The defense attorney who wore a traditional Islamic outfit during the rowdy arraignment of the accused Sept. 11 terrorists is defending her courtroom appeal that other women in the room wear more “appropriate” clothing to the proceedings — out of respect for her client’s Muslim beliefs.
Cheryl Bormann, counsel for defendant Walid bin Attash, attended the arraignment Saturday dressed in a hijab, apparently because her client insisted on it. She further requested that the court order other women to follow that example so that the defendants do not have to avert their eyes “for fear of committing a sin under their faith.”
At a press conference Sunday at Guantanamo Bay, Bormann said she dresses in a hijab at “all times” when she meets with her client “out of respect” for his beliefs. Asked why she requested other women do the same, Bormann said, “When you’re on trial for your life, you need to be focused.”
Bormann, who is not Muslim, claimed the issue came up several years ago, when a paralegal wore “very short skirts” and it became a distraction for the defendants. She said that on Saturday, “somebody” was also dressed “in a way that was not in keeping with my client’s religious beliefs.”
“If because of someone’s religious beliefs, they can’t focus when somebody in the courtroom is dressed in a particular way, I feel it is incumbent upon myself as a counsel to point that out and ask for some consideration from the prosecution,” she said. “Suffice to say it was distracting to members of the accused.”
Where’s her burqa.? She’s insulting Islam by showing her face to these men.
Exactly the kind of leftist thinking that serves to show support for radical Islam’s “attack on women” mindset, and the pushing of their leftist mores on others. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if she arrived in court wearing a burka. Yet to the left, it is sexist “knuckle-dragging” behind the Catholic church’s exercise of religious traditional prohibition towards birth control and abortion. Now I have no problem with women (or men) wearing modest clothing if they themselves so wish, but to express that others should also follow suit, (outside of the Islamist’s community,) simply to cater to a religious extremist’s radical fundamentalism beliefs is hypocritical nonsense. It is this weak fawning “go along to get along” attitude that deserves only our scorn, for that is the same way of group think that unerringly, and eventually leads to democratic totalitarianism. Enlightened individualism is what made this nation great, and resulted in it becoming the superpower it was once was, not the namby pamby, Milquetoast, socialistic-subservient nation that Washington DC and the progressive movement want to fundamentally transform us into.
“Pentagon paid civilian defense lawyer, Cheryl Bormann”
Translated into English: taxpayer funded civilian defense lawyer, Cheryl Bormann.
That means that we, you and I, taxpayers, are footing the bill for this woman to disrespect the lives of all those who died on 9-11 by defending an Islamic animal. And of course, just to cause a stir in the court room, she shows up in her designer bee-keeping outfit so she can pay honor and respect to her less than human client.
And I wonder if, when Obama was recently in Pakistan trading away our ability to kill or capture Islamic animals like ObL, if anyone reminded him where KSM was captured? Nah, Obama is too busy trying to help the Islamist build their califate.
No surprise that this idiot, Cheryl Bormann, who is so willing to give up her rights as a free and independant woman to subject herself to the whims of the Islamist animal she is defending, is from Chicago.
Muslim apologists love to claim that their god is the same as the one in the Bible.
But Muslim men are TAUGHT to exhibit little-to-no self control, then to blame their victims for their own lack thereof.
How odd when this is one of the fruits of proof that you have God’s spirit.
A criminal psychologist in Europe studied Muslim vs non-Muslim men in his country’s criminal justice system.
He found that Muslim males are taught, early on, by their families and their religion to be quick to anger, quick to fight, strongly opinionated, looking down of even the idea of talking through a problem, and mostly lacking self control, even thinking of it as a character flaw!
Here is an interview with the writer:
Report from the therapy room: Why are Muslims more violent and criminal?
by Nicolai Sennels
Read it and weep!
I am sure all Islamic terrorists involved on 9/11 could have cared less about how 2,996 Americans were dressed in the World Trade Buildings, Pentagon, American and United Airlines.
