Another conversation with Scott Fenstermaker

posted at 12:40 pm on November 28, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

We have a new reader at Hot Air.  After posting the previous e-mail conversation between me and Scott Fenstermaker, the defense attorney representing two of the Guantanamo Bay detainees, the comment string prompted Scott to start up another conversation, this time with more details about his allegations of misconduct by the ACLU and the Office of Military Commissions.  The conversation speaks for itself, and as before, I want to publish the entire conversation (with two redactions, which you will see) before offering my opinion on it.  Scott’s contributions will be blockquoted.

Ed,

I read some of the comments on your blog. I served on active duty from May 30, 1984 through early September of 1989, shortly in excess of my commitment. In the summer of 1984 I worked as a staff officer at the aeronautics lab at the Air Force Academy. I was stationed in Seattle, Washington from September of 1984 through December of 1985, where I received a Masters Degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics from the University of Washington. I was then transferred to Tinker AFB in Oklahoma from January 1986 through August of 1989. I left for law school in August of 1989 and started in September of 1989. I was honorably discharged from the AF in September of 1989. Your subscribers’ efforts to discredit me are amusing, but ultimately unavailing. The ACLU was actively using donated funds to violate the detainees’ rights and the ACLU is well-aware of that fact, which is the reason that they shut down the John Adams Project. Otherwise, the ACLU cannot justify discontinuing that project while detainees are still facing military commissions. If you subscribers have any questions about any of this, including my positions, please feel free to give them my e-mail address [scott@fenstermakerlaw.com] and cell number, [redacted by Ed].

By the way, please tell your subscribers that I still don’t know who attacked the World Trade Center and, yes, I still don’t care. From the perspective of those who died, it makes very little difference who killed them. From the perspective of everyone else, its frankly none of their business, unless they sit on the jury of course. Print that loud, wide, and clear.

Scott Fenstermaker

Scott,

I’d be happy to post another e-mail interview, but generally speaking, it’s a bad idea to post phone numbers on blogs. Your e-mail is already on your site, and I’m fine with posting that, but I would prefer not to post your cell number.

I’d like to find out more about your point of the ACLU. You mentioned it in the last e-mail string, and you have a little more detail here. How did the ACLU violate detainee rights?

On your last point, I strongly disagree. The murder of anyone is the business of the community, which is why we have police to find and arrest the perpetrator. If foreign terrorists attacked New York City and Washington DC, then the entire nation has an interest in fighting the foreign entity responsible for it. On the legal question of innocence or guilt, you’re right — the jury makes that legal determination. But that doesn’t mean the issue is none of anyone else’s business.

Thanks for the clarification Ed. You’re assuming it was murder, which may not be the case. It may not have been murder, but again, that’s for the jury to decide.

I’ve been receiving a lot of calls on my cell, so a few more won’t hurt and I would welcome them. Of course, if your readers speak with me, then I may be able to provide evidence to refute their various claims, and that may not be comfortable to them. In addition, if they spoke to me, then they may have to accept the fact that I’m not a nut, although I am admittedly zealous about the Rule of Law. They, as a group, have way too much trust in the military, particularly the Office of Military Commissions (OMC).

As far as the ACLU goes, the Office of the Chief Defense Counsel and the ACLU are the two organizations that have the records of the ACLU’s (and OMC’s) misconduct. That misconduct occurred in the cases of Rahim al-Nashiri and Mustafa Bin-Ahmad al-Hawsawi, for the record. If you want those records, you should ask the ACLU and OMC. If you want a description of what happened, I can provide that, but the records remain with the OMC and ACLU.

If your readers are skeptical of my claim regarding the ACLU, then they should contact the ACLU and ask why the ACLU discontinued the John Adams Project while there are still detainees facing military commissions. The John Adams Project was ostensibly created to provide paid attorneys to represent detainees before the military commissions. The reason for the Project’s discontinuance is that all of the detainees the ACLU tried to represent fired their government-appointed ACLU lawyers (and the military attorneys who appointed them), shortly after the detainees learned of my suspension on October 22, 2008. My suspension was a real sore spot for the detainees and directly led to the 9/11 defendants firing their military and civilian attorneys and attempting to take a guilty plea about 12 or 13 days after they learned, on October 22, 2008, that I had been suspended. This occurred at their first scheduled military commissions’ appearance after they learned of my suspension.

