If you were defending Mr. Dirtybomb-pants...

In My Humble Opinion
21

Bricker said

I understand that Bricker. But I also do believe that the Gov’t is holding this guy because they know something that we do not. There is a reason he was moved to a Naval Brig in NC and a reason his counsel was not informed.

A few months after 9/11 a SC man was dragged out of his dental practice, stripped of all his rights, and held by the Gov’t because he shared the same last name as one of the suicide hijackers that caused WTC catastrophy.
He was subsequently set free in the weeks that followed.(no cite yet)

This guy, who is being held in NC, has apparantly been in custody for just over a month, and has not been released and it does not appear he will be any time soon.

I am a firm believer that our Gov’t does not tell us everything, of course not, but I also believe that this man would be let go if there were not sufficient evidence for him to stay out of contact with the public.

Blanx said

Well I guess I am glad that there are people like you to defend the sleeze and trash in our society. The United States may have a superior judicial system measured on some scale of fairness. But to defend someone who is clearly guilty [such as the defense team for the 1993 WTC attack] or the defender of a serial rapist or some such, I simply don’t get it. Maybe I can see some shed of light when it comes to having a fair trial or making sure due process is followed, but to actually try to get someone off for doing something that they are clearly guilty of…Nope don’t understand. :smack:

Blanx said

I am overjoyed that our judicial system in this country is there to protect your and my rights, excellent, wondrous. But to try to get someone who is clearly guilty of a crime off and let them back into society to do it again… I am sorry sir, but I do not agree.

22

Blanx, I’m sorry. I do not mean to insult you. I obviously do not have the same legal acumen you have, I just do not understand fully why or how things like this truly work in the realm of our judicial system.

to answer your last post:

He is known to have trained with Al Queda in Egypt and Pakistan.

He researched and learned how to make and detonate radiological bombs.

He was actively utilizing his American Passport to move freely from one country to the next, with little hassel, while gathering intelligence of foreign and domestic sites to detonate a rad bomb for the Al Queda.

I would say if not an enemy combatant, he definitely fits the bill for committing treason against the United States.

23

Phlosphr:

The problem is how we arrive at the determination of “clearly guilty.” You seem to be suggesting that the usual adversarial process is fine for most prople accused of crimes, but when they’re “clearly guilty,” then we should abandon all pretense and hang 'em high.

But determining the “clearly guilty” is precisely what the process is intended to do!

If I, as a defense lawyer, were permitted to make my own independent judgement of the guilt of my clients, and stop zealously representing them based on that… that puts a fair amount of power in my hands, wouldn’t you say? And it also means that similarly situated people will be treated differently in different circumstances… perhaps another defense lawyer won’t agree that his client is “clearly guilty”, and will mount a strong defense, while I, convinced my guy is guilty, will let him rot in jail.

Because no person has the ability to know, for sure, what happened beyond a shadow of a doubt, we have designed a system to arrive at a hopefully correct answer. We reason that is a zealous advocate is protecting the accused, and an equally zealous advocate is prosecuting the accused, and they both present their stories to a neutral tribunal, the one with truth one his side is likely to prevail.

We also handicap the race. since we have decided, as a society, that it’s better to let a guilty man go free than to convict and jail, or execute, an innocent one. So the zealous advocate who is prosecuting the case doesn’t have to just win by a hair. If he merely shows the neutral tribunal that the accused is probably guilty, that’s not good enough. He must show the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Once we accept this system, it’s clear no participant in it can change the rule on their own. A defense lawyer works hard for the interests of each client, not because he wants to see that client go free, but because our society’s acceptance of this system demands that the defense of an accused be zealous. A judge cannot decide, contrary to the weight of the evidence, that an accused is a bad guy and needs to be locked up. He must hear both sides and be guided by the evidence presented.

This concept of fairness is what creates the rule of evidence. They may seem crazy or mysterious to people not familiar with the law. Why is a certain statement inadmissible hearsay? Why is the exact same statement, made by someone else, suddenly admissible?

There are good reasons for these rules, though - and it’s a mere three years in law school to get 'em all nailed down solidly.

  • Rick
24

I’m inclined to agree. At the very least, if the government cannot disclose its evidence without seriously damaging its intelligence sources, they should be forced to do an in camera disclosure to a judge.

  • Rick
25

Phlosphr- here’s the thing- as a defense attorney, It wasn’t my job to decide whether or not a person was guilty. That was for the judge/jury (depending on the charge, and other circumstances) to decide.

No one is guilty until they either plead, or are found guilty. The tough part about all of this is that the law is only ever really crafted amongst the extremes, the sleaze and trash, as you say. Check out the history of Mr. Gideon, for example (Gideon v. Wainwright- right to counsel- Anthony Lewis (i think) wrote a great book about the case)

For example, just about every 4th amendment case (illegal search and seizure, for those playing overseas) involves facts where the person was actually guilty. If they don’t find something, then there’s nothing to suppress. But, courts have held, and rightly so, that government can go so far, and no farther.

I represented plenty of people who I believed had done the things in question, but frankly that didn’t matter. My job was to be their advocate- whether that was in terms of trying the case, or attempting to mitigate sentencing. I had no problem representing serial rapists, because it was the prosecutor’s job to advocate for his/her position, and it was my job to work just as hard as I could for mine. That’s why it’s called an adversarial process- it would have been active malpractice for me to substitute my judgment for the judge or jury.

American citizens (and, by the way, I personally believe that this right should be extended to all people charged with crimes in the US) are entitled to the protection of their constitutional rights, regardless of what they’ve been charged with.

blanx

26

uh… what bricker said.
Simul-civil-libertari-post!

27

Thank you Bricker for that explination, I have a much more clear view of that part of our system now.

When I was attending grad school at ASU I lived with two guys who were in ASU’s Law School (I was in psych) We had the most horrendous heated battles over the law, so much so, that I threw my hands up one day and said “…forget it, thats enough, I don’t want to hear anymore…” I was fed up… I was also 24 at the time and still liked to clench my fists and argue / philosophize all night long over a few drinks…

Now almost 8 years later I still get a little touchy when it comes to debating the LAW.

Thank you all the same for clarifying…

28

I like that…Thanx Blanx

Better clarification when I’m not steamed…or in the office…:wink:

29

the information that says he was trying to build a dirty bomb came from Abu Zubaydah a convicted terrorist and is under a death sentence in Jordan he would never lie to save himself from getting extradited would he ?

30

I am in the camp of Blanx and Bicker (sounds like a law firm doesn’t it?). I feel that this is a special country. And if we do not have people step forward and defend the undefendable, we lose a bit of that specialness. This is a country of rights and laws that extend (or should extend) to all people within its shores and borders and if we forget that, we are little better than the scum who claim the right to kill us because we have a different geopolitical point of view than they.

Don’t castigate those people who defend those who are undefendable. Applaud them. In my opinion that’s one of the major reasons that this country is great. I have lived around the world and seen countries where rights don’t exist and others where people pay lip service to rights, but when push comes to shove, ignore those rights.

Wasn’t it Sam Adams, one of the loudest voices for American independence, who defended a British soldier when he was being tried for murder of a noncombatant? Didn’t Adams do his best as a lawyer to get his client off? Don’t we value Adams all the more for his belief in the system rather than his hate for his enemy?

Hopefully, we are a country that respects and celebrates those rights no matter who the person before the bar is or what he has done.

31

No, JOHN Adams was the good one. SAM Adams was the first American terrorist.