Hey Tyler. They don’t care about our freedoms and liberties. We aren’t fascist. And last I checked we don’t cut peoples heads, burn them alive, or hang their mutilated bodies from telephone polls then post it on the internet. We’ve been showing the world the greatness of our freedom for decades and they have continued to do this. The Bill of Rights and Constitution were put in place to protect our citizens. If countries want freedom then if can we’ll help. But, they have to fight for it themselves. If they don’t then the don’t deserve it. We did it. Freedom is a privilege not a guarantee. The day we start protecting terrorists the same way we protect Americans that’s when this country will collapse. Also, look up the word fascist before you say our government is that way. Words like fascism, nazi, crusade, or genocide should not be used lightly to depict something. Especially when used in the wrong context. They have become trendy expressions that people use to sway the minds of the ignorant.

If we are to give freedom to the rest of the world because it is so great, then why are we not going to give them everything that we have so good as US citizens? What we have is either so great that everyone can have it or it’s not, freedom and rights are not for the special few. You either believe in the American way or you don’t. What you are all talking about is the exact opposite of the ideals that this country was founded on. ALL men are created equal, the american constitutional system will work, or maybe it won’t. Your arguement seems to show it’s already going wrong. To follow your logic, you are abandoning the bill of rights for some “others not like us” who are just jealous of what we have. So, we can’t give the rights that we have to them, but we need to spread our freedom to them so they will see how good we are, um, so don’t you see any flaw in that reasoning? So, if they cut someones head off, that justifies us being savages? How long till you are argueing that just cutting Their heads off only half-way is not torture because what they do is worse? If you don’t believe in spreading American values to EVERYONE, than you don’t deserve them for yourself.

Correct me if I am wrong but are these subjects that we are talking about United States Citizens? No. Having Due Process is a right and privelege for US citizens not for someone who hase methodically plotted and planned to murder US citizens. Maybe those lawyers and attorneys need to pack their little money grubbing bags and head off to war, and to whom ever said war was never declared please go back and pay very close attention, to Iraq and Afghanistan and fight next to my brothers and sisters that are laying their lives on the line for not only OUR freedoms in this great country but trying to give that same freedom to others in a country where a woman has to eat crumbs off the floor in order to survive only because she is not aloud to eat with the men or children, she is even beneath animals over there. Or how about in a country that if you try to do something like give your opinion like this, male or female, they kill you for it. Such a pity that money, time, and effort are wasted on the likes when there are people over here that need those same attorneys and lawyers and cannot afford them cause they are making minimum wage and cannot make bills to begin with let alone afford an attorney or lawyer to help with a case that could ultimately benefit them, a United States Citizen.

Terrorists are neither legitimate military personnel nor criminals. They are just terrorists, subject to interrogation and elimination by any means and having no rights at all. It is madness to carry on as if they are common criminals and provide them with all sorts of due process rights. We will never get them eliminated this way.
They need to be waterboarded until they reveal the whereabouts and activities of their associates; then the associates need to be handled the same way until the entire network is rolled up and its members all killed.
No terrorist can be left alive; nutcase fringe civil liberties types will keep working to free them if they are just imprisoned.
Remember: They have no rights. They gave them up when they decided to become terrorists and attack the foundations of humanity.
If we had fought the Second World War on a due process basis at best we would still be fighting it; at worst, we would have lost.

It seems to me that by creating a gitmo, or any justice system outside of the one mandated by our forefathers, is unamerican. We are essentially admitting that the US justice system is broken, and incapable of bringing any criminals to justice. Its not perfect by any means, but it is purportedly designed to be fixable from the inside. By bypassing our system we don’t give it a chance to even NOT work so we can find how to fix it. Gitmo justice seems to be alarmingly slow to convict, how do we even know our real courts would do worse? If you really believe in America’s way of doing things as layed out by the constitution, we have to let our justice system do its job, because frankly if it doesn’t work and then can’t fix itself, this governmental system is probably close to being over. We can’t let our own fascism be the thing that beats their fascism.

