See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Michelle Malkin » What makes Gitmo so sexy?
2. The Horrors of Holiday Camp Gitmo - What Guantanamo Bay is Really Like « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
3. Michelle Malkin » Who says conservative bloggers don’t do reporting?

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #408184
   On August 15th, 2008 at 6:24 am, duqlaw1998 said:

   The faux outrage from the president of the Bar Association of San Francisco, Nanci Clarence:

   “Mr. Stimson’s comments essentially call for corporations to boycott law firms which represent detainees at Guantanamo. Not only is this repugnant to our core values, it runs counter to our duty to represent the defenseless and the oppressed.”

   And lawyers wonder why the American public view them less trustworthy as used car salesmen.

2. #408185
   On August 15th, 2008 at 6:40 am, Die Hippie, Die said:

   Not only is this repugnant to our core values…

   Found your core values: $$$$$$$$$$$$

3. #408187
   On August 15th, 2008 at 6:45 am, Fuller said:

   “defenseless and the oppressed” works for illegals as well.

4. #408190
   On August 15th, 2008 at 6:56 am, zorro said:

   Good stuff See-Dubya

5. #408195
   On August 15th, 2008 at 7:14 am, TMoney said:

   Defending the oppressed and helpless is one thing. Defending a nation that sponsors terrorism oppresses the majority of its people is entirely another.

   These ‘defenders’, I dare say, are pro bono on the surface, but when the lights go out, their pockets will bulge with something more than sand. They don’t work for free.

6. #408196
   On August 15th, 2008 at 7:16 am, Flyoverman said:

   As the song says, “Bo Didley was right….” Nuff said. I see how our prisoners were treated and I observe this. Solution? If they never survive to see Gitmo, we do not have the problem. Fine by me.

7. #408203
   On August 15th, 2008 at 7:37 am, DogBreath said:

   Sleazy, ambulance chasing, shysters. And no, It’s not meant to be a compliment.

   I agree with:
   

   On August 15th, 2008 at 7:16 am, Flyoverman said:

   We don’t have to bring them to Gitmo.

8. #408208
   On August 15th, 2008 at 7:52 am, b-cat said:

   It would be a shame if terrorists would rather off themselves than be captured, wouldn’t it? “You’ll never take me alive, Green Beret!”

9. #408209
   On August 15th, 2008 at 7:55 am, rambler said:

   Just more Americans selling out their own country.

10. #408236
    On August 15th, 2008 at 8:38 am, Barry F. said:

    Good post, see_dub!

    On August 15th, 2008 at 6:40 am, Die Hippie, Die said:

    Nail….head.

11. #408238
    On August 15th, 2008 at 8:40 am, CWinNY said:

    This reminds me of the joke about labs using lawyers instead of rats for experiments. They’re more plentiful, you don’t get as emotionally attached, and there are just some things you can’t get a rat to do.

12. #408245
    On August 15th, 2008 at 8:47 am, illegalsworstnightmare said:

    It’s a very simple solution that works every time: follow the money…

13. #408255
    On August 15th, 2008 at 8:57 am, ajmontana said:

    watch what you say, the internet lawyers here are waiting and ready to pounce.

14. #408258
    On August 15th, 2008 at 8:59 am, swmbo said:

    Good Golly Miss Molly, I’m losing hope for our ‘justice’ system. And the HITS just keep on coming.

    Just because you can, does not mean you should.

    Just because something is ‘legal’, doesn’t make it moral.

15. #408264
    On August 15th, 2008 at 9:06 am, alaskangrizzly said:

    doesn’t make it moral.

    Indeed, I agree with you. Putting moral in the same sentence as a lawyer who would defend a Gitmo terrorist does make for the most humorous of contradictions of terms. But then again that could be said of the majority of lawyers, so I digress.

16. #408270
    On August 15th, 2008 at 9:12 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

    Satan will have a special branding iron for the honeyed tongues of these Gitmo lawyers. Core values indeed!

17. #408294
    On August 15th, 2008 at 9:39 am, Christian Soldier said:

    Time to cut the Saudi-mi-East $$$ supply—drill for our OWN oil….

