In response to:

The Deadly Disgrace of Obama's Pro-Terrorist Lawyers

ericynot Wrote: Oct 12, 2012 3:54 PM
Evidently, in Malkin's world, any lawyer who defends an alleged murderer supports murder, the lawyers who defended Ken Lay are in favor of fraud and corporate coruption, and an attorney with a client in traffic court thinks drivers should be able to do whatever they want at all times. Michelle, we operate in what many of us call the American System of Justice. That means everybody, no matter how horrible they are or may be, is entitled to a vigorous legal defense if charged with a crime. And the attorneys who defend them are doing the job they are sworn to do. To attack lawyers who defend unpopular clients is deeply un-American.
Micky G. Wrote: Oct 12, 2012 8:55 PM
Hmm..I don't see where Michelle is advocating anything other than justice...but of course contrary to democrat opinion, justice for the victims too. The lawyers that are defending this particular vermin are scu m, as a matter of fact, but I don't see mention of that in the piece.
H. Terry Wrote: Oct 12, 2012 6:02 PM
10/12/12

Ericynot: What is your answer to Eric Holder's admission of 9 DOJ attorneys who represented Gitmo detainees before joining the Obama administration? It' also clear that we have a few Muslim Brotherhood reps working in the State Department; Huma Abedin, for example, is Hillary Clinton's Chief Deputy. Great job Hillary was doing watching out for her Benghazi consulate Ambassador Stevens, wasn't it? He was murdered after repeatedly requesting more security for his consulate.
These Obama hires should be fired fast!

Terry Buchanan
hitthedeck Wrote: Oct 12, 2012 5:18 PM
ericynot-we are at war with radical Islam. They are an army of Islam and they are our enemy’s. Why do they deserve high dollar New York lawyers with American taxpayers paying the tab when we have military courts with ample defense attorneys who can accomplish the same results at a lower cost? You cannot classify these terrorists as common criminals. They are Americas enemies and are a part of an army with commanders ordering them to kill us. So please reframe from telling us that they deserve more than military courts can give them.
ericynot Wrote: Oct 12, 2012 5:49 PM
deck,

If attorneys are serving pro bono, that means they're providing their services for free, not at the expense of American taxpayers.
ericynot Wrote: Oct 12, 2012 3:55 PM
If you want lawyers to always side with the state, may I suggest you take up residence in Pyongyang because Kim Jong-un will really dig your attitude.
rickmcq Wrote: Oct 12, 2012 4:17 PM
Gee, eric, while I do not claim to have your insight into Michelle's world, I would think it rather more likely that she notices just which defendants the lawyers in question chose to help. Let's see now:

Were they Texas cheerleaders needing assistance because a school official decided they could not use their 1st Amendment rights to make banners with Bible Scripture on them? (No, that wasn't who they decided to provide free hours of legal assistance to.)

Were they Senior Citizens having trouble getting needed medication from the VA? (No, that wasn't who they decided to provide free hours of legal assistance to.)

Oh yes; it was accused terrorists, who were accused of attacking American citizens and others.
(contd.)
rickmcq Wrote: Oct 12, 2012 4:20 PM
While everyone is entitled to a defense in our system, eric, you seem to continually miss the fact that they selected these defendants to provide so many hours of help pro bono, and now they are bein known by the company they chose to keep.

If you have evidence of US citizens that they ALSO helped pro bono, please share it with us.
ericynot Wrote: Oct 12, 2012 5:27 PM
Rick,

Are you telling me the Texas cheerleaders need help more than guys who've been locked up for years, many without charge or conviction? The cheerleaders go home to their families each night (and in their case, one first amendment right bumps up against a second, the "establishment clause"). The Gitmo "detainees" have no such opportunity.

Are they guilty? Without doubt some of them are, but they all deserve a defense, just like Charlie Manson did and Tim McVeigh did and Susan Powell did.

The government, as TH'ers point out often and correctly, has enormous power, The chances are pretty good that if they have a good case, legally obtained, they'll convict...
ericynot Wrote: Oct 12, 2012 5:28 PM
I repeat, Malkin's argument that lawyers should not aid Gitmo prisoners is repugnant and wholly un-American. As a citizen, who presumable studied civics in school, you should know that.
renny4 Wrote: Oct 12, 2012 6:31 PM
The Sup. Ct. said the US Const. is not a suicide pact. Some people are indefensible on the face, prima facie.

They were not US citizens. They were apprehended on the field of battle not in recognized uniforms of a nation (then they are covered by the Geneva Conventions), but outlaw "soldier"s determined to maim and kill Americans.

They should have been ,shot on the spot, a la a WW I.
October 12 marks the 12th anniversary of the bombing of the USS Cole. The grim milestone comes as President Obama faces mounting questions about his administration's dereliction of duty during the murderous attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. And it comes just a day after resurgent al-Qaida thugs pulled off the drive-by assassination of a top Yemeni security official who worked at the U.S. embassy in Sanaa.

These are not "bumps in the road." These are gravesites on the blood-spattered path to surrender.

Seventeen U.S. sailors died in the brutal suicide attack on the guided Navy missile destroyer as it refueled at...