Anyway, if any of your readers have any questions about my military service, resume, suspension, or anything else for that matter related to 9/11, the military commissions, or anything else, feel free to have them contact me directly. I’d be glad to correspond with, e-mail with, talk with, or meet with any of them. They seem like an interesting group of people.

Scott

Scott,

Thanks as always for your response.

I think you’re arguing over semantics. Almost 3,000 people died, most of them on national television. They didn’t commit suicide or die of natural causes. They died at the hands of others, which makes them homicides. Who’s responsible is a question for a jury, but not the fact that they were murdered, nor do we need a jury to tell us that the nation has an interest in pursuing justice in the case.

I’d like to get your description about the misconduct. I can afterwards request comments for the record from the OMC and ACLU, but that works best when I can present details of the allegations.

Ed,

All murders are homicides. Not all homicides are murders. You may call that semantics. I call it the law. You and your friends can scoff at the law, but it is there to protect you too. Keep that in mind. I will shortly forward you an e-mail from a lawyer with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL). It begins the process of describing the ACLU’s and NACDL’s wrongdoing.

Scott

==========

Scott then forwarded me two e-mails he received, which he and I reference later in the exchange:

Mr. Fenstermaker:

I am one of the attorneys representing the government in the Guantanamo Bay habeas litigation. We have been informed by Joint Task Force Guantanamo that you recently sent letters to Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri (ISN 10015) and Ahmed Ghailani (ISN 10012). As you may be aware, there are two systems by which detainees send and receive mail at Guantanamo. First, most mail sent to Guantanamo detainees is processed in a non-privileged fashion. That is, the mail is screened and reviewed by military authorities before delivery to the intended recipient. Second, a system for privileged legal mail between detainees and eligible counsel exists under the auspices of various protective orders entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That system is available only in cases in which the protective orders have been entered and is subject to requirements and restrictions set out in the orders.

Because you are not authorized to send or receive privileged mail pursuant to any appropriately entered protective orders, the mail you recently sent Messrs. Al-Nashiri and Ghailani would ordinarily be processed in accordance with the procedures established for non-privileged mail unless you request that the mail be returned to you. Because that mail is marked privileged, it has not been reviewed or otherwise processed at this point. Please let me know how you would like to proceed.

Best regards,

[name redacted until I can get a response -- Ed]

We have considered your request for assistance and sympathize with your situation. However, we have a conflict that prevents us from assisting you. Specifically, NACDL is a partner with the ACLU in the John Adams Project, an endeavor that provides counsel and resources to the 14 so-called “high value detainees” at Guantanamo. NACDL has received money from the ACLU to pay lawyers and others and has also raised money with ACLU for the project via cooperative ventures. Many of the legal teams for the HVDs share information and resources (to the extent they can given the privilege and classification considerations). One of the teams that has been active in opposing your participation is funded by the ACLU as part of the John Adams Project and some of the military lawyers who have opposed your involvement in another case (also involving an HVD) are also assigned to represent HVDs represented by ACLU or NACDL representatives on those cases via the Adams project.

We regret that we can’t be of assistance and certainly wish you well.

The latter is from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and is a response to a request that their “strike force” intervene on his behalf on the issue of his suspension. The NACDL seems to have considered that a conflict of interest; I’ll ask them for clarification on Monday. I’m posting it at the moment because it has some impact on the narrative in the e-mail conversation.

Let’s pick it back up:

=======

Scott,

Regardless of the legal difference between homicide and murder, of which I am aware, homicides are still the “business” of the community and the nation, and we have a deep interest in resolving them, which is why under almost all circumstances, homicides are a violation of the law.