    Also-time to help statesmen get into office:

    Russell
    West
    McClintock
    Manion…

    If any of you know of one..add his or her name…..

18. #408297
    On August 15th, 2008 at 9:43 am, DBNinKY said:

    Today these Gitmo lawyers secured a dismissal of the trillion dollar claim against their client, Prince Mohammed al Faisal al Saud.

    When will Americans involved in the “free-the-Gitmo-detainees” movement ever realize they are being duped out of a free-pass on accountability by the Saudi royal family?! When Americans choose to be willfully naive, they are superlative!

19. #408308
    On August 15th, 2008 at 9:56 am, DBNinKY said:

    On August 15th, 2008 at 9:39 am, Christian Soldier said:

    Time to cut the Saudi-mi-East $$$ supply—drill for our OWN oil….

    The anti-drilling crowd, i.e., Democrats, never seems to have a response to your point, CS. They just prefer to blame President Bush for our energy dependence and oppose drilling on some idiotic environmental stance. And in the mean time, while they “fiddle” around with pointless arguments on culpability, we continue to be burned by feeding our energy dollars to our “good friends” in the Mid East. The Democrats are not serious about solving our nation’s energy problem; they only want to use it as an issue to win elections. They’re a selfish, sad lot!

20. #408310
    On August 15th, 2008 at 9:59 am, abstractmind said:

    Just because something is ‘legal’, doesn’t make it moral.

    Without getting terribly philosophical…there are things that are legal which are neither moral or right, things which are right that are neither legal or moral, and things that are moral that are neither legal nor right.

    I dont think letting murderers and terrorists go and having them not pay for their crimes is either legal, right, or moral. Nor do i believe defending the known guilty falls into any of those catagories. But it is not for me to decide. Only comment.

    Just my 2 cents.

21. #408311
    On August 15th, 2008 at 9:59 am, Mister P said:

    So where does OBAMA put them on his class heirarchy scale?

22. #408319
    On August 15th, 2008 at 10:06 am, b-cat said:

    On August 15th, 2008 at 9:59 am, Mister P said:
    So where does OBAMA put them on his class heirarchy scale?

    Do you mean the terrorists or the lawyers? Lawyers first because they are the ruling class, next the terrorists because they are allies and potential voters.

23. #408330
    On August 15th, 2008 at 10:14 am, JT said:

    I remember this from a movie. And its never been more true. Lawyers are like nukes. You need lawyers because the other guy has them. But once you use them, they f*ck everything up.

24. #408331
    On August 15th, 2008 at 10:15 am, On-my-soap-box said:

    I blame Boosh Michelle.

25. #408362
    On August 15th, 2008 at 10:37 am, chapoutier said:

    I remember this from a movie. And its never been more true. Lawyers are like nukes. You need lawyers because the other guy has them. But once you use them, they f*ck everything up.

    Other People’s Money with Danny DeVito.

    And I resent that.

26. #408364
    On August 15th, 2008 at 10:38 am, pianotchr said:

    On August 15th, 2008 at 8:59 am, swmbo said:

    Just because something is ‘legal’, doesn’t make it moral.

    Ah, but you forget that according to the “zeitgeist”, morality is relative. No absolute moral authority means anything is “moral.” Not good, but that’s where we’re headed.

27. #408391
    On August 15th, 2008 at 10:51 am, FamilyMan said:

    Is there any way we can keep lawyers out of public office? We do it with x cons.

28. #408401
    On August 15th, 2008 at 10:56 am, JT said:

    chap,

    I believe it though. The main problem is that there are far too many lawyers. And since most law makers are lawyers also, they enact laws to fortify the business of law and lawsuits. Its a stacked deck. Our country has ceased being a representative government:

    1) When the congress and the senate became full time jobs.

    2) When the majority of congress and the senate are lawyers when lawyers make up only 1% of the population.

    3) When the tax code is more than a couple of pages.

29. #408409
    On August 15th, 2008 at 11:01 am, FamilyMan said:

    Lawyers as law makers
    Can we say conflict of interest.

30. #408478
    On August 15th, 2008 at 11:36 am, atheling said:

    Anyone have a look at the ABA Journal?

