Defense Attorneys Are Patriotic Too.
Here are my thoughts on this poorly written article by Bush-era speechwriter Marc Thiessen that somehow got into the Washington Post. The article is about recent criticism of defense attorneys who have represented Guantanomo detainees as being unpatriotic and "weak" on terror.
"Should a lawyer who advocates setting terrorists free, knowing they may go on to kill Americans, have any role in setting U.S. detention policy? My hunch is that most Americans would say no."
Your hunch, like the rest of your article, is flawed. Who says they are terrorists? They haven't been charged with terrorism or any other crime. They may go out and kill people or they may go sip tea; only God knows. I'm an American who says yes they should either be released, have charges brought against them or be held as prisoners of war.
Holding people indefinitely without due process of law stands against the principles that this country was founded upon and defense attorneys who stand up for fair and lawful treatment of people accused of a crime, whether by actual charges or by indefinite detention, should be applauded not scolded as unpatriotic.
"Should a lawyer who advocates setting terrorists free, knowing they may go on to kill Americans, have any role in setting U.S. detention policy? My hunch is that most Americans would say no."
Your hunch, like the rest of your article, is flawed. Who says they are terrorists? They haven't been charged with terrorism or any other crime. They may go out and kill people or they may go sip tea; only God knows. I'm an American who says yes they should either be released, have charges brought against them or be held as prisoners of war.
Holding people indefinitely without due process of law stands against the principles that this country was founded upon and defense attorneys who stand up for fair and lawful treatment of people accused of a crime, whether by actual charges or by indefinite detention, should be applauded not scolded as unpatriotic.
Labels: government, politics, terrorism
POSTED at
11:52 PM
1 Comments:
A rebuttal article by the same author in the Post:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/03/the_al-qaeda_seven_arent_like_john.html
and my thoughts:
"For starters, Adams was a British subject at the time he took up their representation."
Yes. He was a British subject. So were Washington and Jefferson and many of the other founders of the country. What a stupid opening argument.
Thiessen again argues (well, he admits to again copying another writer's argument) that the detainees are not technically "accused" and therefore don't qualify for any legal protection. This is another example of conservatives twisting words around to justify their systematic dismantling of the rights granted by the Constitution. The fact that the detainees are held indefinitely without charges is a de facto accusation of a crime.
The United States democracy continues to walk down a dangerous path towards failure if the rights granted by the Constitution continue to be further restricted to some rather than given to everybody as the Founders envisioned.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home