Lawyers & Terrorists

A while back, we were critical of Lindsey Graham because of his insistence that enemy combatants and their attorneys be given access to classified information related to their activities.  Sen. Graham felt, then, that the rights of enemy combatants were important, more important even than the right of US citizens to be protected from said enemy combatants and their uncaptured associates.  Indeed, the issue has generated many calls for the US to act from a morally superior position so to ensure our unqualified status as moral leader of the World. Such calls echo the sentiment that it is better to fight fairly and lose, than to fight unfairly and win. Noble is the ideal, fatal to the US is the result.

Enter, stage left, the case of Attorney Lynne Stewart.  She, you may recall, represented the so-called "Blind Sheikh", aka Omar Abdel Rahman in his trial for the bombing of the WTC in 1993.

Captain Ed has his take here, which offers the clearest example, so far, of why advocacy carried to the extreme should not be considered in the same breath as giving terrorism access to our legal system.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s