    In the past year, I have noticed that they have had articles on how to assist and implement Sharia Law for Muslim clients and how to defend terrorists, i.e., “How Would You Defend Osama bin Laden?”. The appalling issue on helping Muslims with Sharia Law in this country completely glossed over the fact that under Sharia Law a woman’s testimony is worth half of that of a man’s, that a woman needs to have four male witnesses in order to prosecute a rape, and other unjust provisions.

    No matter to them.

    Traitorous. They are a traitorous bunch who will sell this country in a New York second all for one thing: money.

    Hell, I’d trust a used car salesman to run this country anyday over a lawyer Pharisee.

31. #408488
    On August 15th, 2008 at 11:38 am, happy2behere said:

    Thanks see-dubya. Not a hot topic but very significant to the big picture.

32. #408489
    On August 15th, 2008 at 11:39 am, Silkyinfamous said:

    Robert Woll

    Represented SEDCO as co-sponsor of the AIF Capital SEDCO First Private Equity Asia Islamic Fund, LP, a Sharia’h-compliant feeder fund for AIF Capital Asia III, LP, a $500 million pan-Asian private equity fund.

    Represented Saudi Economic and Development Company (SEDCO), an Islamic wealth management organization, in connection with its investments in LC Fund IV, LP (the fourth China venture capital fund sponsored by Legend Holdings), Baring Asia Private Equity Fund IV, LP (pan-Asia fund), Samara Capital Partners Fund I Limited (India fund).

    SEDCO:

    The IDF was named in a French parliamentary report last year as having “points of contact” with al-Qaeda, bin Laden’s terrorist organisation. The IDF is the first charity to have faced such an investigation since the attacks in America on September 11.

    The Charity Commission believes that the IDF, which was founded by Sedco, a powerful Saudi corporation, is connected to Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi businessman who is said to have entertained Osama bin Laden at a mansion he owned in Buckinghamshire.

    “From what we have seen, Kahlid bin Mahfouz is not the sort of person we would want connected to a charity in this country,” a source close to the investigation told The Times daily in London.

    He added that Mohammed, Saleh, Abdelelah and Ahmed bin Mahfouz, all brothers and trustee of the charity, denied any knowledge of Kahlid when first approached by British investors.

    “But we then discovered that he is also their brother. That was what led us to believe that they were not being entirely straight with us.”

    Connections aplenty.

33. #408519
    On August 15th, 2008 at 11:52 am, chapoutier said:

    atheling,

    After you are arrested for inciting armed insurrection against the US government, are you going to defend yourself?

34. #408542
    On August 15th, 2008 at 12:02 pm, Surveyor said:

    I’m with a few other posters here.

    Capture an insurgent on the battlefield?

    Just put one in em’ and be done with it. Saves time, saves money….and gives the others more to consider before they decide to trade a donkey or their young daughters for that matter….for an AK 47 to take us on. No lawyer bait at Gitmo? Then there is no problem.

    150 years ago…these lawyers would be the ones who were behind the chain-link cage fences…..for treason.

35. #408577
    On August 15th, 2008 at 12:16 pm, Surveyor said:

    “Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser – in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough.”

    Abraham Lincoln.

36. #408581
    On August 15th, 2008 at 12:17 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    On August 15th, 2008 at 10:37 am, chapoutier said:

    I remember this from a movie. And its never been more true. Lawyers are like nukes. You need lawyers because the other guy has them. But once you use them, they f*ck everything up.

    Other People’s Money with Danny DeVito.

    And I resent resemble that remark.

    Sorry chap. I couldn’t resist.

37. #408582
    On August 15th, 2008 at 12:17 pm, atheling said:

    On August 15th, 2008 at 11:52 am, chapoutier said:

    atheling,

    After you are arrested for inciting armed insurrection against the US government, are you going to defend yourself?

    Changing the subject again, Pee Wee?

38. #408592
    On August 15th, 2008 at 12:21 pm, chapoutier said:

    Changing the subject again, Pee Wee?

    Huh? This thread has a coherent topic? All I see are a bunch of random posts taking pot shots at lawyers. That’s fine but hardly a “topic”.

    But in any case, I am sorry. I forgot your defense will consist of quoting selected writings of Thomas Jefferson. No need for a lawyer to do that, is there?

