Irony? I'm saying to myself, "He was wrong on the law, but slavishly politically correct. And he gets the Supreme Weenies, who also don't respect the Constitution, to agree with him, which wasn't hard."
There's no benefit to anyone in this case, materially or in principle, to anyone except this lousy lawyer, for whom it is publicity.
What's to admire about this traitor feathering his nest?
Says you. I personally agree with the Supreme Court, and with this officer.
And he gets the Supreme Weenies, who also don't respect the Constitution, to agree with him, which wasn't hard."
I have far more respect for the law - and the Supreme Court - than you do. Even those judges with whom I disagree deserve to be given the respect of their office.
There's no benefit to anyone in this case, materially or in principle, to anyone except this lousy lawyer, for whom it is publicity.
Au contraire. The Geneva Convention requires that enemy combatants be given some due process. Once again, that's what makes us better than them.
What's to admire about this traitor feathering his nest?
Once again, just because you disagree with him does not make him a "traitor." He did his job as a lawyer, and did it well.
"What's to admire about this traitor feathering his nest?"
He was given orders to defend the guy, if he didn't he would be breaking his orders. Plus whats the point of having a trial if you want the lawyers to throw the case? We shouldn't be having show trials like the USSR. If we are going to try them in court they need to be fair trials, otherwise our entire system of justice becomes a mockery. I don't necessarily believe we need to have trials for terrorists, but if we do you can't go label their lawyers traitors, especially when the Navy gave him orders to do so.