IS THIS HAPPENING IN THE USA?
YOU CAN SEE THE PROPAGANDA WORKING WITH THAT WOMAN,
AND MULTIPLY BY A HUNDRED, NOW IN AMERICA,
AND NOW MULTIPLY BY YEARS,
SCARY IS IN IT? JUST LOOK AT FRANCE NOW.
the arrogance of thinking he can fix the future with his open mouth without his brain.
@retire05:
I have no problem with appointed civil defense lawyers for defendants, a fair trial being part of our system. (It is a shame that in civil suits victims are not afforded the same courtesy for justice to be served.)
Allah or Jesus: Rich Mathes
I attended my annual training session that’s required for maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers who represented the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths who explained their belief systems. I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say.
The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam complete with a video. After the presentations time was provided for questions and answers. When it was my turn I directed my question to the Imam and asked: “Please, correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that all of the Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world. And, that by killing an infidel, which is a command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven. If that’s the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?”
There was no disagreement with my statements and without hesitation he replied, “Non-believers!”
I responded, “So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can go to heaven. Is that correct?”
The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He sheepishly replied, “Yes.”
I then said, “Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine the Pope commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Pat Robertson or Dr. Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to heaven.”
The Imam was speechless.
I continued, “I also have problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me. Let me ask you a question…would you rather have your Allah who tells you to kill me in order to go to heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to heaven and wants you to be with me?”
You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame.
Chuck Colson once told me something that has sustained me these 20 years of prison ministry. He said to me, “Rick, remember that the truth will prevail.”
And it will!
@Ditto:
Why does KSM, and the four other defendants, have taxpayer funded civilian attorneys when they already have JAG appointed defense attorneys?
Since the Islamist animals seem to want to sneer at our judicial system, trying to make a mockery out of the court proceedings, I suggest we give KSM the very same trial he gave Danny Pearle with a little more humanity. Instead of slitting KSM’s throat, we can just put a couple of bullets into his forehead.
I know Cheryl well and she is a good defense attorney. Her clients probably would not have talked with her without the getup, so that’s fine. Now she’s taking it to the prosecution, testing the judge, cementing her client’s trust, seeding the record, probing boundaries, and in general rattling everyone’s cage a little. She’s doing the “meta-trial.” The funny thing is, if there was any distraction about the way anyone dressed it was HER back when we were in Illinois death penalty defense lol. Yes, she is a liberal, but not a moslem sympathizer. I don’t envy her job, but admire her for doing it.
@Timothy Capps:
And how does she justify what she has done that is in direct conflict with everything this nation stands for? Since you claim to know here, perhaps you can answer that question.
By caving to the demands of her client, which we taxpayers are renumerating her for, she makes a mockery of every right that women in the U.S. has fought for. I could understand it if she were in the courtroom of a Muslim nation that required her to dress in a bee-keeper outfit, but she is in an American military courtroom, and she insults every citizen with her antics. Demanding that all other women present in that courtroom adhere to Islamic dress codes is beyond the pale.
As to the Muslim animal that she is representing, on my dime, not talking to her; so be it. He was given a JAG attorney, she is just extra baggage who seems to like making a spectacle of herself in public. And I don’t care if she is Clarence Darrow; she makes a mockery of the court system. She must have a very black soul that would even allow her to defend such human trash. If there is true justice in this world, she, and the rest of the bottom feeders that are defending KSM and the other four animals will kill their careers with their actions against the American dead of 9-11.