Thank you for forwarding that e-mail. Did the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers refused to intervene on your behalf regarding your suspension, or did they refuse to bring you in as co-counsel, or a combination of the two? Does your allegation of violation of rights hinge on the detainees not being able to retain your services specifically? If so, was the agreement to let you represent Ghailani offered as a compromise?

Ed,

Well, at least I’ve gotten you to back off your murder claims.

I think you misunderstand the nature of Mr. Aronwald’s [NACDL] response to me. NACDL has a group of lawyers called the “strike force.” The strike force defends criminal defense attorneys who have problems with the authorities as a result of their vigorous representation of their clients. I contacted the strike force to secure their help in challenging my suspension from the Pool of Qualified Civilian Defense Counsel. Mr. Aronwald’s refusal announces the strike force’s refusal to help me. I suggest you contact him directly about the strike force’s refusal. You may also want to contact NACDL headquarters directly. If you don’t know NACDL’s contact information, let me know.

I was suspended from the Pool after a number of detainees, including Messrs. Ghailani, Mr. al-Baluchi, Rahim al-Nashiri, Mustafa Bin-Ahmad Al-Hawsawi, and Abu Faraj al-Libi sought my help. I notified the OMC that I represented Messrs. Ghailani, al-Nashiri and al-Hawsawi. I felt there was a conflict in representing Mr. al-Libi, so I never claimed to represent him. Mr. al-Baluchi did not directly ask me to represent him in the military commissions, at that stage, although he has since done so. However, at his 06/05/08 and 07/09/08 military commissions’ appearances, he asked the military judge presiding over the 9/11 case to allow me to represent him. He also filed a pro se motion on 10/22/08 to the same effect. The OMC has never acknowledged Mr. al-Baluchi’s requests, nor has it ever permitted me to obtain copies of the transcripts of his military commissions’ transcripts, which I requested shortly after the hearings occurred in 2008.

Shortly after I contacted the OMC regarding my representation status of these four detainees, I received an e-mail from a Department of Justice attorney in Washington, informing me that I could no longer send mail subject to the attorney-client privilege to my GITMO clients. That e-mail, a copy of which I will forward to you, was dated 07/01/08. A little less than two months later, Colonel David suspended me from the Pool. Shortly after my suspension, I contacted the strike force, and asked for help challenging my suspension. Mr. Aronwald’s e-mail was the strike force’s resolution of my request for assistance.

The OMC selected John Adams Project attorneys to serve as assistants to the OMC military defense lawyers, as the OMC has decided that no detainee facing trial by military commission can select his own private attorney. The OMC selected the John Adams Project attorneys after I was retained to represent Rahim al-Nashiri and Mustafa Bin-Ahmad al-Hawsawi. The John Adams Project then paid these government-selected attorneys money to work to have me removed as the attorney for Messrs. al-Nashiri and al-Hawsawi by actively interfering with my relationship with them, with the assistance of the government’s refusal to allow me to send privileged mail to them. Again, I urge you to contact the ACLU and ask them why they dropped the John Adams Project when detainees, including Mr. al-Nashiri, are still facing trial by military commission. The reason is that all of the detainees to whom John Adams Project attorneys were assigned fired the John Adams Project attorneys (and their military defense attorneys superiors) after the detainees learned of my suspension (on 10/22/08 at Mr. Ghailani’s military commissions’ arraignment). In January of 2009, Mr. al-Nashiri also fired his John Adams Project attorneys and his military defense counsel, informing them that he wanted me as his attorney. Shortly thereafter, rather than have Mr. al-Nashiri announce his intentions at his scheduled February 2009 arraignment, the OMC dismissed the case against him, for which he faced the death penalty for allegedly murdering 17 US sailors aboard the USS Cole.

As far as the “agreement” to allow me to represent Mr. Ghailani, there was no agreement. There was an acquiescence on their part, to which the OMC had no choice, as Ghailani was repeatedly asking for me as his counsel in the clearest and most emphatic way available to him. The OMC only acquiesced after the decision was made by the government to bring him to New York to face his SDNY indictment, which was handed down by a SDNY grand jury in December of 1998, almost 10 years prior to his arraignment before the military commissions’ judge at GITMO. The OMC allowed me to represent him in the military commissions because they knew, as of March 16, 2009, that he would never face one.

