NEW YORK LAWYER CONVICTED OF AIDING TERRORISTS

YAHOO NEWS ^ | 02-10-05 | LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer

[justshutupandtakeit]

Lawyers are too dumb to figure out they can't pass information against court and prison rules from their clients? Boy that is sooo hard to understand now isn't it?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Neither you nor the recipient of your fan letter seem to have a clue. Since when is it a vast increase in state power to jail people directly involved in a criminal conspiracy to attack the people of this nation?

Not only is Slim a false prophet but you are hallucinating wrt the nature of this forum. Or knowingly posting falsehoods which would make you a l....

[gunnedah]

I doubt if she serves time. Lawyers will get behind her whole heartedly.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You must be reading a different forum's posts since distrust of government is rampant here. Even when there is no reason to do so in a particular instance the distrust is OVERWHELMING.

[Chef Dajuan]

OK.

What doi you say to a lawyer with an IQ of less than 50?

"Good morning, your honor."

[Chef Dajuan]

Angie Harmon said it best on "L & O" once.

"I believe in evil, monsters, and things that go bump in the night. I think they should all rot in hell along with their lawyers."

You think like a PRE-9/11 person.

I don't care HOW MANY shyster mouthpieces this sends a chill through. They need a chill sent through them. But locking up yerrorists and those who enable them, (including commie lawyers), is more important and keeping this nation safe is paramount. No matter WHAT it takes.

Of course a looneytarian like you wouldn't see that. If and when al-Qa'eda blows up the levees and submerges Naw'lins maybe you'll get it.

[Chef Dajuan]

Angie Harmon said it best on "L & O" once.

"I believe in evil, monsters, and things that go bump in the night. I think they should all rot in hell along with their lawyers."

You think like a PRE-9/11 person.

I don't care HOW MANY shyster mouthpieces this sends a chill through. They need a chill sent through them. But locking up yerrorists and those who enable them, (including commie lawyers), is more important and keeping this nation safe is paramount. No matter WHAT it takes.

Of course a looneytarian like you wouldn't see that. If and when al-Qa'eda blows up the levees and submerges Naw'lins maybe you'll get it.

[SalukiLawyer]

You must be reading a different forum's posts since distrust of government is rampant here. Even when there is no reason to do so in a particular instance the distrust is OVERWHELMING.

Well, then there's the post two down from yours:

"...keeping this nation safe is paramount. No matter WHAT it takes."

The constant lawyer-bashing doesn't bother me because (a) many lawyers deserve to be bashed (although few of them are criminal defense attorneys in my book -- L.S. is one) and (b) it's just part of the culture among the semi-thoughtful to do so. (And (c) if your little darling gets arrested, you're going to give me a call anway.) In other forums people get the same little thrill of approval by bashing George Bush, because he's a "safe target" to make a little joke about that they know will get a dutiful, chuckle from other people who can't be bothered to give serious thought to issues.

What DOES bother me is the the love of big government so long as it is advancing some prized goal such as "law and order," "the war against drugs," or "keeping us safe from terrorism." Yes, I don't want crime, I don't want drugs around my kids, and I like to see terrorists caught and/or killed. That doesn't mean that I don't expect the government to take advantage of situations to advance its power vis-a-vis citizens.

This is an old argument though, and nothing is going to get solved here. Some people like big government as long as "we're in charge," and lack the imagination to see how the legitmate exercise of government power against a bad lawyer might provide a temptation for the illegitimate exercise of the same power against a good lawyer.

Of course, since all lawyers are bad, there is no need to worry about that, is there, and certainly no reason to consider whether the crimnal defense bar has a role in our Constitutional scheme. Perhaps we should just repeal the Sixth Amendment and rely on the fairness and goodwill of government investigators and prosecutors to make sure the guilty are punished and the innocent are protected.

[SalukiLawyer]

P.S. I point out that I do NOT disagree with what happened this case, as I clearly stated, nor do I believe that this sets a bad precedent, as I also clearly stated. I was merely expressing some sympathy with someone who sees the potential for government evil in actions like this when circumstances might be different.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Government grows as societies become more complex and larger. There is nothing which can change that fact. Governments also grow because of the People's demands for more rights to be protected. Our government has not grown because of some nefarious plot by Leftists but because the People have WANTED it to grow and become more powerful.

The only thing that can change that is a change in the People themselves.

There is nothing wrong with the poster stating that the nation should be kept safe. What is the alternative? "This nation could be kept safe unless doing so would offend someone, make someone uncomfortable, actually throw people in jail, cause Europe not to like us, etc., etc."

Nevertheless the distrust of the government here is overwhelming as I said.

[SalukiLawyer]

Thank you for your courteous reply, but I see we have very little common ground. I believe government grows because the few see it as the surest way to gain power over the many. I believe -- at least I hope -- that government has grown to its current level of intrusiveness and control despite the wishes of the people, not in reponse to those wishes.

The nation should be kept safe. I will quibble, however, with those who say "no matter WHAT it takes." Are you really comfortable with that proposition?

We are not talking about trivialities such as offending people or making France not like us, of course. We are talking about the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was put there, like just about everything else you find in that document to protect citizens against their government. All I'm saying is that I think we should tread cautiously when we discuss novel government actions that relate to constitutional guarantees.

