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

+1

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.

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.

With Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves?

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.

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

When are Saudi princes the ones in Gitmo?

“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”?

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.

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.

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.

Sorry chap. I couldn’t resist.

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

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?