Not quite sure what to say about this argument…
I wish the cheerleaders in my high school had formed naked human pyramids.
The lawyer is obviously grasping at straws.
I wish this trial meant that it was the people who ordered the torture were being tried.
Sure, but it’s his job to defend them. Just so happens that these two are pretty indefensible. I don’t blame the lawyer here.
The cheerleader comparison is unthinkable. Could he win a new court-martial on grounds of incompetent counsel? (I’m unfamiliar with military justice.)
The final humiliation for Graner and England. Bad enough to be known as torturers, now they’re going to be known as wimpy torturers.
I don’t know about military justice, but in criminal justice, IAC is always the first line of defense…
“Incompetent Ass Clown”?
What does IAC stand for?
Anyway, this whole situation is like a bad movie. I hope the real criminals are brought to trial soon, before their terms end.
I Am Confused.
Or maybe:
I Am Crazy,
I Am Corpulent,
I Am Craptacular.
Nah, probably the first one.
Sorry, I should have considered that most of you aren’t criminal lawyers…
In Criminal Law circles, when someone appeals a decision, their first recourse is ALWAYS IAC-Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. OIW-“My lawyer fucked me”.
Sam
I thought it was “I’m a cheerleader!”
Err, that should be IOW, not OIW…
Yeah, I know. I don’t blame the lawyer either. If (s)he’s competent, this only illustrates what a craptacular and indefensible case this is.
Only if they do it without panties in front of a pitching machine.
I am so glad that I wasn’t the only one who thought that line about cheerleaders forming pyramids was really, really weird.
He’s the attorney for the defense. He has to say something. If he just said,“yeah, my client is a sadistic scumbag, those pictures make me sick to my fucking stomach,” (which is probably what he actually feels) he would be guilty of malpractice.
He’s just doing his job. We need him to do the best job he can, to protect his client’s rights and to make the prosecution prove its case.
The standard defense is for the lawyer to counterfile with a CWG - Clients Were Guilty.
His latest is to dismiss the testimony of an abused Syrian prisoner by saying, and I
[quote]
(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=4&u=/ap/20050112/ap_on_re_us/prisoner_abuse_graner), “It’s very clear that he hates America.”
Well, I’m sure he hates America NOW, you idiot person.
mmmm…naked cheerleader pyramids…
I wonder if they’re planning to name their baby Torquemada.