of for some supranational evil organization like KAOS or SPECTRE or THRUSH or ISLAM.