retire05
you just came up with many favorable arguments regarding the right of AMERICA TO STAND TALL IN THAT COURT, AND DEMAND JUSTICE FOR THE MULTI THOUSANDS PEOPLE WHO DIED ON THAT TERRIBLE EVIL DAY, THEY DEPEND ON AMERICA TO TALK FOR THEM. AND NOT ALLOW ANY ONE
OR ANY DETAINEES TO INTERFERE WITH THE AMERICAN JUSTICE, AND THE SOLEMN WORK OF THE COURT
WHICH REPRESENT AMERICA WOUNDED, BEFORE ANYTHING OR ANYONE
Like or not he gets a trial. That means an attorney. That means effective assistance of counsel. That requires an attorney client relationship. If our government decides to give a female lawyer to someone whose culture treats them like property, then she’s likely to have to make an effort at dressing according to his warped cultural expectations. Otherwise he refuses to cooperate with counsel, a/c relationship is broken beyond repair and you are back to square one with a new (male — because we’ve given in) lawyer. Or judge proceeds with defandant who will not assist in his own defense and risk being overturned and doing it all over again. Understand THAT and it should start to make sense, even if you don’t like it. So she plays dress-up. It isn’t a stunt, it isn’t for fun, it isn’t to shock and disturb, it isn’t not a sign of solidarity (we represent people; we’re not their buddies). It is dealing with the legal realities of a high profile death penalty case when DOD hires a woman to represent a fanatic Moslem.
I could be wrong, but I think her client’s demands are more ploy than actual religious offense.
And of course it’s beyond the pail of chutzpah to call for others (outside your religion) to respect and abide by his own personal beliefs in their own country.
@Timothy Capps:
I agree with Timothy. She’s just doing her job.
We, of course, have already condemned these guys. Still, unless we want a kangaroo court, they should get a fair trial and fair representation.
BTW I have a son right now in the 82nd fighting (2-508) these bastards so I hope they get what they have coming. That doesn’t stop me from admiring the lawyer who defends them if our government decides to
giive them a trial. When my son gets back I’ll let him deal with your accusation that death penalty lawyers must have black hearts, if you care to talk to him.
a fair trial and hang them, or put a loaded belt on them
and throw them in the pit of hell.
tolerance 0
@Timothy Capps:
Sorry, but you appeal for understanding for Cheryl Bormann is falling on deaf ears, at least with me.
“If you are unable to afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you” doesn’t mean that if you are unwilling to cooperate with the appointed attorney simply because they don’t meet your religious, social, ethinic or national standards that you get to pick and choose until you find one you like.
Caving to the whims of her client, and then making a total ass out of herself in the courtroom for the sake of her client, is sheer theatrics, and the judge should have booted her butt from the courtroom until she decided to start acting like a lawyer, and not a beaten down Islamic woman in her bee-keeper outfit. Now she had given her client the impression that since he can force her to make a mockery of herself (and don’t think that her client has any respect for her due to her actions, because she is less than equal in his eyes to begin with and nothing she does will change that not to mention that he would remove her head from her neck if given the chance) he can make a mockery of all Americans in that court room, including the judge.
Her client is not even entitled to a trial. Unlike the left wing Islamist sympathizers who think they are, the Geneva Convention does not recognize them as legitimate combatants. They are terrorists, pure and simple, and as such, should have been shot on sight instead of captured, taken to Gitmo and treated like royalty. Why are we even adjourning court so they can have their “prayer” time, as mandated by Islam? Do you think KSM allowed Danny Pearle to honor his faith before KSM sliced off Pearle’s head?
Bormann should act like an attorney, not some star struck groupie that is doing everything she can to please a mass murderer.
@Wordsmith:
“they should get a fair trial and fair representation”
Tell that to the families of the USS Cole servicemen who lost their lives due to Cheryl Bormann’s client, Walid bin Attash.
As one of less than 1% of Illnois attorneys admitted to act as lead counsel in death penalty cases, a member of the agency Cheryl headed up and a former JAG I will allow my comments to stand on their own as a statement of the actual legal realities. In other words, with all due respect, I know what I’m talking about. Please continue to exercise your 1st Amendment rights as you think best.
@Timothy Capps:
And I bet you also support the abolishment of the death penalty for those death penalty candidates you represent, but agree that a woman has a right to kill her unborn; and voted for Obama.