Let the lawyers that defend these people reside with them at Gitmo.

If people want to fight the US and be afforded legal protections, let them join their country’s armed services and let that country declare war on us…

Under NO circumstances should Gitmo be closed and NO WAY should even one of those held there ever set foot on US soil. Besides the fact that it’s a privelege to come here, given the numbers of liberal judges and lawyers, there’s always the outside chance that one could find his way onto to our streets as a free man…or one could escape. Make them stay in Cuba…either until they die or until they get sent home.

-Rod-

Those “POW’s” are not Prisoners Of War. They are terrorists and do not fall under any Geneva Conventions protection. They are not a recognized government military. They follow no rules of engagement or rules of war. They offer no humanitarian treatment to prisoners taken. Besides, the Geneva Conventions and UN were put in place to keep genocides and atrocities from happening. Why should those be used to protect people who do everything in their power to undo those laws and orginization. I’m not saying we should torture. But, when the enemy offers no quarter, then none shall be asked for…….and non shall be given.
Those terrorists don’t deserve legal representation. They deserve a trial but only for documentation purposes. Once you decide to be a terrorist, even if you don’t consider what you’re doing as terrorism, you forfeit any civil liberties.

Joy, thank you for comment, I agree! Very well said. Please come back and post.

In the Robin Williams film PAN I remember one line we should all remember.
KILL THE LAWYER
To hell with due process of law for terrorist. They are just land pirates and deserve a short drop while attached to a piece of rope.

Joy

good points but being of pasty complection - read red neck- I would not have put it the way you did, but excellent points, glad that you have joined our little group and please ignore commentator he is obviously from Moveon.org and thus is permenately brain damaged:)

If I’m not mistaken the Geneva code/laws are written in such a way that a terrorist when captured could be summarily executed.

The Geneva laws do not give protection to non-uniformed combatants, in fact a ’spy’ when captured can be shot on the spot.

The only problem with international terrorism is we need information and so we capture and interrogate.

Why anyone thinks non-military combatants are entitled to any consideration is beyond me. People who blow up schools, markets and other civilian and/or military locations should be executed when captured. They are not entitled to Geneva Convention protection or any other protections. They are the lowest sort of scum. The idea that such individuas should be tried in Anerican courts, provided attorneys for defense, or any other assistance is preposterous.

Well, that was rude commentator.

Joy I have never heard such complete gibberish from a total moron in my life, did you just fly in from stupid town or what.

First of all I want to send a big THANK YOU to all of you have a served our country. I wish everyone in this country would sit back and think about where we would be if we didn’t have America’s finest fighting half way around the world. I don’t believe even one half of them are ready for the fight to come here. If not for those who served us so well in the not so distant past we could very well be speaking German. (Of course if they don’t get off their duffs and get this fence built all of us in the South will be speaking Spanish…) Yet as we all know Congress must stick its nose in where it doesn’t belong. Unless they are willing to pick up arms, put on the uniform and get down into the trenches they need to shut up. We only need them to write the checks, the rest should be left up to those who are willing to give it all for America. I am an American Indian and I know y’all have all heard that old saying too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. Congress and the needs to realize that they are the Indians…We already have a Commander in Chief and one is all we need. I honestly believe this is a military matter and it should be handled by the military. My persoanl vote is don’t take any more prisoners….I really wish that the media would show more of the war. We all know that Fox is the only place that will give a true account of what is going on but even they don’t show it enough. They also need to start running the tapes from 9-11 again and jog the memories of everyone that seems to have forgotten that day.

I very much agree with RETREAD : I am not sure if the extreme left in America are cowards, traitors or just plain stupid.
I will add maybe they are all three….
May God Bless You and Keep You….

There was one lady one the local news that said she was going there for treatment of something, but caught it there when getting treatment and had to keep going back for treatment of the Hep.

