Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 37

Thread: Attorneys Call Anti-Terrorism Efforts a Total Failure

  1. #1

    Attorneys Call Anti-Terrorism Efforts a Total Failure

    [IMG]http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u17/jetdawgg/terrorism-case-poll.png[/IMG]

    [url]http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/the_50_lawyer_poll[/url]

    [QUOTE]If you want to know how well the justice system is combating terrorism, you’ve got to talk to the lawyers involved.

    So we asked 50 defense attorneys who’ve worked on federal terrorism cases since 9/11 their opinions of the legal war on terror. (We also asked 50 prosecutors, but U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Dean Boyd told assistant U.S. attorneys across the country not to participate. He declined to tell us his reason.)[/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    just more proof of how the foiling of the terrorist plot today in Germany was bad news for rat-wingers and lunatic leftists.........

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg][IMG]http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u17/jetdawgg/terrorism-case-poll.png[/IMG]

    [url]http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/the_50_lawyer_poll[/url][/QUOTE]
    These were DEFENSE attornies, who DEFEND the scumbags. Enough said. Even for you this was a dumb grasp at a straw, Dawgg.

  4. #4
    heh ... you know the saying ...

    figures don't lie ... but liars figure.


    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio]These were DEFENSE attornies, who DEFEND the scumbags. Enough said. Even for you this was a dumb grasp at a straw, Dawgg.[/QUOTE]

  5. #5
    They (defense attorneys) are the persons everyone runs too when they are in trouble.

    These attorneys actually defended people in terrorism cases. I would be willing to bet the majority were appointed and were not paid HIGH money.

    In federal court unless the defendant has nothing to lose, meaning looking at a life sentence if he/she pleads guilty, the majority plead guilty because that is their best bet. The Federal Public Defender's Assoc. are some of the best defense attorneys in the country.

    Stick to medicine, you are absolutely clueless when it comes to anything law related.


    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio]These were DEFENSE attornies, who DEFEND the scumbags. Enough said. Even for you this was a dumb grasp at a straw, Dawgg.[/QUOTE]

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    yet obviously you know what you're talking about as you've proven in the past....

    funny you refer to "these attorneys" in your post- nothing in the idiot thread started by dumbdawg states anything about "these" attorney's other than the claim, not backed up, that they were defense attorney's who've worked on terrorism cases...no polling data, no nothing...just nice little colorful graphs with nothing to back it up- like his olbermann is beating o'reilly threads....

    for all we know "these attorneys" could be the like of Lynne Stewart and her partners- then again as a someone who claims to be a success in the field of law enforcement why would [I]you[/I] require some sort of evidence to back up a claim????


    [QUOTE=cr726]They (defense attorneys) are the persons everyone runs too when they are in trouble.

    These attorneys actually defended people in terrorism cases. I would be willing to bet the majority were appointed and were not paid HIGH money.

    In federal court unless the defendant has nothing to lose, meaning looking at a life sentence if he/she pleads guilty, the majority plead guilty because that is their best bet. The Federal Public Defender's Assoc. are some of the best defense attorneys in the country.

    Stick to medicine, you are absolutely clueless when it comes to anything law related.[/QUOTE]

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=cr726]They (defense attorneys) are the persons everyone runs too when they are in trouble.

    These attorneys actually defended people in terrorism cases. I would be willing to bet the majority were appointed and were not paid HIGH money.

    In federal court unless the defendant has nothing to lose, meaning looking at a life sentence if he/she pleads guilty, the majority plead guilty because that is their best bet. The Federal Public Defender's Assoc. are some of the best defense attorneys in the country.

    Stick to medicine, you are absolutely clueless when it comes to anything law related.[/QUOTE]
    What is your point? Mine is that naturally defense attorneys would be more biased to support their clients. There is an inherent bias to their opinions. Would bet the prosecutors would say the opposite, and you would claim they were biased.
    Where did I say anything about the pay or quality of the defense attorneys? All I said is that their clients are scumbags. Guess reading comprehension isn't a strength of yours. Keep on checking for those expired meters.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg][IMG]http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u17/jetdawgg/terrorism-case-poll.png[/IMG]

    [url]http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/the_50_lawyer_poll[/url][/QUOTE]


    :dunno: We haven't had a domestic attack since 9/11, so something must be working.

  9. #9
    The American Bar Association is now a biased news agency?

    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]yet obviously you know what you're talking about as you've proven in the past....

    funny you refer to "these attorneys" in your post- nothing in the idiot thread started by dumbdawg states anything about "these" attorney's other than the claim, not backed up, that they were defense attorney's who've worked on terrorism cases...no polling data, no nothing...just nice little colorful graphs with nothing to back it up- like his olbermann is beating o'reilly threads....

    for all we know "these attorneys" could be the like of Lynne Stewart and her partners- then again as a someone who claims to be a success in the field of law enforcement why would [I]you[/I] require some sort of evidence to back up a claim????[/QUOTE]

  10. #10
    All of their clients are scumbags? I guess none of your colleagues ever needed a defense attorney?

