Can someone explain why an American attorney will within their right mind be a defense advocate for terrorists?
i guess its all about the money, yes?
The worst terrorists are America's wealthy-elite. They snuff out, steal and loot all over the globe, including right here at home. No moral attorney should represent them. They adjectives belong in prison.
No. Actually it isn't. If you consider the plight of people that are detained as "opponent combatants", they probably deserve a good defense lawyer more than most. People are arrested and detained at Guantanamo and other quasi-secret prisons beside little oversight. They don't get a criminal trial, and the level of evidence to detain them is abhorrently minuscule. The alleged evidence against them isn't disclosed, because of "national security", so they hold no way to know what they did and what to defend against. If you do some research, you will see how lots people have be released because the government determines that they were never guilty of anything except mortal in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Please, do some research. These people aren't defending terrorists, they are defending alleged terrorists. And until the elected representatives can prove up their terrorist activities (which most of the time they can't, because they are wrong about the personality being a terrorist), these suspects should be given more rights.
"> Some culture will do anything for money, a good example is the Gov. of Ill.
they may be patriot
they may believe in the Constitution
they may believe than a man isn't guilty unless they are proved guilty
you way is the contrary of the american legal system
additionally Guantanamo bay have shown up that most of the people Held there are not terrorists, but a dismal miscarriage of justice has taken place.
it is worth remembering at this point nelson mandela is a convicted terrorist, not of champion black rights but of blowing up a power pylon
It has more to do with making sure their clients receive impartial trials than it has to do with money.
Everyone deserves representation and if no one steps forward, the presiding judge will pick someone at unsystematic from the attorney pool in that courts jurisdiction.
1. designation in the papers
2. legal representation is a lawful right in this country, better to give them lawyer then risk getting the wrong person for a crime. Think in the region of it for every person that goes to sentence to prison for a crime they didn't commit the one that DID do it goes free.
3. I doubt its the money... but with glory, money comes later, maybe write a book after its over.
Everyone deserves a fair trial, even terrorists.
In our country everyone deserves a fair trial, but sometimes it is about the money and fame.
We ban terrorism and option to kill terrorism. Surely not a terrorist for he might not be informed of what he did.
Despite all likelihood in the profession, one need not condemn a attorney for accepting a case of terrorist.
Because, it is not the lawyer nor the terrorist that win, it is the representation of a covering in its real spirit that should win. May be the credit go to its sponsor.
When you take the lawyer's oath, you agree to shelter to the best of your abilities no matter of inference of guilt, race, sex, age, or social class....
if you break this creed, it's considered a violation of federal canon and you will be charged and you could lose your license to practice.... Source(s): straight off the top of the dome!
Just because you are charged doesn't tight-fisted you are guilty, many of the so called "terrorists" at gitmo be caught up in massive sweeps, some beside little evidence. In fact two were lately released that had served nearly 7 years in prison and be never tried, and found to have no terrorists links. This was with the sole purpose after the case went adjectives the way to the US supreme court. Imagine being within prison for 7 years with out trial for something you didn't do.
Even Bush admits the "bomb of intelligence" in Iraq, so why do you think our intelligence is any better for these detainees? Sure some are hardened terrorists but we explain ourselves as a free society on how we treat even criminals. We should take pride in the reality that even the worst offenders in history at most minuscule get a fair trial. They we can server out punishment next to a clear conscience.
If we become a totalitarian state, then we are no better than them an then they truly hold won the the war on terror.
Money, and the headlines.
Related Questions:
How can I find information on a defense attorney?
Majors for Defense Attorney?
What devices might defense attorneys use to dodge going to trial?
If you be the defense attorney contained by this situation...?
What do you muse of defense attorneys?
The worst terrorists are America's wealthy-elite. They snuff out, steal and loot all over the globe, including right here at home. No moral attorney should represent them. They adjectives belong in prison.
No. Actually it isn't. If you consider the plight of people that are detained as "opponent combatants", they probably deserve a good defense lawyer more than most. People are arrested and detained at Guantanamo and other quasi-secret prisons beside little oversight. They don't get a criminal trial, and the level of evidence to detain them is abhorrently minuscule. The alleged evidence against them isn't disclosed, because of "national security", so they hold no way to know what they did and what to defend against. If you do some research, you will see how lots people have be released because the government determines that they were never guilty of anything except mortal in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Please, do some research. These people aren't defending terrorists, they are defending alleged terrorists. And until the elected representatives can prove up their terrorist activities (which most of the time they can't, because they are wrong about the personality being a terrorist), these suspects should be given more rights.
"> Some culture will do anything for money, a good example is the Gov. of Ill.
they may be patriot
they may believe in the Constitution
they may believe than a man isn't guilty unless they are proved guilty
you way is the contrary of the american legal system
additionally Guantanamo bay have shown up that most of the people Held there are not terrorists, but a dismal miscarriage of justice has taken place.
it is worth remembering at this point nelson mandela is a convicted terrorist, not of champion black rights but of blowing up a power pylon
It has more to do with making sure their clients receive impartial trials than it has to do with money.
Everyone deserves representation and if no one steps forward, the presiding judge will pick someone at unsystematic from the attorney pool in that courts jurisdiction.
1. designation in the papers
2. legal representation is a lawful right in this country, better to give them lawyer then risk getting the wrong person for a crime. Think in the region of it for every person that goes to sentence to prison for a crime they didn't commit the one that DID do it goes free.
3. I doubt its the money... but with glory, money comes later, maybe write a book after its over.
Everyone deserves a fair trial, even terrorists.
In our country everyone deserves a fair trial, but sometimes it is about the money and fame.
We ban terrorism and option to kill terrorism. Surely not a terrorist for he might not be informed of what he did.
Despite all likelihood in the profession, one need not condemn a attorney for accepting a case of terrorist.
Because, it is not the lawyer nor the terrorist that win, it is the representation of a covering in its real spirit that should win. May be the credit go to its sponsor.
When you take the lawyer's oath, you agree to shelter to the best of your abilities no matter of inference of guilt, race, sex, age, or social class....
if you break this creed, it's considered a violation of federal canon and you will be charged and you could lose your license to practice.... Source(s): straight off the top of the dome!
Just because you are charged doesn't tight-fisted you are guilty, many of the so called "terrorists" at gitmo be caught up in massive sweeps, some beside little evidence. In fact two were lately released that had served nearly 7 years in prison and be never tried, and found to have no terrorists links. This was with the sole purpose after the case went adjectives the way to the US supreme court. Imagine being within prison for 7 years with out trial for something you didn't do.
Even Bush admits the "bomb of intelligence" in Iraq, so why do you think our intelligence is any better for these detainees? Sure some are hardened terrorists but we explain ourselves as a free society on how we treat even criminals. We should take pride in the reality that even the worst offenders in history at most minuscule get a fair trial. They we can server out punishment next to a clear conscience.
If we become a totalitarian state, then we are no better than them an then they truly hold won the the war on terror.
Money, and the headlines.
Related Questions: