Unless I am mistaken, KSM’s court-appointed attorney is an active duty military/JAG officer. Based upon news reports it appears as though his representation is pretty aggressive. Can’t help but wonder if his representation of KSM won’t have a negative effect on his military career. Or does his aggressiveness, regardless of the trial outcome, look good on his military resume?
During the leadup to the trial of Omar Kadr, a Canadian who was taken to Afghanistan by his parents at age 11, arrested during a firefight there at age 15 and charged with murder, several documents were “accidentally” released that showed the case was pretty unclear. The Americans had found that at least one other combatant, an adult, was still alive when the room was taken. (They shot him, just to be sure). So it was possible that the adult, not Omar, threw the grenade that killed an American. The discussion at the time about this “accidental” leak involved whether there was a major level of passive-agressive dissent on the part of many of the military - that they may not agree with prosecuting foot soldiers for scoring in pitched battles and firefights, torturing child soldiers, or even the USA running gulags in general. After all, it’s not like the Taliban, even as government, fielded all ranking soldiers in dress uniforms.
Given the possibility of divided or even dissenting opinions, even if not explicitly expressed, there’s a good chance that a strong stance may be respected. After all, a lawyer’s number one duty, in uniform or out, is to do what the client wants. If the client wants to contest the charges, then it comes down to whether the lawyer is deliberately blowing the case in violation of duty or doing his level best.
Since I don’t see a factual question here, let’s move this over to IMHO.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
John Adams (successfully) defended the British soldiers involved in the “Boston Massacre.” Yes, this was a few years back, but it didn’t hurt his career any.
Performing your assigned task to the best of your ability has to be a career plus, unless those evaluating your allow their own personal animus to get in the way.
Put it another way - if the assigned defence council did a half-assed job and put any conviction at risk to an appeal then that would be a career limiting move.
None of this removes the stench of the whole process being a kangaroo court in my opinion. Either man up and take him out the back and shoot him or turn him over to the ICC (and put the US under their jurisdiction as well).
I have to assume that this is some kind of military trial if a military lawyer is appointed to the defense. Is this correct?
I’ll play devil’s advocate. If this guy challenges too much – like evidence that may have been elicited by torture, or the very legitimacy of the court that is holding the trial – I think there’s a pretty good chance that the High Command (I love that term!) will retaliate against him. Especially if he appeals and ends up getting rulings that will endanger the prosecution of other suspected terrorists.