The only conclusions anyone ought to jump on on should be based on facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by mountain mama
Generalizing is equally bad from whichever extreme side it's coming from.
Printable View
The only conclusions anyone ought to jump on on should be based on facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by mountain mama
Generalizing is equally bad from whichever extreme side it's coming from.
Why is it these lunatics never demonstrate their hatred for us by shooting themselves in the head? Now, if a guy were so committed to a cause that he would shoot himself in the head....why, I'd listen to what he has to say.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573547,00.html
Quote:
The Army psychiatrist suspected of killing 13 people at Fort Hood reportedly warned senior Army physicians in 2007 that the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars to avoid "adverse events."
According to The Washington Post, Major Nidal Malik Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic during his senior year as a psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Medical Center.
Instead, Hasan lectured his supervisors and two dozen mental health staff members on Islam, homicide bombings and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting against other Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A source who attended the presentation told the paper, "It was really strange. The senior doctors looked really upset."
The Powerpoint, entitled, "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military," consisted of 50 slides, according to a copy obtained by the Post.
"It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims," Hasan said in the presentation.
Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote: "If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]
The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"
On the final slide, labeled "Recommendation," Hasan wrote: "Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events." ...
We dropped the ball on this one, big time!
Someone needs to take responsibility and some heads need to roll.
I'm not holding my breath though.
That's a load of crap. So Catholics should be allowed to get out if they have to fight other Catholics. No matter the religion, if you enlist in the Military it is your duty to fight PERIOD. Don't like it, oh well you shouldn't have joined.
doug1980, he was enjoying the free lunch until he had to pay for it....he got his medical degree on the Army's nickel.
"Does the Qur'an really contain dozens of verses promoting violence?"Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
"There are just too many Muslims who take the Qur'an literally..."
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Qu...3-violence.htm
Ken,, if you would: Can you describe or explain in general terms why an attorney would accept the opportunity to defend a person like this "alledged" murder? I am not trying to be a wise guy, but I just can not understand the thought process. I do understand (in theory) and accept the fact there is a right to be competently represented in a court of law. But do you / "they" ever just decide "no way" when asked to represent a person accused of a heinous crime?
And I stress that this question is not meant to be disparaging towards lawyers, just an attempt to understand.
Tough question, Pal, but I'll try.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pal334
First, some lawyers are "appointed counsel." Unless they have a conflict of interest (not simply strong feelings about the crime) they MUST take the appointment.
Second, our entire body of laws is based upon the right of the accused to have effective assistance of counsel. Lawyers take an oath to represent clients to the best of their ability, regardless of their personal feelings. (THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE DOCTORS WHO FOUGHT TO SAVE HASAN'S LIFE AFTER HE WAS SHOT, EVEN THOUGH MANY MAY HAVE PRIVATELY WISHED HE HAD BEEN D.O.A.) Lawyers are often maligned for providing heinous defendants with the very protection granted by the Constitution that Americans fight every day to protect.
Third, lawyers often fight for causes that they personally abhor if they believe that their client has a legal right to engage in such behavior. For example, I can recall a Jewish lawyer from the ACLU once representing the Klan over the issue of holding a public demonstration.
Fourth, in SOME instances, we do decline to accept cases. This is easier to do if one is in private practice. Given the nature of my practice, I sometimes require a prospective client to pass a polygraph test before I will undertake representation. Why? Because if I accept the case, I'm required to be a zealous advocate. In my book, that means few if any holds barred. I'll play by the ethical rules, but I'll emotionally destroy the "opposition" if necessary to prove that they are lying. Given the things some of my prospective clients are accused of, I'll decline a case if I believe they are guilty, simply because I don't want to be involved in victimizing a person A SECOND TIME.
And yep, most of my practice is in criminal law. Murder cases, attempted murders, rapes, drug trafficking, violent crimes.........
Amazingly to many folks, a large percentage of my clients are truly innocent of the crimes with which they are charged. There's a hell of a lot of satisfaction when you get a witness to admit he/she has lied and contrived the charges, and you get to see an innocent man or woman return home to family instead of going to jail for life or a few decades.
Finally, it's a lawyers job to ensure a fair prosecution takes place. We are the only one who wll stand by a defendant to try to ensure that prosecutors play fair, that witnesses are truthful and don't embellish their testimony, that evidence is valid and admissable, and that the courts apply the law and the Constitution equally to all cases heard. Win or lose, we have done our jobs properly so long as we have ensured our client a fair trial.
Why? Because everyone is presumed innocent unless (THAT'S "UNLESS", NOT "UNTIL") proven guilty. And that's a presumption that you can't deviate from, especially based upon public opinion, because the next time around, the heinous defendant may really be innocent.
I think that there is another category. There are some attorneys that agree with those that are trying to bring down this country.
... or they could be attention whores, wanting to be involved in a higher profile case, than they would normally be involved in.
Just sayin':innocent:
Oops...didn't see your post crash.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
I'd have to say there is some of that, too.
Kinda hard to say that he didn't kill those people in this instance though. I sure wouldn't want to be his lawyer. Prolly gonna try an insanity plea.
The criminal justice system has to presume he is innocent unless (didn't know it was unless until your post Ken) proven guilty. I am not the criminal justice system. He is a guilty *%^$ (**^& ^%$#####&^ that deserves a fair trial.
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
And true again.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit
Sorry, guys, but I don't think that way, and those categories didn't come to mind. Trust me, with some of the cases I've had over the last 25 years, family dinners were quite lively, since Dad was a police officer for 32 years and I have a brother who's a retired Army M.P. Colonel. :innocent:
Ken - when I wrote that I was thinking of that attorney Ron Kuby.
I always get the judge to instruct "unless" rather than the much more common "until" simply because the word "until" suggests an inevitable finding of guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
I believe that you're 100% correct, Crash.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
Guys like Kuby make it personal. They often take on cases to fight a cause, to make a personal statement so to speak, rather than to merely represent a defendant. I've got a problem with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
Second, our entire body of laws is based upon the right of the accused to have effective assistance of counsel. Lawyers take an oath to represent clients to the best of their ability, regardless of their personal feelings. (THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE DOCTORS WHO FOUGHT TO SAVE HASAN'S LIFE AFTER HE WAS SHOT, EVEN THOUGH MANY MAY HAVE PRIVATELY WISHED HE HAD BEEN D.O.A.) Lawyers are often maligned for providing heinous defendants with the very protection granted by the Constitution that Americans fight every day to protect.
To me, this part of your response makes it clear to me. Americans have that Constitutional protection, that is something not available to all in the world. So although many would wish otherwise in this case, this is not a selective protection, it is applied equaly to all. Now that I think about it, wouldn't it be a great diservice to those that have fought and died for our freedom if we did not protect this and other Constitutional protections? Thanks for the clarification and education.
Well said Pal. I agree. I think he deserves a fair trial before we hang him.
The real crappy part of this is those in the military that were wounded and/or killed will not be eligible for the purple heart.