It was sad, she said for years she couldn’t figure out nwhere she caught it from until the reports came out. To think that this could have been reported on years ago if she had gone to another doctor and had him trace her steps.

Susan, thanks for posting the Scalia thing. People were a little outraged on his views regarding torture.

Re: the syringes GROSS, GROSS Negligence. When I volunteered at a free clinic we used to get so many donations of syringes that there was and is absolutely NO need to reuse them. If they wanted to cut costs, they should have done it another way.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to recall that during WWII if a soldier was caught out of uniform, he was either arrested or summarily shot as a spy. Those who parachuted into Europe to gather intelligence knew this and accepted the risk. Then where’s the problem? If you’re out of uniform you shouldn’t expect special treatment.

THAT IS WHAT I CALL GROSS NEGLIGENCE!

Terri-

I just saw your comment about the used syringes— Is this their way of cutting back on costs or are the nurses or whomever too lazy to use a new one?

I would never think of using a used syringe on Ken when I give him insulin– NEVER!

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/01/17/guantanamo/index.html

KT–

exactly– and as for pro bono- done without compensation: done or undertaken for the public good without any payment or compensation:he has the option of taking what he wants to do as for pro bono work– unlike a public defender or a court appointed attorney, this attorney had the choice as he claims he comes from a very reputable law firm– there was more to this letter- but I just cut the part about his justifying his pro bono work-

As I posted above it what Judge Scalia said about enemy combatant- LOL

archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2007w04/msg00041.htm ·

Here is the whole letter

I’m w/ KT

He’s a bleeding heart liberal, the guy that wrote that letter. In one part he tries to justify the reason of defending any criminal. He cleverly omits the word terrorist except when he says it the third person in relation to another person asking him a question while using the word terrorist, Why do you defend terrorists? He reminds people of the reason why he went to college to defend the rights of everyone.

Then he hides behind the fact that it’s pro-bono, but he doesn’t say that it wasn’t his choice to accept the case or not. He throws out the word pro-bono making you assume that he was forced to take the case on.

What a bunch of crap.

Carl.. I liked the comment you made: The Geneva Convention… fabulous in the 40’s, but one size does not fit all, and these are different, trying times.

Rod, hello

Susan… good job getting that information! Now I have to read it

The guy is pruposely confusing the issue of tribunals. All tribunals are not equal. He used the phrase, “a combatant status review tribunal “is NOT a court of law, but a non-judicial administrative hearing.”
”

Exactly. “Status Review Tribunal”. That’s a different animal than a trial court. We wouldn’t equate a civilian bail hearing with a trial, would we? But his words are intended to make you believe that justice is being denied. -Rod-

Here is a letter an attorney wrote doing pro bono work- and his justifications-

Why I defend “terrorists”
An open letter to Cully Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, from a lawyer representing five men at GuantÃnamo.

By Anant Raut

Jan. 17, 2007 |

Dear Mr. Stimson,

I am an associate in the Washington office of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, a New York-based, international firm with 1,100 lawyers. I practice general corporate litigation. I also represent, on a pro bono basis, five men who are being held as “enemy combatants” at the U.S. detention center in GuantÃnamo Bay, Cuba. “How can you defend terrorists?” is a question I’m sometimes asked when people learn about my pro bono work. On Jan. 11, in your capacity as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, you asked the same question of every lawyer representing detainees in GuantÃnamo.

During the course of an interview on Federal News Radio, you named my law firm and 13 others whose attorneys have clients in GuantÃnamo and urged our corporate clients to take their business elsewhere. “You know what, it’s shocking,” you told your audience. “I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms.” You then said our efforts might be funded by “monies from who knows where.”

Mr. Stimson, I don’t defend “terrorists.” I’m representing five guys who were held or are being held in GuantÃnamo without ever being charged with a crime, some of them for nearly five years. Two have been quietly sent home to Saudi Arabia without an explanation or an admission of error. The only justification the U.S. government has provided for keeping the other three is the moniker “enemy combatant,” a term that has been made up solely for the purpose of denying them prisoner-of-war protection and civilian protection under the Geneva Conventions. It’s a term that was attached to them in a tribunal proceeding so inherently bogus that even the tribunal president is compelled to state on the record, in hundreds of these proceedings, that a combatant status review tribunal “is NOT a court of law, but a non-judicial administrative hearing.”

And, lest there be any doubt, Mr. Stimson, we are not receiving any money for this. My firm’s work is pro bono. At the end of the year, the partners set aside a substantial portion of the firm’s profits to pay for my trips to GuantÃnamo and my translation costs, just as they pay for my colleagues’ fight for clean drinking water in the lower-income neighborhoods of D.C., as well as hundreds of other projects I would be happy to discuss with you directly.

I also get asked other questions about my pro bono work, Mr. Stimson. “How can you defend terrorists?” is only the third most common. The second most common question is, “Why do you do it?” In law school, I would feel outrage whenever I read about a case in which our courts had the opportunity to take a stand — against slavery, against the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II — and didn’t. But I would also feel self-doubt. It’s easy to feel righteous anger now. But, I wondered, would I have felt it then? Or, in the name of security, of easing the anxiety of the public, would I have been able to swallow these affronts to the freedoms I see as the cornerstone of our national identity? The people I’m defending were caught up in the adrenaline and paranoia of our nation’s darkest hour. All we’re asking for is a fair hearing. Why does this frighten you so? ……

this came from an article– I like Judge Scalia’s answer-

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on two enemy-combatant cases on April 28, 2004. Frank Dunham, representing Yaser Hamdi, a U.S. citizen taken into custody in Afghanistan during the U.S. invasion, sought a hearing that his client had been denied for the two years he had been held at a Navy brig in Norfolk, Virginia. The Bush administration refused to permit Hamdi to have any contact with legal counsel until shortly before the Supreme Court hearing. Dunham explained that he was prohibited by the U.S. military from revealing in court anything that Hamdi had told him.

Enemy combatants

Dunham complained that the term “enemy combatant” was vague:

We don’t find it defined in any case, we don’t find it defined in any statute, and it hasn’t been defined by regulation or by anything that’s been filed in this case.
Justice Scalia sounded indignant at Dunham’s quest for clarity:

I assume it means someone who is — has taken up arms against the armed forces of the United States. Isn’t that — really, I mean, do we have to quibble about that word?

It’s titled America, Are You Listening?
http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2008/02/america-are-you.html

This is VERY frightening.

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2008/02/america-are-you.html#comments

My God, a writ of habeus corpus makes no sense at all here. First, according the the jihadists, which includes the Taliban, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Hamas, and more, we are and will always be at war. We are still at war with these people, of THEIR OWN VOLITION. You release these people, and THEY WILL STRIKE AGAIN.
The Geneva Convention… fabulous in the 40’s, but one size does not fit all, and these are different, trying times.

ENDOSCOPY

I thank God Matthew had his edoscopy at Sunrise.

Well, that is just another thing you want to watch… YOU WANT TO BE SURE YOU HAVE BRAND NEW SYRINGES.

22:55 Security officials: Gaza ground operation will wait until clouds clear in spring (AP)

=/

Avi, thanks for posting that!

Terri.. you would that a medical group would choose to use clean needles and not ones that were reused. Absolutely frightening

FINALLLY

Report: IDF ground troops enter Gaza

Published: 02.28.08, 23:04 / Israel News

Palestinian sources report that IDF troops have entered Palestinian territory near the town of Khan Younis in southern Gaza. Forces are currently engaged in exchanges of fire with Palestinian gunmen. (Ali Waked)

Wow..

40,000 people in LV are urged to go in for virus testing after a LV clinic is found to have re used syringes!