Timothy Capps
hi,
you have to admit the revolting behavior to bend and bow to the murderers terrorists of so many thousands people of good faiths working in those TOWERS, AND TO THE FAMILIES WHO WILL WATCH THEM BE IN FRONT OF THAT MASCARADE WHICH THEY ARE LESS THAN WORTHY OF,
AND THE WAR IS STILL KILLING AND INJURING THOUSANDS MORE GOOD BRAVEST AMERICANS WHICH SHOULD BE ALSO TAKEN IN PRIORITY FOCUS ALL ALONG THAT PUBLIC SHOW
OF JUSTICE, IS IT JUSTICE? REALLY IN THAT WHAT WE ARE SEEING?
THEY SHOULD BE DEAD BY NOW
Sound like your beef is really with people higher up. Fact: it was decided there would be a trial and it would be a DP trial. This is what a DP trial looks like under these unusual circumstances. The trial judge will protect the record so it does not get overturned on appeal. This is my informed opinion. I promise I have no more sympathy than you for these deluded, murderous thugs warped by a religion given to them by Satan. Once someone sticks them in a courtroom they are presumed innocent within those four walls and his lawyer will defend him. (As for hijab please re-read and understand legal implications of a/c relationship. It is not unusual for court appoint new counsel once that breaks down.)
There is a certain irony being overlooked.
Usually, whenever a terrorist/jihadist kills Americans or infidels in Europe, he minimizes his Islamic-ness and goes for a defense based on insanity or mental imbalance.
The attempt is usually made to back up the meme that Islam is a religion of peace so therefore the act of violence was an outlier by someone who misunderstood Islam or whose rage caused him to forget his religion.
Is this mask going to slip off?
Me a liberal? Lol. Make a list of everything you think I am and switch it to the opposite.
While I am not wild about her defending a terrorist, I can overlook that. What I will not excuse is her hijab remarks. Regardless of reason it’s disgusting.
@retire05:
You should actually read the GCs and see what they say about how unlawful combatants are to be handled rather than just running off at your keyboard again.
I can assure you they don’t support your claims.
@Timothy Capps:
To begin with, Chery Bermann is NOT Muslim, so she has no reason to resort to such theatrics, including requesting that all other women in the courtroom dress according to Islamic standards. She is an attorney representing a man who is accused of henious crimes, and being Muslim is not part of the charges against Walid bin Allash. If she cannot gain the confidence of her client without acting like a fool, perhaps she should seek another line of work.
Tell me, counselor, if you were defending Aileen Wournos, would you have a sex change operation, or at the minimum, dress like a woman in the court room so that Wournas would have more trust in you, considering she hated me and only trusted women?
@Aye:
I have read them, and I disagree with your opinion, however it’s a moot point since we can’t do anything about it.
@Hard Right:
Then you should have no problem whatsoever citing the relevant sections of the GCs that allow unlawful combatants to be deprived of trials and shot on sight.
Right? Feel free to do that.
I can assure you that the provisions laid out in the GCs are the 180 degree exact polar opposite of what retire05 is trying to sell here.
While I agree that these animals should be extinguished with extreme prejudice on the battlefield I recognize that, once captured, we are governed by law and are obligated handle them in a certain way. That includes a trial.
1.) Had this converstaion some time ago on this very site.
2.) No time to do it again
3.) I see no point in going over it as it’s not relevent to the thread.
@retire05 #17:
Zubaydah was shot….3 times. Should the Pakistanis have killed him for us? Finished him off? Should his CIA and FBI handlers have bothered calling in a top-class surgeon from John Hopkins to save his life on taxpayer dime? Should they have killed KSM as well over capture? The intell gleaned from these two wasn’t worth the effort of capture?
They should not enjoy POW status under Geneva since they don’t fit the requirements for lawful combatant classification. Beyond that…what Aye said.
