69dejavue Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 This is from Alan Colmes web site so you already know it is liberal. It is nice to know that obama appointed an attorney general whose law firm defends terrorists for FREE! What does that tell you about the AG. What does that tell you about the person that requested him to be appointed. Newt Compares “Bitter Partisan Attacks” On Bush To McCarthyism May 10th, 2009, 12:21 PM EDT On Fox News Sunday Newt Gingrich went full-bore at the Obama administration, accusing them of caring more about protecting terrorists than defending the country. “You look at this administration,” he said. “You look at the Obama administration, the number of attorneys that have been appointed who were defending alleged terrorists. There’s this weird pattern where the Bush people wanted to defend Americans and were pretty tough on terrorists. These guys are prepared to take huge risks with Americans in order to defend terrorists.” He compared the attempts to hold BushCo accountable for upholding the Constitution to McCarthyism. “What we’re seeing now in a very sad way is as bitter a partisan attack on the Bush people, as much as we’ve seen since the McCarthy era. The degree that they’re putting specific people at risk for criminal prosecution is unprecedented in modern America.” He accused Attorney General Eric Holder of defending 17 terrorists “pro bono.” “For no fee it is the largest single thing they were doing for free, defending Yemenis.” Holder’s law firm, Covington & Burling, did represent people accused of terrorism, as have many law firms, whose job it is to defend people accused of crimes. Part of our core belief in justice is that every accused criminal deserves a defense, last I checked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherri Leicht Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 I personally feel he is not an American patriot or defender of her and never will be. I wonder if he really was born in the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilmor Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 I'm just imagining the reaction had a past American president done the same for the Nazi's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Doctor Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I think that the saddest realization from his statement is the belief that terrorists are nothing but simple criminals entitled to protection by the U.S. Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDT Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 No Homeland "TERRORIST ATTACK" on Obama's watch.......He must be doing a great job?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DubbsFaris Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Dont get off topic, the question is does he love america or the terrorists? My guess is- He is a democrat...so he loves both.. He has got plenty of love to spread it out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDT Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Conservatives are softening up???????? During the Election Campaign the cry was.....Is Obama a "Muslim Terrorist"???????? Now the cry is..........Does Obama "Love Terrorists"????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clark17357 Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I doubt I will ever be labeled a liberal, but the part of the original post that criticized the representation of alleged terrorists without compensation is not something I can support. It does not matter that the ones accused are accused of terrorism. It does not matter that any right thinking human being does not support terrorism. What matters is that one of the backbones of our country is the 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses). It was ratified a long time ago, on 12/15/1791. It reads: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Most of us acknowledge that an appointed attorney rarely has the resources of the prosecution. When a private attorney (in or not in a law firm) elects to represent the accused, he or she is only carrying out the oath that every attorney swears, which is to defend all of the Constitution and not just the parts we like. Most attorneys have represented a person accused of a crime and done so for free. We do it to assure that our Constitution continues to mean what it did when it was written. It is a measure of who we are as a People that we insist that even those accused of trying to destroy all of what we are and all of who we are, have the benefits of the Constitution they are trying to destroy. I appreciate and share in the emotions that are expressed on this thread. But having been an attorney for 30 years, I have seen enough examples of the benefits to society of visiting justice upon those seemingly undeserving of it, to persuade me that our system, imperfect as it is, must be preserved for all . . . even, and maybe especially, alleged terrorists. I don't seek to be critical of others with this post and my views are mine alone. I offer my words only for a bit of perspective. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDT Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Of course I did not mean all Conservatives.......Only the "UNREASONABLE ONES".............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilmor Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I doubt I will ever be labeled a liberal, but the part of the original post that criticized the representation of alleged terrorists without compensation is not something I can support. It does not matter that the ones accused are accused of terrorism. It does not matter that any right thinking human being does not support terrorism. What matters is that one of the backbones of our country is the 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses). It was ratified a long time ago, on 12/15/1791. It reads: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Most of us acknowledge that an appointed attorney rarely has the resources of the prosecution. When a private attorney (in or not in a law firm) elects to represent the accused, he or she is only carrying out the oath that every attorney swears, which is to defend all of the Constitution and not just the parts we like. Most attorneys have represented a person accused of a crime and done so for free. We do it to assure that our Constitution continues to mean what it did when it was written. It is a measure of who we are as a People that we insist that even those accused of trying to destroy all of what we are and all of who we are, have the benefits of the Constitution they are trying to destroy. I appreciate and share in the emotions that are expressed on this thread. But having been an attorney for 30 years, I have seen enough examples of the benefits to society of visiting justice upon those seemingly undeserving of it, to persuade me that our system, imperfect as it is, must be preserved for all . . . even, and maybe especially, alleged terrorists. I don't seek to be critical of others with this post and my views are mine alone. I offer my words only for a bit of perspective. Jim I think the 6th amendment was written for Citizens of the US, was it not? Otherwise, why was every enemy the US ever had not tried in courts in the US? Have we been doing it wrong all these years? I really asking; I don't know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69dejavue Posted May 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Jim: I share your concern for our Constitution and legal represenatation. Unless one has needed representation in the past you have no idea how necessary it is. You cannot exist in the legal system without represenation. However, where I would differ from your point is I do not believe the tangos should have a trial in criminal courts but rather should be tried by military war tribunals. In addition, whether military tribunals or criminal courts, they will have legal representation appointed that would be paid (Legal Aid, Court appointed attorneys, etc). BUT, Holder and crew do not have to volunteer to represent terrorists. Rather they chose to. They could have allowed the courts to appoint someone, anyone, but they volunteerred. They did not volunteer to be appointed and compensated but rather volunteered pro bono. That speaks volumes of those people and their hatred for America. In the old days I did not agree with supplying a court apponted attorney if one could not afford an attorney. Now I whole heartedly do agree. And if someone attacks you civilly you can be wiped out if you do not have a good attorney but may pay the attorney tens of thousands of dollars. I think you might agree that our tort system is out of alignment. The civil laws have been written for the attorneys so as to profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormeaston Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 No Homeland "TERRORIST ATTACK" on Obama's watch.......He must be doing a great job?????? He's got a long ways to go yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clark17357 Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I think the 6th amendment was written for Citizens of the US, was it not? Otherwise, why was every enemy the US ever had not tried in courts in the US? Have we been doing it wrong all these years? I really asking; I don't know the answer. It was writtten for any accused, separate and apart from their citizenship. Where a case is tried has to do in most cases with where the alleged crime occurred. That can be a complicated area but, in the end, citizen or not, the same rights apply. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDT Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 He's got a long ways to go yet. OVER 7.5 YEARS............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mywickedshelby Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I doubt I will ever be labeled a liberal, but the part of the original post that criticized the representation of alleged terrorists without compensation is not something I can support. It does not matter that the ones accused are accused of terrorism. It does not matter that any right thinking human being does not support terrorism. What matters is that one of the backbones of our country is the 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses). It was ratified a long time ago, on 12/15/1791. It reads: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Most of us acknowledge that an appointed attorney rarely has the resources of the prosecution. When a private attorney (in or not in a law firm) elects to represent the accused, he or she is only carrying out the oath that every attorney swears, which is to defend all of the Constitution and not just the parts we like. Most attorneys have represented a person accused of a crime and done so for free. We do it to assure that our Constitution continues to mean what it did when it was written. It is a measure of who we are as a People that we insist that even those accused of trying to destroy all of what we are and all of who we are, have the benefits of the Constitution they are trying to destroy. I appreciate and share in the emotions that are expressed on this thread. But having been an attorney for 30 years, I have seen enough examples of the benefits to society of visiting justice upon those seemingly undeserving of it, to persuade me that our system, imperfect as it is, must be preserved for all . . . even, and maybe especially, alleged terrorists. I don't seek to be critical of others with this post and my views are mine alone. I offer my words only for a bit of perspective. Jim Unfortunately Jim, you are the exception when it comes to attorneys. Most attorneys only do "Pro Bono" work when it is court ordered or when it coincides with their agenda.....like these guys positioning themselves for positions in Obama's Gov't NOT because it upholds the Constitutional Rights of All Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turnsignaldelete Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Many who defend, the 'Terrorists may see them as, 'Freedom Fighters'. As wild as that sounds, I became aware of the Sykes-Picot agreement in college. 40+ years ago. Middle East Conflict, and terrorist groups, defined = Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1915-16. ?? Who has the right to divide the, Sovereign Territory of any country?. Well obviously England, France and Russia did. PLO ? Terrorists in their actions, protecting their 'Homeland', in their intent. The Sykes-Picot agreement of 4-26 1915, divided (partitioned), the middle East in 'Zones', under the Control or 'influence, of England, France and Russia. This 'agreement, started the down fall of of middle East Relations, and created much of the 'terrorists groups we see today. "In the late fall of 1914, Turkey [Ottoman Empire] entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers. Soon thereafter, Great Britain, France, and Russia began to contemplate the disposition of the Ottoman Empire's territory in the Middle East... Britain's negotiator was Sir Mark Sykes, a member of Parliament, an Arabist, and assistant secretary to the British War Cabinet. France was represented in the negotiations by Francois-Georges Picot, a French diplomat who had served as consul general in Beirut. The two countries officially ratified the agreement in May 1916 in an exchange of letters from British foreign secretary Sir Edward Grey to France's ambassador to Great Britain, Paul Cambon. The Sykes-Picot Agreement defined areas of British and French control as well as spheres of interest. Britain's authority was to extend in southern Iraq (Mesopotamia) and from the Egyptian border to Iraq. The agreement identified this as the 'red zone.' In addition, the ports of Acre and Haifa on the Mediterranean Sea were to be under British control. The French authority was to include a coastal strip of Syria and Lebanon as well as a portion of Palestine west of the Jordan River. The agreement identified this as the 'blue zone.' A 'brown zone' was established as well. This territory was to be administered internationally. Palestine, including Jerusalem, was part of the internationalized area." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.