WHAT? This is insane… it’s criminal.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/16067972.html

I forgot my s’s…. sorry…I took my teeth out.

Thanks John
I hope it the one that give me the urge to go shopping!

USS Cole Heads to Lebanon in ‘Show of Support’

Thursday, February 28, 2008

* E-Mail
* Print

* Share:
o Digg
o Facebook
o StumbleUpon

Navy officials on Thursday told FOX News the USS Cole was in the Mediterranean Sea after earlier reports said the ship was off the coast of Lebanon in a “show of support” for Lebanon’s regional stability.

A senior official said the United States blames Syria for political deadlock in Lebanon, Reuters reported.

The USS Cole left Malta on Tuesday for the eastern Mediterranean “in support of a U.S. commitment to regional stability,” according to one senior defense official who also said President Bush is concerned about stability during Lebanon’s March 11 election.

The USS Cole was to be accompanied directly by two Navy oilers. Three other Navy vessels also were headed to the Mediterranean as part of a regularly scheduled deployment: the USS Ross destroyer, the USS Nassau amphibious assault ship and the USS Philippine Sea cruiser.

Al Qaeda operatives bombed the USS Cole in 2000, killing 17 U.S. sailors and nearly sinking the $1 billion warship in Aden Harbor, Yemen.

This month the United States expanded economic sanctions on Syria, saying it is responsible for destabilizing Lebanon.

FOX News’ Justin Fishel contributed to this report.

The sign that is in neon lights should be changed to terrorists welcome

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/28/san-francisco-puts-its-illegal-alien-sanctuary-status-in-neon-lights/

Haaretz.com

IDF: Hamas to have unlimited supply of rockets targeting Ashkelon by end of 2008

Hamas will likely be able to expand the range of its home-made rockets to 20 kilometers (12 miles) by the end of the year, an Israeli security official said Thursday.

Such an upgrade could give Hamas an unlimited supply of rockets for targeting the Israeli coastal city of Ashkelon, which encompasses a range of 10 to 17 kilometers (6 - 11 miles) from the Gaza Strip, and houses 110,000 residents, military analysts said.

The IDF said Hamas’ rockets, which started out with a range of 7-8 kilometers (4-5 miles) in 2001, now have a reach of up to 16 kilometers (10 miles). The rockets are widely referred to as Qassams because they were developed by Hamas’ militant group’s military wing, Izzedine al Qassam.

“We are doing our best to upgrade our capabilities,” said Abu Obeida, a spokesman for Izzedine al Qassam. “We will never have equipment comparable to our enemy, but we are working all the time to have enough to make any aggression a regrettable adventure for the enemy.”

*giggling*
I wont be able to watch bill without seeing a stick now!

Jen and Patty……..a “trunk show” is an event where the employees of a company meet up with the advertisers or vendors that do business with their company. It is usually used to preview any new products that are coming out, before they are made available to the general public.

Now, it could also mean a “canned show’, which is a show that’s taped, then canned until air time. Bill O’s,”The Factor” is such a show……..and Patty, you weren’t too far off with the wooden dummy and the hand scenario when it comes to this particular show. It is rumored that Bill O’ is nothing more than a wooden dummy controlled by a hand stuck up it, like a puppet. You can usually make out who’s controling the “dummy” by looking at Bill O’ facial expressions……….A smiley face means it’s Ainsley……a frown, Geraldo.

Just play pro american songs all day till they spill.

Wouldn’t take long to get all the info out of them

when i read “trunk” …i saw a wooden dummy with someone’s hand……….never mind!

Retread-

I like the idea, and that sounds a lot like me and my buddies talking when we get a few beers in us. hahahahaha

They need representation from their own country.
I think they have that right to a defense, even though they aren’t Americans, but they need to get their help from their own country or defend themselves. What attorney here would even consider doing this? Even if they did it pro bono? And how could they afford to do it for free–think of all the costs and language barriers etc…
Remember what happened to Hussein’s defense attorney..
———————————————

What is this trunk show about?? John—you probably know, or at least can humor us with what you think you know. lol

Morning gang. How goes the war? -Rod-

Thanks Patty, I didn’t know if I was missing any live reports on TV. That makes me nuts when Adam does live reports on a hot issue and we at work don’t get to see it.