Please encourage your subscribers to continue attacking me. Their attacks only highlight how absurd it is for people who don’t know what is going on to have a say in matters such as these. For bloggers to imply that I never served on active duty is quite humorous. My AF friends are getting a kick out of this. I relish reading your subscribers’ nonsense.

Scott

Scott,

Thank you for the additional details. I will be contacting Mr. Aronwald and Mr. Warden on Monday for their side of the story, and the ACLU as well. The details have helped, as well as the contacts. Just to clarify, which current/former Gitmo defendants are you currently representing?

Ed,

When you contact Messrs. Aronwald, Warden, and the ACLU, you may also want to contact Nancy Hollander and Nina Ginsberg, the John Adams Project attorneys for Rahim al-Nashiri and Mustafa Bin-Ahmad Al-Hawsawi, respectively. Ms. Hollander is located in Albuquerque, NM and Ms. Ginsberg is located in the Washington, DC area. I don’t think I have their contact information, but I can get it for you if you want it. You may also want to contact Colonel David, who is a state court judge in Boone County, Indiana, and Colonel Masciola, who I believe is still the Chief Defense Counsel for the OMC. I think I have Colonels David and Masciola’s contact information if you need it.

I represent Mr. al-Nashiri and Mr. al-Baluchi, but Messrs. al-Hawsawi and Mr. Ghailani both want me as their counsel, but have been denied by various federal judges to have counsel of their choice. I have never been permitted to meet with Messrs. al-Nashiri or al-Hawsawi, as a result of the government’s claims that I don’t represent them. The only evidence I have of my representation of Messrs. al-Nashiri and al-Hawsawi is multiple letters from them asking me to represent them. The government doesn’t recognize that apparently. In addition, the fact that I am cut off from writing to them also creates a bit of a logistical problem as well.

Scott

Scott,

Any help you can provide in getting the proper contact information would be much appreciated. I’ll post this exchange in its entirety in the meantime, probably later today. I appreciate your responsiveness and look forward to discussing the responses of the other stakeholders with you, if and when they come.

===========

Scott provided me with the contact information, and I will follow up on Monday with the ACLU, the OMC, the NACDL, and others.

It appears to me that most of the problem Scott presents flows from the decision by the OMC and the Office of Chief Defense Counsel to suspend him from the defense pool. The issue of privileged communications arises because of that (or at least it seems so). The NACDL’s refusal to intervene on his behalf relates to the ACLU’s position, on which I cannot comment because I have not had an opportunity to ask them why they discontinued the John Adams Project.

In my opinion, his response to me about the “none of anyone’s business” remark from the first exchange was highly insufficient, and playing semantic games about murders versus homicides is a distraction. If these were homicides, then they were murders as well by legal definition. They weren’t self-defense, and they weren’t negligent homicides or even manslaughter. Whoever committed these acts and whoever else conspired to commit them, no one can doubt that they were preplanned, deliberate, and completely unjustifiable under American law. The only possible argument against that would be to call them an act of war, which would make the attack on, and the homicides of, almost 3,000 civilians a war crime — and for which a military tribunal would be the proper venue. And regardless, any homicide is the business of the entire community, and any attack is the business of the entire nation.

Scott will be reading your responses, so let him know how you feel. On the issue of representation, though, I think that’s still an open question, one which I will pursue in the coming days.

Update: John Stephenson has more on the John Adams Project at Stop the ACLU.

Update II: An interesting perspective on representation that I didn’t consider can be found at So It Goes In Shreveport.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Texas Rainmaker has a quote on his website:

“Every day I wake up and read the Bible and the New York Times, because I want to know what both sides are thinking.”

Now Hot Air is two with one click.

I’d just like to give some much deserved props for baggin’ these emialerviews. I’m highly interested in knowing what the other side (the terrorists) are doing, and if this guy is willing to represent them and aggrandize himself in this manner, I say go for it, Ed. Keep him on the hook.

