Boston Massacre The Al-Qaida Seven Tundra Mail


In response to a Tundra Tabloids’ post about the “al-Qaida Seven”, the group of trial lawyers that the Obama administration has elevated to the Justice Department, who have personally represented terrorists at Gitmo, a disgruntled anonymous commentor left the following:
“terrorist lawyers?” Is this what our political discourse has come to? Lawyers and the system have not changed much since John Adams defended–and secured acquittals for–the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre. What makes this nation strong is its principled adherence to the rule of law.
To attack the lawyers in question is rank anti-Americanism, and stupid to boot–what do terrorists fear most? Not the waterboard, definitely not mouse-hearted wingnut manly-warbloggers. They fear the American principles, including full fair representation, trial by jury, the Bill of Rights, and dozens of other key values that Americans have died to protect.
To attack these men and women over their proper participation in Bar-required service to unpopular defendants–which service, by the way, has rendered far more useful intelligence than any torture program through negotiated allocutions and plea deals–to attack them over their honorable and legal service, their capable and effective work–just astonishingly stupid and self-destructive.
By the way, lots of smart conservatives think the video is a grotesque and dangerous political gambit, and the lawyers in question–the two who were ‘outed’ and will no doubt serve as feast food for wingnut vultures such as yourselves–have extremely strong records and strong recommendations from military lawyers.
First of all, the anonymous commentor makes the erroneous assumption that these Gitmo detainees deserve to be afforded with the same rights as American citizens, as if being unlawful combatants, by default, places them on the same moral level as a US citizen charged with wrong doing by US law officials. Wrong.
Regardless of how stupid the claim, lets look at his argumentation, because it helps to illuminate the mindset of these people who fanatically stick up for these terrorists at Gitmo, in spite of the fact that they represent the worst of the worst the US has to deal with in its war on Islamofascism.
1.) He wrongly implies that there’s a connection between, John Adams, the second president of the United States who defended British soldiers in 1770, involved in the incident what has now come to be known as the “Boston Massacre”, with that of lawyers and law firms defending unlawful combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay Cuba.
He couldn’t be more wrong. These anti-American Leftist ACLU affiliated lawyers are seeking to defend these terrorists, even though they know full well, that a US milititary tribunal is more than able to handle their cases, and that their guilt is more than certain. John Adams, by contrast, was defending British soldiers, who could be easily identified by their very bright red coats.
Those soldiers, of which six of the eight were acquitted, were lawfull combatants, not blood thirsty terrorist unlawfull combatants (as understood by the Geneva Conventions) seeking to overthrow American society. Adams was not seeking to confer special rights to these British soldiers, but to help apply the rule of law already afforded to them.
The terrorists at Gitmo however, through the approval of Obama and the Democrats, are being offered something that they are not entitled to, and any such policy like the president and his idiot att-gen is pushing, should be an affront to any law abiding US citizen. They are offering something that they shouldn’t be offering, in order to placate the anti-Bush portion of their party.
 2.) These jihadi terrorists do not fear trial by a civilian jury, because it affords them a platform (in America no less) that they wouldn’t have otherwise if they were tried in Gitmo. Such a move only serves to help them subvert American society as well as giving them a chance to widen their appeal with potential terrorists domestic and abroad.
Waterboarding is an effective way to loosen the burden of the terrorist carrying any sensitive information, in that he is then allowed by Islamic law to spill his story without any worry of being in conflict with Islamic pronciples. Marc Thiessen recalls how the terrorist Zubayday gave up Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the architect of 9/11, saying that:

“brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship.”

In other words, this commentor is trying to push a lot of BS, under some misguided notion that everyone deserves their day in court. His premise rests on false premise that Jihadis at Gitmo ar actually afforded full protection by Geneva Conventions and the US court system, without any prior tampering to the rules. Wrong.

What is happening however, are lawyers and law firms leaping at the chance at making a name for themselves, while helping chip away any anti-terror measures remaining that have been keeping Americans safe until now. Suicidal? No, they believe that America is the evil one, and are racing to prove to the world and to the terrorists that the US isn’t such a bad place after all, so lets all kiss and make up.

It’s a strategy, like the commentor’s post, that full of failed thinking, and it’s going to lead to a lot of Americans being killed. KGS

NOTE: Also, the elevation of trial lawyers from firms that represented Gitmo detainees, to the Justice Department, represents a gross conflict of interests. Just imagine them doing the same with people who represented the tobacco industry to the EPA or something similar.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.