Avi

we know that Obama will work with the Iranians, he has repeatedly said that, its nothing new that the main line media (FOX excluded) will not challange the stated policies of liberals.

It is also my belief that Obama is a closet anti-semit.

Even if he isn’t, his views would be dangerous to Israel and America.

Also having been born into a Muslim family and then converted to Christianity marks him for death by the barbarians, and they will spare no effort to kill him and anybody (including innocent bystanders) around him.

KT ..Adam told us yesterday that he was in NY for a few days.

Retread……Somewhat along your “beer induced” line of thinking (ah, how many times I, and my buddies, have solved the world’s problems over an ice cold brew….or ten, is countless)………..Anyway, in Saudi Arabia they have sentences that are given by the victim, or the victim’s family, in certain crimes. Once a defendent is found guilty, the judge gives the victim a list of possible punishments. It is left up to the victim to chose the punishment……not the court. Or, the victim can forgive the perp and set him/her free.

Retread,

Gun types is one this … but point one is more important …. he lied Obama said he wants to meet with those people without preconditions ……….. thats a lie what that congressman said thast he wont and Obama will admit that………. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Derek, I stand the same in my opinion, you are very creative hahahahah

Avi

your hoping for way to much. The media has a bad habit of miss naming weapons systems. I’ve seen M109 155mm howitzers called “Tanks” F16 called F15 and the other way around too. The list is endless.

Also don’t expect ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN to ask Obama tough questions

Derek

Ok here is an idea that a friend and I came up with a couple of years back over afew beers. Our start was what if the death penalty was again outlawed but we got to determine the means of punishment.

The perp is placed in a maximum security prison cell and provided with the necessities of life, but place a collar around the neck of the prisoner; not just any collar its made of metal and has a small electrical shock device-nothing major, but it will when charged emit a small shock a little stronger than a static shock.

But the family members of the victim get to keep the ‘button’ that engages the shock collar.

Our idea was to tape the button to a good pair of boots and walk across the nation once or twice. Then you put the ‘button’ away for afew years-don’t touch it, just let it sit for afew years, then one day pick it up and push the button a dozen times or so and then put it back and never touch it again.

Think about it its deliciously devious.

Well it was funny as h#ll with a few beers in us.

What is Adam doing in NY? What have I missed??? I visit this blog and I’m lost on what he’s doing in NY.

and to add to number 2: and surrounding areas…

Adam,

the Congressman who just spoke for Obama on the Live Desk said alot of wrong info fyi…

1. he said obama wouldnt meet with Hamas ( aka terrorist org) thats not true he wants to meet with the Iranian President the funder of Hamas… he also said they must renounce terror Iran has not and Obama said he would meet with those people without preconditions at the debate the other night. soo the COngressman got it wrongg

2. he said Katasuskua rockets were being fired into Sderot he got it wrong… Qassams are being fired into Sderot and Grad rockets being fired into Askelon ….

So you should let fox know this epsecially number 1 …. and 2 is also important ….

OK, I made my contribution. I still think they should be tried separately and use an attorney from their own country. Using an American Defense Attorney is an accident waiting to happen.

And this from the LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gitmo12feb12,0,2756288.story

There’s too much to cut and paste, but this is very interesting about the strategy to get defense lawyers on board for this case

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/27409.html

John, in answer to your question about the hold up… here’s partial of the problem

Broyles blamed the prison camps lawyer, Navy Capt. Patrick McCarthy, for placing obstacles in the path of his bid to meet Qahtani in the company of a civilian lawyer, Wells Dixon, of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

In a statement, the prison camps spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Rick Haupt, blamed the conflict on defense lawyers — describing their failure to comply with prison camp bureaucracy and on scheduling conflicts. But, in the end, Haupt said, the bureaucracy issues were ”moot” because Darbi and Qahtani refused to meet the military defense lawyer at their assigned time.

A core issue is Broyles’ bid to have Dixon join the meetings with the men — who claim brutal treatment in U.S. custody.

Absent an introduction by the civilian lawyer, Broyles said, the detainee might not believe he is there to help in his defense and instead suspect an interrogation trick.

Qahtani was once known as The 20th Hijacker, suspected of failing to join the 19 other suicide bombers in the 9/11 attacks because he was turned away from entry into the United States at an Orlando airport.

Here’s information on the defense lawyers

Accused 9/11 Co-Conspirators’ Defense Problems
From miamiherald.com: Two weeks after the Pentagon announced plans to stage death-penalty trials for six Guantánamo captives as alleged Sept. 11 co-conspirators, none of the men has seen a military defense lawyer.

Only one of the six has an assigned lawyer, U.S. Army Lt. Col. Bryan Broyles. But Broyles failed to see his client during a Feb. 13-16 visit to the isolated Navy base.

Lawyer visits will be a key precursor in the Pentagon’s bid to put Khalid Sheik Mohammed and five other alleged 9/11 co-conspirators on trial. On Feb. 11, the Pentagon announced plans to simultaneously try the men by military commission — and to seek to execute them if they are convicted.

But Army Reserves Col. Steve David said so far he had only assigned Broyles to the complex six-defendant case — to defend Mohammed al Qahtani, a Saudi considered the least valuable captive among the six men.

K2,
you know… I’m not sure.

Wonderful! You’re right, the voters do have power over Congress, if they were just aware!

KT - Internet Freedom Act.
Will go back and review Renewable Energy.

By the way, I received a response from one of my local county commissioners on a tax increase bill here in MN. He will vote NO! Yes- It works……

K2, I posted 2 hot bills… which one did you email about, Internet Freedom Act or Renewable Energy? I really appeciate you using that information K2, honest. The more people that were aware the better chances we have of stopping Congress voting against what we, the voters, want.

Terri - Has McCain backed away from his position? Or are we looking at the closing of Gitmo no matter who gets elected?

KT - sent my daily email to my Representative in Washington. Thanks again for your blog..

John, my best guess, w/o any information on why the hold up is happening, would be that somewhere in the process is a bleeding heart liberal.

It’s possible that assigning an American Defense Attorney to one of the defendents, paid for by the defendent or not, would tie their case up in appeals courts for decades. The argument being that the American Defense Attorney would have an underlying bias/agenda. The defendent could claim that during parts of the trial the attorney did not have their best interest in mind, he would do this by spinning things that happened in the trial to look favorably upon the defendent. Regardless of how the appeals court would rule, it nonetheless would tie the case up.

KT…….thanks for the info…….One of the main problems, as I see it (not just with this case, but all legal proceedings in general in this country) is the statement, …”it is unclear when the proceedings can begin”. Why? What’s the holdup? All the evidence is in place, all the defendents are in custody and all the witnesses are ready testify…………so let’s go.
I think because of these delay tactics that our justice system is looked as as a failure……….maybe rightfully so.

It should not be an American Defense lawyer fighting for them. Here in the States, a lawyer from one state can get permission to temporarily practice or defend their client who is charged in a different state. The ‘enemy’ should be permitted to obtain counsel from their own country, providing that counsel can adhere to the practice of law in the US.

I’m sure the bleeding heart liberals would disagree. But this way it’s a compromise, the enemy gets their counsel and an American Defense Attorney does not to be labeled a traitor.

How are the defense attorneys selected anyway? Is the enemy paying for the defense or will it be court ordered, which would force an attorney to take on the case? Anyone know?

But Hartmann said Monday that the defendants will get the same rights