In Rising Numbers, Lawyers Head for Guantánamo Bay

New York Times ^ | May 30, 2005 | Neil A Lewis

[Libertarian444]

WASHINGTON, May 29 - In the last few months, the small commercial air service to the naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has been carrying people the military authorities had hoped would never be allowed there: American lawyers.

And they have been arriving in increasing numbers, providing more than a third of about 530 remaining detainees with representation in federal court. Despite considerable obstacles and expenses, other lawyers are lining up to challenge the government's detention of people the military has called enemy combatants and possible terrorists.

[FreedomPoster]

Nicely done, sir, and good call. I'd be very curious as to their response, if you don't mind sharing.

[Brilliant]

I'm guessing the Afghanis would simply let them back into the general population.

What we should have done is declare them POWs. That way, you can hold them until the war is over, and they have no rights except as set forth in the Geneva Convention, which isn't much.

[tom h]

You don't understand. They are being paid by the Legal Services Corporation, which if funded by your Federal Tax dollars. Only 1% of those lawyers would be going if they had to do it FREE.

Gingrich tried to "defund the left" in 1995 by stripping all money from LSC. I have never heard liberals howl so much. The chorus from the media was enormous.

Take away the money that funds the liberal lawyers -- remember, they are greedy first, and liberal second -- and they will not be carrying forward these liberal causes for free.

[Kozak]

In Rising Numbers, Lawyers Head for Guantánamo Bay

Excellent. Now we need to keep em there.

[demkicker]

Since it is beneath me to register for the NY Slimes, I cannot tell if these pond scum attys are allowed to talk or represent any of the detainees. Please tell me the military forbids it. If not, let me know so I can go throw up my breakfast, and the lunch and dinner I haven't even had yet.

[PzGr43]

>I'm guessing the Afghanis would simply let them back into >the general population.
>

Many are not Afghan, that is why they were so easy to spot. They are first-generation immigrants to the G7 countries who went to Afghanistan to join AQ

>What we should have done is declare them POWs. That way, >you can hold them until the war is over, and they have no >rights except as set forth in the Geneva Convention, which >isn't much.
>

I wrote my representative at the time: Un-uniformed resistance is punishable by death under the Convention. I want these people pumped for intel then shot.

If we are not play 'Convention rules' (Taliban/AQ not signatories) then we can shoot 'em anyway.

[Brilliant]

Isn't going to happen, obviously.

The notion that you can't get info under the Geneva Convention is wrong. You can ask, but they have the right to refuse to give it. But we aren't torturing them anyway, so what do we gain by saying they aren't POWs?

I think that the decision not to apply the Geneva Convention was a mistake. At the time it might have seemed like a good idea, but in retrospect, it's not the case. We did not think thru the consequences. Now we're releasing these guys because the courts have ruled that they have legal rights, and that there is no right to keep them imprisoned in perpetuity.

And some of them are going right back into the battle. Several of the terrorists reportedly killed in Afghanistan were former Guantanamo detainees.

[NutCrackerBoy]

I cannot tell if these pond scum attys are allowed to talk or represent any of the detainees. Please tell me the military forbids it. If not, let me know so I can go throw up my breakfast, and the lunch and dinner I haven't even had yet.

My precise reaction on reading this piece: nausea.

[G Larry]

Why aren't these lawyers being told that there is NO BASIS and NO RIGHT for them to see ANYBODY at Gitmo?

[DeepRed]

So why doesn the congress do it now? We are even more powerful than in '96. I think it's a great idea. Why should people accused of crimes get federal funding for ambulance chasers? If they can take away their funding, the laws would be easier to enforce against enemies of the state.

[MitchellC]

Where were these ambulance chasing !#$%^&*()_+ when our guys were POW's in Viet Nam, North Korea, WW2?

Yup. These guys can't wait to undermine the very system that gives them the ability to do what they do.

No doubt, these fools will either find some so-called "abuse" to smear America and the war effort with, will actually manage to get some Islamofascist off the hook, or both.