[LibTeeth]

Conspiracy is the charge prosecutors use whenever they have no case or a weak case. The Founding Fathers were a criminal conspiracy (so is the NEA and the Democratic party, but I've yet to see the Marines place a bead on those domestic enemies who make Al Quaeda look like playground bullies). Bombing a couple of buildings is less of a threat to the Republic than what goes on daily in our schoolrooms and legislatures, and way less of a threat than the growing police state the socialists will inherit when the political pendulum swings. You probably see that as a hallucination too.

As the article stated, there is no evidence that anyone was incited to violence based on the communications. With no real crime, they are left to prosecute a thought crime. While I might agree with the sentiment with respect to this case (as in ice the bitch and lose the key), the concern I have is for how innocent accused will have their lawyer/client relationship diminished as a result of this. Thus with respect to expansion of state power, it's a concern regarding the precedence and potential further expansions/fallout. True, this case on its own doesn't immediately reflect the issue. But sensitivity about such things doesn't just relate to the present. This is why gun owners have a problem with registration. The current act of registration wouldn't be egregious in itself, but lays the groundwork for further infringement.

As to the nature of the forum, I've seen thoughtful, reasoned critiques of the expansion of central government power under the Republican majority pulled from the forum, rather than debated. Those weren't hallucinations, but unfortunately I can't point to the history Little Brother has chosen to erase. I hope that clears up my former post.

[justshutupandtakeit]

No it is not an argument against doing something to claim that someone MIGHT misuse the Law some time in the future.

Should we NOT charge killers with murder and prosecute them because some day some one MIGHT charge and prosecute an innocent man for murder?

When OFFICERS OF THE COURT, such as lawyers, violate court orders and laws they should be charged and tried and, if found guilty, incarcerated. Particularly when they are doing so at the behest of one who murdered American citizens and tries to murder more.

Your view of the appropriateness of the law, if implemented, would mean there is NO law.

[LibTeeth]

This is exactly the prior restraint, pre-emptive strike argument that the government authoritites make when they prosecute an individual for a thought crime or a conspiracy. It's a good enough standard for the collective, but not a good enough standard for me to express concern (not even a real constraint)about my public servants, eh comrade?

This sort of doublethink isn't conservative, it is statist. This is no different than socialists bitching about assault rifles as "only designed for killing" out of one side of their face, and then applauding when cops are paramilitarized with cosmetically challenged rifles so THEY aren't "outgunned". And screw the korean grocer as the public servants pull out from the riot zone.

My view is that the law and government were instituted and exist to protect individual rights. You can't have a healthy forrest without healthy trees. Our legal system is supposed to be predicated on the presumption of individual innocence to preclude a tendency toward predatory government and corruption. When I see the beast growing stronger and trying to slip its harness, it bothers me.

Officers of the court routinely violate the law with impunity. They even have a name for it: professional courtesy. Charges for civil rights violations under federal law are set aside more often than any other charge. The fox is guarding the chicken coop. A bad law is no law. Arbitrary law is no law. Laws which contradict other laws is no law. There ought to be a law against it ;-) Hmm, if we start with 10 simple commandments, that should be something at least one good man should be able to follow, ya think? Post it on the court house and school walls for everyone to see. I could just shut up and take that.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is a popular misconception that there is some sinister cabal behind government growth but nothing could be further from the truth. It has grown for the most part in response to demands of the People for social programs, in response to real dangers which existed from deadly enemies, and as a result of vastly increased complexity incident to population growth.

To think that such growth could have occured without the approval of the majority of the electorate is just wishful thinking. Evidence of this approval is overwhelming as even the last election shows. Almost half the voters could not find it within themselves to vote for a man who actually wants to protect the nation and voted for a traitor who promises the same old socialistic crap.

Convincing the population is the greatest task conservatives face and if we just try and whistle past the graveyard there will be no way of slowing or reversing this growth.

There is nothing in this trial which is a violation of the sixth amendment nor was the Constitution drafted to protect the citizen from the government (well maybe from the State governments) only the BoR was supposed to do that though both Hamilton and Madison believed it to be unnecessary. But the Constitution itself was drafted to reduce the power of the states and increase that of the fedgov in order to form a more perfect Union.

Our Founders believed that the best guard against tyranny was representative government based on private property ownership. If that failed then there was no hope.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Presumably you believe amidst that farago of babble and insults there is a rational thought or a relevent one.

Apparently you believe there is no such thing as a criminal conspiracy. And that the government has no right to protect the nation. And who knows what else? It is impossible to say what all the nonsense about assault rifles trees korean grocers and the ten commandments is supposed to mean. Though you did forget to throw in Mom, baseball and apple pie.

There is nothing in the Constitution presuming innocence either but that false tatement won't bother you I'm sure.

[LibTeeth]

Yes, you presume. I believe the first job of government is to protect individuals who make up the nation. Otherwise you get the old collectivist "we had to destroy the village to save it" mentality. While the Constitution does not explicitly state a presumption of innocence, that is in fact the philosophy that underlies the founding documents, though I doubt you care. Governments have assigned powers, individuals have rights. Rights come from God, powers come from the people. These are the axioms of our governance at its founding and the fruit it bore gives testament to its validity. Many are confused about that as well as believing we are a democracy. I recommend The Federalist Papers as a good starting point if you find these ideas foreign.

I am sorry you have trouble with my analogies, I'll spare you any further. As to insults, you seem to prefer to trade in that currency, so it is not surprising that you found the slop rather than the pearls. I see no reason to continue wasting bandwidth on this, as it appears no real communication is occurring.