39. #408603
    On August 15th, 2008 at 12:22 pm, chapoutier said:

    Sorry chap. I couldn’t resist.

    I’ll let it slide this time, Soap. but only for you.

40. #408610
    On August 15th, 2008 at 12:24 pm, atheling said:

    On August 15th, 2008 at 12:21 pm, chapoutier said:

    Huh? This thread has a coherent topic? All I see are a bunch of random posts taking pot shots at lawyers. That’s fine but hardly a “topic”.

    Uh, yeah, it’s about lawyers and their treasonous activities, like the one I posted here.

    Last I heard, the First Amendment still applies, though I’m sure you’re working feverishly to alter that.

    Don’t like the heat, get out of the kitchen, Pee Wee.

41. #408641
    On August 15th, 2008 at 12:35 pm, chapoutier said:

    Uh, yeah, it’s about lawyers and their treasonous activities, like the one I posted here.

    Someone really needs to teach you what treason really means before you make yourself more a fool. (Hint: It does not mean voting for a democrat)

    And, speaking of Sharia the best story I have heard of of someone actually trying to invoke sharia law in a US court is Blackwater. Should we string all of them up too?

    Anyway, enough with you. I wouldn’t want to mistakenly show up in your no doubt growing FBI file as some kind of co-conspirator.

42. #408702
    On August 15th, 2008 at 1:02 pm, atheling said:

    On August 15th, 2008 at 12:35 pm, chapoutier said:

    Anyway, enough with you. I wouldn’t want to mistakenly show up in your no doubt growing FBI file as some kind of co-conspirator.

    Lol! Like I said, you are some lawyer, Pee Wee.

43. #408789
    On August 15th, 2008 at 2:02 pm, Fineous Reese said:

    “Mr. Stimson’s comments essentially call for corporations to boycott law firms which represent detainees at Guantanamo. Not only is this repugnant to our core values, it runs counter to our duty to represent the defenseless and the oppressed.”

    when are Saudi Princes among “the defenseless and the oppressed”?

44. #408802
    On August 15th, 2008 at 2:11 pm, chapoutier said:

    when are Saudi Princes among “the defenseless and the oppressed”?

    When are Saudi princes the ones in Gitmo?

45. #409275
    On August 15th, 2008 at 7:57 pm, DBNinKY said:

    When are Saudi princes the ones in Gitmo?

    Ans: When the testimony of the ones in Gitmo (the little dears) could cost the Saudi princes trillions.

46. #409297
    On August 15th, 2008 at 8:37 pm, gern said:

    Didn’t they make a movie about these guys?

    With Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves?

47. #409332
    On August 15th, 2008 at 9:01 pm, Sisyphus said:

    Wait a minute.

    As distasteful as it is to see Americans defending Middle Eastern States or gitmo detainees, no matter what our system of justice provides for to be fair, the results of this lawsuit case have nothing to do with the lawyers involved.

    It seems to me it was a pretty straight forward legal ruling on a point of our laws. If we are going to point fingers we need to point them at this administration who solely had the power to allow or prevent this suit from going forward. Shame on them. What kind of commitment to defeating the sources of terrorism is this?

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, ruling in Manhattan, said Saudi Arabia and members of its royal family were protected from being sued because the State Department had not officially designated the desert kingdom as a supporter of terrorism.

    Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, foreign governments are immune from such lawsuits unless the State Department finds in advance that they had actively supported terrorist groups.

48. #409376
    On August 15th, 2008 at 9:30 pm, NHMagenta said:

    IMO most of those in Gitmo shouldn’t ever been taken there – just questioned “in the field” then a couple 9mms to the back of the head.

    And C. Stimson was out of line as a high-ranking DoD official to make his remark while collection a Gov’t paycheck.

    Who I’d RATHER see in Gitmo – the likes of MS13 gang leaders and narco-lords; I see these as a more clear and present danger to ourselves.
    I believe some of the drug lords might have a notion of acquiring a nuke.

49. #411649
    On August 18th, 2008 at 12:18 pm, brtex said:

    On August 15th, 2008 at 8:47 am, illegalsworstnightmare said:
    It’s a very simple solution that works every time: follow the money…

    +1