Keep up the scoop, it shows in concrete terms where Hot Air is on the political/media world. Nice job guys, I still remember day one and miss Ian (although I’m very glad Ed came on board).

Good job guys, and props to the boss too.

Jason Coleman on November 28, 2009 at 11:39 PM

Mr. Fenstermaker, with all due respect — and by that, I mean all the respect you deserve — you are a traitor to your country, to your profession, and to the whole of human civilization. And if you were a citizen of any other country save for the one you are actively trying to tear down, I am quite sure you would be treated as such.

I would say that I hope you come to your senses someday and realize what terrible pain you’ve caused to the families of all those murdered by your “clients” and their accomplices, but that would be dishonest of me. Because your future is something about which I honestly do not care.

Enjoy your fifteen minutes of shame.

Cylor on November 28, 2009 at 11:58 PM

Remember in Back to the Future 2 where Doc Brown explains to Marty that in the future, the Justice system had abolished all lawyers? I’m pretty sure Scott was the catalyst behind that decision.

JG2K6 on November 29, 2009 at 12:57 AM

Those were the days, my friend. Why did they end? Why was Robert Spencer’s Qur’an analysis removed from Hot Air? Political correctness?

Connie on November 29, 2009 at 1:13 AM

Scott Fenstermaker…

Your message has been heard. You wrap yourself in the flag of this country while you defend its enemies. I don’t think this is going to turn out the way you imagine it will.

The next time you need to dial 911… expect a delay.

Seven Percent Solution on November 29, 2009 at 1:17 AM

Watched Journal on Fox tonight. Reuel Marc Gerecht, former CIA officer, says the FBI is not “curious” enough; that domestic surveillance of mosques and various organizations is necessary. I agree whole-heartedly.

Connie on November 29, 2009 at 1:18 AM

Those were the days, my friend. Why did they end? Why was Robert Spencer’s Qur’an analysis removed from Hot Air? Political correctness?

Not sure, I stopped checking HotAir for a long time. Ed has had some good posts of late that were linked on other sites, so I check back periodically now.

I do recall Robert Spencer giving a righteous smack down to AP once though. Was pretty well done. In any case, I left shortly thereafter, got fatigued by the “I’m an Atheist, Hear me roar” routine hereabouts.

Spencer may very well have held beliefs not shared by folks here, not sure, I never dug into his work. Many people have come and gone from HotAir–this site is torn between between being a right-leaning tabloid and a good event analysis, thought provoking site.

But, I suspect there was a clash about religion. Wouldn’t surprise me.

Montana on November 29, 2009 at 3:29 AM

My guess is that Fenstermaker will win his case. He is smarter than Obama and Holder combined.

I also agree with him. What Obama and Holder are proposing are show trials.

I don’t like show trials.

thgrant on November 29, 2009 at 5:52 AM

I guess those words when he took his oath were just words.

I suspect he has far fewer friends from the military than he lets on, and will have none (save people like Hasan) when his words are made known.

He certainly won’t be popular with the NYPD and NYFD.

From the perspective of those who died, it makes very little difference who killed them.
You are mistaken.

I believe that there are many, maybe not all, who were cut down mercilessly on 9/11, either crushed in the fall of a tower or smashed by a desperate jump from one its floors, screaming for vengeance against the evil scum who planned it.

NavyMustang on November 28, 2009 at 5:52 PM


The first official casualty at the WTC was Fr. Mychal Judge, the FDNY chaplain. He was killed when the first tower collapsed and sent a piece of debris flying that struck him where he was standing in the other tower lobby.

There were some 200 jumpers. The media doesn’t show them to us anymore. Those people went thru much more torture than KSM having water poured up his nose. They innocently went to work one day, and then 2 hours later had to chose how they were going to die, without knowing why they were being killed or by whom.

Same with the kids on the planes that hut the towers. Some of them were on their way to a National Geographic Society event in California, where they were to be honored by the Society for their curiosity of the world around them. Imagine what their final thoughts were?