    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio]What is your point? Mine is that naturally defense attorneys would be more biased to support their clients. There is an inherent bias to their opinions. Would bet the prosecutors would say the opposite, and you would claim they were biased.
    Where did I say anything about the pay or quality of the defense attorneys? All I said is that their clients are scumbags. Guess reading comprehension isn't a strength of yours. Keep on checking for those expired meters.[/QUOTE]

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=cr726]All of their clients are scumbags? I guess none of your colleagues ever needed a defense attorney?[/QUOTE]
    None of my colleagues were accused of being terrorists.

  12. #12
    Wasn't the question.


    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio]None of my colleagues were accused of being terrorists.[/QUOTE]

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    memebers of the ilk of lyne stewart certainly are....that's not factoring in ACLU attorney's...

    [QUOTE=cr726]The American Bar Association is now a biased news agency?[/QUOTE]

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]just more proof of how the foiling of the terrorist plot today in Germany was bad news for rat-wingers and lunatic leftists.........[/QUOTE]

    I'm not endorsing the original post.

    But please tell me how German authorities stopping a terror plot on their soil is bad news for anyone?

    It would seem to me to be a perfect example of the importance of international alliances in the war on terror, as well as evidence of how crucial diligent police work is in the war on terror.

    Those are two things most Democrats have said all along.

  15. #15
    It is the ABA Journal, not the ACLU journal. Lynne Stewart is not a part of the conversation. She was convicted of a crime and disbarred, meaning no longer part of the ABA.


    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]memebers of the ilk of lyne stewart certainly are....that's not factoring in ACLU attorney's...[/QUOTE]

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    I realize you're slow but I specifically said "members of the ilk of stewart"....

    and where does it qualify which lawyers were asked other than "So we asked 50 defense attorneys who’ve worked on federal terrorism cases since 9/11 their opinions of the legal war on terror."???????

    [QUOTE=cr726]It is the ABA Journal, not the ACLU journal. Lynne Stewart is not a part of the conversation. She was convicted of a crime and disbarred, meaning no longer part of the ABA.[/QUOTE]

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]I'm not endorsing the original post.

    But please tell me how German authorities stopping a terror plot on their soil is bad news for anyone?

    It would seem to me to be a perfect example of the importance of international alliances in the war on terror, as well as evidence of how crucial diligent police work is in the war on terror.

    Those are two things most Democrats have said all along.[/QUOTE]


    sure.....



    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]Typo.

    It's supposed to read, "two Germans and a Turk, received terrorist training in Iraqistan..."

    Pakistan is our ally. There are no terrorist training camps there. Musharref is good folks.[/QUOTE]


    [QUOTE=cr726]Why would there be terrorism somewhere besides Iraq? I thought we were there so we wouldn't have to fight them here or anywhere else? Crazy.......[/QUOTE]


    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Thats right genius, Germany is abroad. Germany has contributed to the war in Afghanista.And England (also abroad) has been attacked since the Iraq war started. I guess "fighting them there so they dont have to fight them here" does not apply to these two allies,huh??

    The notion of "we are fighting them there so we dont fight them here" is incredibly stupid. Only a simpleton buys into such nonsense. How does fighting "terrorists"in Iraq prevent a band of terrorists from also attacking us in the USA. Please tell me how. I mean it only takes a dozen or so men with boxcutters to attack and kill thousands here. Fighting a war in Iraq is going to prevent this??? Dont make me laugh![/QUOTE]

  18. #18
    IT IS A OPINION POLL BASED ON ATTORNEYS' OPINIONS WHO HAVE WORKED ON TERRORISM CASES. WHAT QUALIFIER DO YOU WANT FOR AN OPINION POLL? IT IS THEIR OPINION.

    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]I realize you're slow but I specifically said "members of the ilk of stewart"....

    and where does it qualify which lawyers were asked other than "So we asked 50 defense attorneys who’ve worked on federal terrorism cases since 9/11 their opinions of the legal war on terror."???????[/QUOTE]

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]sure.....[/QUOTE]

    None of those posts declare that the Germans arresting these goons is bad news.

    Do you have any words of your own to explain why German authorities stopping a terror attack on their soil, using international cooperation and policing tactics, is bad news for Democrats? Or are we still waiting for the talking points to be issued on that one?

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]None of those posts declare that the Germans arresting these goons is bad news.

    Do you have any words of your own to explain why German authorities stopping a terror attack on their soil, using international cooperation and policing tactics, is bad news for Democrats? Or are we still waiting for the talking points to be issued on that one?[/QUOTE]


    don't need "talking points" when you've got the negative reaction and the pu$$y pandering straight from the source as I've just shown...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us