Olby wasn’t there but he did phone in a comment to welcome the man he once noted kind of looks like Henrich Himmler to the fight. After trotting out the John Adams analogy, which I noted yesterday I don’t find……

funky chicken on March 9, 2010 at 10:45 AM

It’s nice to see that LGF’s stats are down into the toilet. You and your fellow cultists are reaping the result of smearing people.

Military judges don’t like showboating. And will stop it if it presents itself because they are officers in the US military and required to be non-partisan, and follow only established rules of evidence and law. Showboating is unethical to us.

Be careful when you say show trial. This isn’t Red China. And military folks are sick of both sides trying to win points instead of punishing jihadis who kill without following the rules of war or civilized society.

Subsunk

Subsunk on March 9, 2010 at 10:30 AM

+1

Subsunk on March 9, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Yep. There’s no Lance Ito’s in the Judge Advocate General Corp. [Isn't there a different title for those who actually sit as the judge as opposed to those who act as counsel?]

BigWyo on March 8, 2010 at 11:15 PM

And allow me to abbreviate my response to you: FOAD.

He’s right to note that the legal services offered to jihadis by top-flight firms wouldn’t be offered to most defendants accused of serious crimes, but then most defendants accused of serious crimes don’t face the risk of a show trial that Gitmo detainees do. — Allah

Allah,

Whether Drew said it or you said it, please be careful how you claim “show trial”. If by your words, you mean TehOne and his Attorney General claiming they would have legal, fair, and absolutely crystal clear civilian trials of the 9-11 Jihadis, followied by a first class hanging, then I understand why “show trial” might be a word used to describe it, but you would still be incorrect. Show trial means we know what is going to happen. In the case of a civilian trial, if KSM got acquitted by technicality, I’m pretty damn sure he’d be deported and released, to the everlasting damnation of the Obama administration. But once his acquittal is public in the US, you can’t go back and hold him without charge or reason. We’d lynch the Obama administration, but we’d never kill KSM in this country. We’d wait to do it outside the US by covert operation.

However, if you meant show trial by a military court, I think you should recognize that there is no such thing. The military courts have never allowed widely open courtrooms and uninhibited guest lists for the jihadi trials, and while the rules of evidence are different, they are legal and authorized in almost every international court on Earth (all except sharia courts, by the way). Our military doesn’t conduct show trials, where the verdict is known before hand. The US military is the ONLY organization in this country which continues to render fair and impartial verdicts daily, without regard to a partisan politically appointed prosecutor and judge in charge of the trials. There is no Republican or Dhimmicrat involved, and show offs from civilian and criminal law cases are not given rein to do anything outside of military jurisprudence. Civilian lawyers can advise, but unless the appointed Defense Counsel and Judge agree on his/her points, they are not allowed to argue in front of the court. Civilian lawyers always make a dramatic show over their defense. That is how they get more clients. By drama and subterfuge in obtaining acquittals.

Military judges don’t like showboating. And will stop it if it presents itself because they are officers in the US military and required to be non-partisan, and follow only established rules of evidence and law. Showboating is unethical to us.

Be careful when you say show trial. This isn’t Red China. And military folks are sick of both sides trying to win points instead of punishing jihadis who kill without following the rules of war or civilized society.

Subsunk

And because they were commie sympathizers, somehow the attorneys doing this work are….Muslim terrorist sympathizers???

When you’re meeting in secret with and taking orders from an unregistered agent of a foreign country, that’s a bit more than mere sympathy, wouldn’t you say? My point is that the people who defend outcasts aren’t as noble as the people screaming at us want us to believe. As to these attys – how would we know? They didn’t even want to reveal their names. Also, one doesn’t have to be an enemy agent in order to be found unsuitable for a job in the DOJ. Obviously, these common sense rules were waived for these hacks. A better observation is that these lefty attys are American haters in that they will hurt America’s interests.

Oh, and what is noble about Lynn Stewart?

Was McVeighs attorney a right wing nutjob sympathizer?

Squid Shark on March 8, 2010 at 11:37 PM

He’s a lefty. The left and McVeigh had a lot in common. You figure it out.

I’m with Stalin when it comes to lawyers.

Video: Ken Starr knocks Liz Cheney’s group for “Al Qaeda 7″ ad — on Olbermann’s show

…but without Olbermann.

Just on the inside baseball media aspect of this, while it’s surprising (shocking) to see Starr on the show, one of the other people who may have been surprised (shocked) is Olby, who supposedly is at his dying father’s bedside (at least until the Yanks open their home season, then dad’s probably on his own). But he may in fact be on double-secret probation at MSNBC, since he’s been off for the past week and has become increasingly unhinged in his attacks on people, including those against people not on MSNBC’s approved list (unless The Sports Guy was actually a former Bush Administration official).

Given Keith’s already stated hatred for Ken Starr, inviting Starr on the show when Olby’s away may be someone’s direct shot at Keith, forcing him to either denounce his own production staff and network or say nothing and just soak anf fume in the bathtub about his show being despoiled.

Cristol is correct, it is nothing but lawyers defending lawyers.
lavell12 on March 9, 2010 at 8:39 AM

Exactly. In other words: one more fraternity of the elite closing ranks.

http://law.pepperdine.edu/academics/faculty/default.php?faculty=douglas_kmiec

must be something in the water there, or they just hire boobs

the legal services offered to jihadis by top-flight firms wouldn’t be offered to most defendants accused of serious crimes, but then most defendants accused of serious crimes don’t face the risk of a show trial that Gitmo detainees do.

You surprize me with this, AP. There was no risk of a “show trial” until long after these top flight firms offered there services to Gitmo detainees and the favored presidential candidate of those offering their services was elected president.

McCarthy has no patience for the glorification of the pro bono work done by prestigious law firms for what are our enemies who would kill us all.

Phil Byler on March 9, 2010 at 7:13 AM

Pro bono work on high profile cases is nothing more than an advertising expense. No, they are not looking to get more Jihadi business in the future but what they are looking to do is get the reputation as being so sharp in the courtroom that even a terrorist can beat the rap with their legal team.

most defendants accused of serious crimes don’t face the risk of a show trial that Gitmo detainees do.

Except they’re not. Federal court has more protections. And there are no cameras. And remember the Mousswhatshisname trial? The prosecution got hammered for any perceived wrong doing. And the dumbazz jury came back with lwop. And the appellate process is extensive and long. We don’t have show trials in the US and it’s offensive to claim we do.

Blake on March 8, 2010 at 10:26 PM

Nothing like foolishly conceding premises to the other side there AP.

Quickest way to get noticed by the Leftist Media? Criticize a Conservative. Yawn, Ken you’d be nothing if Monica hadn’t kept that Blue dress.

I know it is real fun and super kewl to beat up on attorneys, but someone has to do it in a country that claims to respect the rule of law.

Squid Shark on March 9, 2010 at 12:39 AM

I agree. Someone must have the superkewl fun of —nah.

There’s two things I find worthy of scorn here.

First is that attorneys will defend terrorists, then take a job supposedly to fight terrorists, and demand only political operators who hired them, have the right to know their professional resumes. We’re paying them.

Second, that lawyers will lock ranks and say “Oh How DARE You doubt the honor of LAWYERS…”

There is a reason that is the case. Suppression is the constitutionally acceptable solution to prevent further police violations of the 4th and 5th Amendment. The theory is that officers will be careful to not violate those rights if they know that the evidence will be suppressed otherwise.

I would change that one word to “judicially” acceptable. Nearly 200 years after the ratification of the Constitution the Supreme Court decided to experiment with the exclusion of evidence. Judging from the levels of violent crime and the length of trials it has failed.