Del Dolemonte on November 28, 2009 at 6:46 PM

Agreed.

Scott:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x40443_world-trade-center-jumpers-warning_people

Reconcile your “I don’t care and it doesn’t matter” words with that.

It’s your own soul that you poison that’s at risk. You’d better look elsewhere for forgiveness – because you’re not going to find it here. Nor are you going to find as much condemnation as you thought.

I pity you. What amazing legal arguments you must have with yourself at night to get to sleep, or what a total dearth of humanity you must possess. Either way, I pity you.

CPL 310 on November 29, 2009 at 7:04 AM

Scott Fenstermaker’s life: Having been the school yard whipping boy, he decided as a beaten down youngster to become rich and famous no matter what he had to do…

(I worked as a staff officer at the aeronautics lab at the Air Force Academy. I was stationed in Seattle, Washington from September of 1984 through December of 1985, where I received a Masters Degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics from the University of Washington. I was then transferred to Tinker AFB in Oklahoma from January 1986 through August of 1989. I left for law school in August of 1989 and started in September of 1989.)

…to get back at society for making fun of his name and his nebishness.

Nalea on November 29, 2009 at 8:09 AM

My guess is that Fenstermaker will win his case. He is smarter than Obama and Holder combined.

thgrant on November 29, 2009 at 5:52 AM

That’s not saying much.

dogsoldier on November 29, 2009 at 8:31 AM

Please remove the picture of this POS…it ranks up there with Hasan the Ft Hood killer (whom I’m sure this POS lauds).

Our tax $ at work….we paid for this a$$hole’s education…at least his baccalaureate.

Dingbat63 on November 29, 2009 at 8:42 AM

Real American’s can’t relate to people with edumacations. They idolize a bimbo who took 6 years to finish beauty college in Alaska.

Due process, race fans. Welcome to 2009!

simplesimon on November 29, 2009 at 8:59 AM

simplesimon on November 29, 2009 at 8:59 AM

And 52% of them are duped by an affirmative action empty suiter who didn’t seem to obtain, nor could reveal the results of the ivy league “edumucation”, as you put it, he was given once he arrived.

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 9:04 AM

simplesimon on November 29, 2009 at 8:59 AM

He was getting his due process as an enemy combatent in the military court. It was a dumbass move to try him in NY and give him a platform to spew his filth from. This whole thing is going to be a circus and we are watching the pre-show.

boomer on November 29, 2009 at 10:27 AM

The blackguard shyster is the worst of a bad lot.

lizzee on November 29, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Real American’s can’t relate to people with edumacations. They idolize a bimbo who took 6 years to finish beauty college in Alaska.
Due process, race fans. Welcome to 2009!
simplesimon on November 29, 2009 at 8:59 AM

Simple, there is no need to put an apostrophe in Americans, which is the plural of American. It does not surprise me that you are unfamiliar with the word. Further,it is no shock you are also a stranger to the word “education.”

lizzee on November 29, 2009 at 10:40 AM

lizzee on November 29, 2009 at 10:40 AM

simplesimon is indeed simple. As in simpleton. Gee, beauty college in Alaska? Sarah doesn’t even know she did that.

eaglesdontflock on November 29, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Somehow, I get the feeling that Scott F. was carefully chosen for this job, er, position.

Two questions:

Who made the choice?
Who else is on the list?

TimBuk3 on November 29, 2009 at 10:58 AM

My guess is that Fenstermaker will win his case.

thgrant on November 29, 2009 at 5:52 AM

You need to pay attention.

Fenstermaker is NOT an attorney of record for any of the NY defendants.

He has no case to win or lose.

He is just trolling to ignite his 15 minutes of fame.

slp on November 29, 2009 at 11:01 AM

By the way, please tell your subscribers that I still don’t know who attacked the World Trade Center and, yes, I still don’t care. From the perspective of those who died, it makes very little difference who killed them. From the perspective of everyone else, its frankly none of their business

From the perspective of a potential victim of the next attack, you’re a freakin’ idiot.