Should they not be given a fair trial on American soil by a military commission setup by the U.S. government?
Because we’re better than them?
“Are al Qaeda Fighters Prisoners of War?
First, what does it take to qualify as a prisoner of war? Article IV of the Geneva Convention states that members of irregular militias like al Qaeda qualify for prisoner-of-war status if their military organization satisfies four criteria.
The criteria are: “(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying armes openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”
Al Qaeda does not satisfy these conditions. Perhaps Osama bin Laden could be considered “a person responsible for his subordinates,” although the cell structure of al Qaeda belies the notion of a chain of command. But in any event, al Qaeda members openly flout the remaining three conditions.
Al Qaeda member deliberately attempst to blend into the civilian population – violating ther requirment of having a “fixed distinctive sign” and “carrying arms openly.” Moreover, they target civilians, which violates the “laws and customs of war.”
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html
@Hard Right:
And that’s what happens when arguments are based on emotion and feeling rather than rule of law.
The GCs set a very clear standard on how unlawful combatants are to be handled and being deprived of trial/shot on sight is not it.
@retire05:
No one is arguing POW status. That is your straw man. Put him back in the closet and stop muddying the discussion.
Let’s get back to this:
Kindly cite the sections of the GCs that support your position.
@Wordsmith:
I am not saying that the intel we have received from captured AQ was not valuable. What I am saying, and you seem to agree with, is that they do not deserve POW status nor do they have a right to a trial and damn sure not here on American soil. The are non-authorized combatants. They fight for no nation, wear no identifiable insignia, blend into civilian populations to avoid detection and do not fight according to GC rules of war.
Now, you may be one of these “we should take the high ground” proponents, but if we are going to take the high ground, we don’t throw our defense into the creek below. Do you really think FDR was worried about “high ground” or being “better than the enemy” when he was bombing the hell out of Europe to kill the Nazis? Was he worried about the high ground when he ordered a fast military tribunal and the shooting of the German sabateurs?
Realize this: our enemy doesn’t appreciate our taking the “higher ground.” They view it as a weakness, and consequently use it to encourage, and recruit, others to commit terrorism against the Great Satan.
@retire05:
Citation please.
You do realize the irony of the example you just cited right?
FDR gave the German saboteurs…wait for it…a fast military tribunal.
Guess FDR agrees with me that being deprived of trial and shot on sight was not the lawful approach.
@Aye:
Actually, I based my decision on the actual writings, not emotions as it seems you are doing. There were numerous experts who also agreed with me. But they must be going off of “emotions” too, eh Aye? Pat yourself on the back any harder over how right you think you are, and you’ll break your hand.
It’s also amusing you demand Retire post proof of what she says all while not posting the “relevant” sections of what you claim proves you right.
@Hard Right:
Then, by all means, cite the “numerous experts” who agree with you that these captives can be deprived of trial and shot on sight.
See, it’s really simple. The GCs are on my side. I’ve got all of the relevant sections bookmarked and ready to go. This is not the first time this topic has been hashed out here at FA. I haven’t cited any sources so far because I am not the one making the affirmative claims. That would be you and retire05.
So, if you’ve got a point you wanna make, then make it. It’s not my responsibility to preemptively disprove your debate points.
Roll out the experts. Roll out the writings. Have at it.
Your points. Your onus.
Whether these particular people deserved a trial and what kind of so is not a part of this discussion. The question is simply whether , once someone decided there would be a death penalty trial, and furthermore hired a woman to represent him KNOWING his strong cultural devaluation of women, whether the woman attorney is justified in wearing a hijab to keep him talking with her so she can represent him. She had to wear it at Gitmo. If she didn’t wear it in court her client would not cooperate with counsel. That will BOUNCE BACK on appeal if it went forward at all. If you want to talk about experts, I am one. If you want to see whose conservative credentials are bigger we can play that game too. This is a simple legal reality. Cheryl would LOVE to be ordered to remove her hijab because now the whole case is FUBAR. How difficult is this to understand?