2ipa on November 29, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Mr. Fenstermaker does make a point with the murder/homicide. But while the point is soft, it does highlight the subtle trap we seem to be falling into – one I’m doubtful was not planned. There are two distinct cases here. One involving the planes and one involving the towers.

The case of the planes is clearly kidnapping and murder. The towers could be considered homicide. Since the venue will be in New York, chapter 40, part three, title H, article 125 and its various sections seem to apply.

I still question Holder’s decision of a civilian trial. The opportunities to sever the charges to different jurisdictions and have a travesty of a show trial are just too great.

Mr. Fenstermaker, you gave your oath on several occasions. Have you kept it?

dkeppner on November 29, 2009 at 11:06 AM

simplesimon on November 29, 2009 at 8:59 AM

Mornin’, Deb. This beauty school fantasy of yours is getting old. Are you a frustrated wannabe beautician? Do you watch Grease over and over to see Frankie Avalon sing Beauty School Dropout? This thread has nothing to do with Sarah Palin. It has everything to do with this Adminstration granting American Rights to Muslim Terrorists, otherwise known as Enemy Combatants. You lose.

kingsjester on November 29, 2009 at 11:07 AM

This guy is repulsive I don’t know why you waste your time corresponding with him Ed.

Dr Evil on November 29, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Holy Moses. He is going to present a combo Government Conspiracy – Justifiable Homicide defense, if he actually ever gets around to presenting a defense to the crimes the accused are being prosecuted for.

Lawyer Scott Fenstermaker is a bottom-feeding reprobate… but I’m being redundant.

SilverStar830 on November 29, 2009 at 12:36 PM

It sounds like Mr. Fenstermacher is one nervous lawyer.
.

By the way, please tell your subscribers that I still don’t know who attacked the World Trade Center and, yes, I still don’t care. From the perspective of those who died, it makes very little difference who killed them. From the perspective of everyone else, its frankly none of their business, unless they sit on the jury of course. Print that loud, wide, and clear.

.
Yes, let’s print this loud, wide and clear.
.
Approximately 19 “things” hijacked 4 airliners and deliberately and intentionally piloted them into 2 civilian buildings, killing all passengers and another 2500 or so civilians in the buildings. There’s video of this. Then there’s flignt 93 and the Pentagon.
.
Investigation reveals that these “things” had previously attended flight school. Investigation further reveals a radical, Islamic background for all.
.
So: conspiracy, plus motive, method and opportunity, to kill thousands of innocent civilians. What is this called, or rather, in what culture is this not called murder?
.
In what culture is murder, or even any form of killing other humans, not of vital interest to the community? Further, when, over the last, say 6000 years of written history, has the killing of other humans not been of vital interest to the community?
.
Enquiring minds want to know.
.
.

Thanks for the clarification Ed. You’re assuming it was murder, which may not be the case. It may not have been murder, but again, that’s for the jury to decide.

.
From watching a lot of “Perry Mason” reruns, plus some “Matlock” and even a few “Law and Order” episodes, it seems that it is the DA or ADA who decides the charge(s), not the jury. The jury simply returns a “guilty” or “not guilty” decision.
.
Surely Mr. Fenstermacher knows this. Or if not, why not? Or is this some sort of legal maneuver?
.
It may be for a jury to determine guilt or innocence, but there is no law, custom or requirement that says only a jury may determine what a piece of evidence means. The videos of the planes being piloted into the WTC buildings is clear; no one needs or has ever needed a jury to tell them what the video represents.
.
.

All murders are homicides. Not all homicides are murders. You may call that semantics. I call it the law. You and your friends can scoff at the law, but it is there to protect you too.