Getting back to the lawyer’s self-imposed prison of a hijab, I wanted to cite a letter from the designer of Norwegian burkas to a blogger who called them self-imposed prisons:
Some of Marked Moskva’s designs:
Camo burka.
“Oslo” burka.
ABC News has 8 of these.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/popup?id=4421425&contentIndex=1&page=6
If a woman wants to dress in court in a way that is odd but OK with the judge, it should be her call.
Her wanting to IMPOSE her self-imposed prison dress on other ladies is what is inexcusable.
Oddly, the designer would be in trouble in MUCH of the Islamic world for his (her?) colorful designs.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and many other places say black from head-to-toe if you want to go outside.
Turkey is even getting away from colors in covers.
Egypt, too.
Would he sucker those Norwegians in under a false belief that they could be colorful, if covered?
You bet!
@Timothy Capps:
“If you want to take about experts, I am one.”
WoW! Fancy yourself a real Alan Dershowitz, don’t you? But you are not Dershowitz, or the reincarnation of Clarence Darrow. You are a small town lawyer (Carbondale, Ill. pop. 25,000) who obviously cut your teeth on the Public Defender’s Office.
Now, perhaps you think that courtroom theatrics are fair game if it will help your client, but from where I sit, those kind of theatrics only insult our very judicial system, which I take very, VERY, seriously. Again, if your good friend, Cheryl Bormann, cannot convince her client that she will serve him well without insulting the very institution that allows her to be a defense attorney, then she is not the great attorney you claim she is.
This is A Play-By-Play Of What Went Down In The Courtroom During The 9/11 Arraignment Yesterday
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-05-06/news/31590951_1_detainees-ali-abdul-aziz-ali-james-l-pohl#ixzz1uDZJqj7F
Once you get there, remember there are three more pages!
@Aye:
Actually, I addressed your claim that the GC does. YOU need to prove that it does.
@Nan G: Another resource of note is Lawfare blog:
Live-Blogging Tomorrow�s Arraignment in United States v. KSM et al
9/11 Arraignment #1: And We�re Live
9/11 Arraignment #2: The Show Begins
9/11 Arraignment #3: KSM Stays Mum
9/11 Arraignment #4: Bin �Attash Unbound
9/11 Arraignment #5: The Defense Strategy Emerges
9/11 Arraignment #6: Silence is Golden
9/11 Arraignment #7: A Moment of Zen
9/11 Arraignment #8: Who are those Other People?
9/11 Arraignment #9: Defense Qualifications Begin
9/11 Arraignment #10: More Defense Qualifications
9/11 Arraignment #11: Nevin Questions Judge Pohl
9/11 Arraignment #12: Bormann Questions Judge Pohl
9/11 Arraignment #13: Getting Through These Challenges Has Been A Challenge
9/11 Arraignment #14: Wherein We Actually Have an Arraignment
9/11 Arraignment #15: Mark Martins Press Statement
A Brief Reply to Andrew Rosenthal
Call for Feedback on 9/11 Arraignment Coverage
@Hard Right:
Sigh.
You and retire05 bear the onus to prove what you’re claiming regarding the GCs.
You even went so far as to state that there are “experts” which agree with you.
Trot ’em out pardner.
Re: t. Capps
You make a good point. These men are running the show. They could have any lawyer represent them. They could have rejected her from the get go as a woman, yet they chose to let the games begin.
She’s being used to attack our system of justice. A useful idiot. They are having a grand old time.