.
It is semantics. One is a subset of the other. It also seems to be the law, but depending on the jurisdiction, homocides that warrant a charge of “murder” in one jurisdiction may not warrant the same charge in another.
.
But rather than waste time on semantics, let’s look at the applicable laws, and get a real answer from Mr. Fenstermacher.
.
Which laws, Mr. Fenstermacher? New York State or US Federal Laws? What other laws apply? How about UCMJ? The occupants of Gitmo were captured in a combat zone, after all.
.
How much difference is there, and are the differences material? If not, then further analysis is pointless (although it might highlight other possible prosecution approaches that need to be prepared for; let’s let Mr. Fenstermacher do his own research).
.
There’s a public aspect to all this. We, the American people, will put pressure on our legislators to put pressure on the judge(s); no Twinkie Defense, no Government Conspiracy nonsense, no wholesale suppression of evidence, no revealing classified sources.
.
Data / information collected on a combat zone is either true or not, and since the combat zone is, well, a combat zone; laws do not exist there, no “Fruit of the Poisened Tree”. Forget about hamstringing the Prosecution. Lance Ito is not available.
.
.
Given these realities (ok, technically “probabilities”), it looks like Mr. Fenstermacher is fighting a severly uphill battle, one that he’s going to lose and one that will stick to him.
.
Mr. Fenstermacher would have been better off in a military tribunal where he personally would have an out, instead of the national stage centered in NYC where his client base is.

Arbalest on November 29, 2009 at 5:23 PM

Just a couple questions, Mr. Fenstermaker: Do you think the radical Muslim terrorists will be happy and stop their campaign to kill us infidels, because you defend them in court?

Second question: Do feel safe having your family in New York City close to the trial location while in session?

Mcguyver on November 29, 2009 at 8:51 PM

I hope that my comment does not incur unneeded wrath, for I strongly disagree with the positions taken by Mr. Fenstermaker, but that doesn’t mean I can’t understand why he takes the position he does. Nor can I fault him for representing his (alleged) clients in whatever way he sees fit.

I, for one, am not so keen on show trials. If these terrorists are going to be tried under our civilian justice system (if they should be is another matter) then they are required to have their lawyer give his best effort to defend them, regardless of what righteous indignation he (or she) incurs.

What we need to keep in mind is that Mr. Fenstermaker is going to be presenting as many ghost pillars to support his arguments as possible, and trust that we will spend our time, and energy, trying to knock out what isn’t even there.

For the majority of the public this case is open and shut, the defendants are guilty. The prosecutions case is Mohamed Ali vs a Baby. Yet, what we can not, MUST NOT, forget is that a baby’s leg is stronger than Mohamed Ali’s balls.

I can not fault a Lawyer for fighting to win, even if the positions taken are morally repulsive, bankrupt, and a mockery to the very Spirit of Justice. Even if to win he has to twist definitions, and skew the word of Law, and kick our entire justice system in the nuts. I can not fault the guy for doing that, but I can recognize the situation for the travesty that it is.

Mr. Fenstermaker, I wish you good health for you and your family, long life, the best you can give in defending these men, and the absolute devastation of every sneakily brilliant, twisted, and morally defunct position you take in defense of these accused men.

wuesteblitz on November 30, 2009 at 3:42 AM

Since Fenstermaker doesn’t actually represent any of the Gitmo detainees, he is pretty much irrelevant. The monkey stomp now in progress is amusing, but honestly is he worth the energy?

Kenosha Kid on November 30, 2009 at 12:09 PM

The monkey stomp now in progress is amusing, but honestly is he worth the energy?

.
A valid question.
.
It might be worth some energy to publicly ask, particularly in a no-advantage / no-fix / no-recourse environment such as Hot Air, where posted questions cannot be un-read (and ignorance then claimed), simple questions that Mr. Fenstermacher cannot answer easily, without being evasive. Perhaps a follow up with some more difficult questions might be amusing.
.
Since this forum has his attention, Mr. Fenstermacher cannot say he was never publicly asked “Question X”, with all the ramifications that hearing (or reading) questions carry.
.
For example, asking a certain question might cause certain facts, papers, items, statements, etc., to become obviously of probative value (I’ve been itching to use this phrase for quite a while; I think I first heard it on “Perry Mason” long ago), in which case they’d have to be turned over to the military/Feds/other. Immediately (and this I did not hear on TV).
.
Others, later, may be able to ask the same or similar questions and require a public answer.

Arbalest on November 30, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3