We’re too nice. Give them ensure for meals and offer reruns of JudgeJudy for entertainment.
there should be a jury compose of the relatives of the 9/11,
they would expedite that trial and save a lot of taxpayer money,
we should get logic in everything, this logic is lost in every cracks of government
from the top down, every thing they do is false and wrong, and upside down,
why? is that what they smoke? or chew, or sneeze, or transfuse in their blood,??????
not normal people in there,
You can characterize my current practice however you want. It’s my hometown, and where I returned to after Illinois dropped the death penalty and my state position was eliminated last May. CTAU had six senior DP attorneys statewide (including supervisory attorneys) hired in a competitive process. I have taught at seminars from Chicago to Carbondale, tried DP cases, and worked on a number of high profile cases (nothing like this, of course). The Illinois Supreme Court considers me an expert and put me on the panel to vet would-be death penalty lawyers. But forget all that. Can we at least agree that I probably know more about the niche of death penalty defense than you do? I mean, assuming you are not yourself a death penalty attorney? I don’t know what you do for a living, but at some point I would probably concede you knew more about whatever the hell that is/was than I do. Somehow, though, I don’t see you doing that, no matter what. If I were from Chicago you would just be calling me part of the “corrupt Obama machine,” right? So forgive my humble circumstances; I do fine, in case you’re worried, especially for someone who got unexpectedly let go at the age of 53 and started rebuilding a practice from nothing but a good name. But, hey, if it provides you something to laugh at, glad to spread some cheer.
What else. I served in the 101st Airborne, 265th ASA Co. as an Arabic Linguist. Right out of law school in 89 I became a Navy JAG and got a SW Asia Service Medal I can’t say I earned, except by being there. I was indeed a PD out of the Navy, then an assistant AG where I actually prosecuted a death penalty case. (Communted by Gov. Ryan before execution,) Opened my own practice and established the reputation for the bigshot Chicago lawyers to seek me out in the illiterate backwoods of southern Illinois.
My Free Republic membership date is earlier than yours. I am conservative, Christian, pro-life, pro-gun, anti-Obama, and celebrate the Battle of Lepanto with fireworks every October 1st (you can Google that if you need to). As I mentioned, I have a son in country at the moment. His twin is at DLI studying Korean (where I studied Arabic when Carter was president). I have a particularly low tolerance for Moslems. It’s just a thing with me. I have bookmarked Robert Spencer’s JihadWatch. I refuse to belong to the ABA because it is a liberal organization. I photoshop Obama’s Julia agitprop into humorous parodies for my FB page. You would like me if you really knew me.
Does that take care of all the ad hominem arguments? (I’m sure it was fascinating for everyone else.)
I am not blind to the spectacle Cheryl is making of herself. Knowing what a liberal feminist she is, it is particularly rich to me. I think she is a subject of God’s “Department of Ironic Punishment” (because she didn’t seem to be very concerned about my “Christian beliefs” when we worked together). As for distraction, after she left a meeting, some other guy and I would joke about “keeping our eyes up” — just her style of dress. But I think I understand the hijab thing, which is why I posted. If you want to MAKE SURE this trial turns into an even bigger fiasco and eventually GETS OVERTURNED, have it your way, friend.
Helen, I agree that giving them a lawyer who is a woman is inviting trouble. But she was qualified and the DOD hired her. (I was encouraged to apply when we all lost our jobs, but felt I was not the right person for the job.) On the other hand, do we change our culture because they’re idiots? So the hijab is a compromise that keeps them working with Cheryl instead of having a male lawyer.
Yes, I agree this is not a Golden Moment in Legal History. In essence, we are giving the defendants “special provisions” as if they were retarded or deaf or autistic or whatever. We are saying “Your culture is so messed you we have to make allowances for civilized court procedings.” But I have discussed the alternative ad nauseum.
@Aye:
Retire said the GC does not cover terrorists. You claimed he was wrong, but offered no proof. Who needs to put up links? I’d say you.
Oh, and here is one expert that agrees with me- Mr. Yoo himself.
http://www.aei.org/article/foreign-and-defense-policy/international-organizations/terrorists-have-no-geneva-rights/
@Timothy Capps:
Mr Capps, you are a rare bird in the legal world.