Guantanamo Defense Lawyers Fired by Pentagon

[Witling]

"A team of military lawyers recruited to defend alleged terrorists held by the US at Guantanamo Bay was dismissed by the Pentagon after some of its members rebelled against the unfair way the trials have been designed, the Guardian has learned.

And some members of the new legal defence team remain deeply unhappy with the trials - known as "military commissions" - believing them to be slanted towards the prosecution and an affront to modern US military justice."

Guardian Article

And, believe me, it's got to be pretty aggregious for a military lawyer to buck the system enough to get "fired" by the military.

 

[Zebo]

They want to run a kangaroo court over there. For a military man to risk his career to complain about a bunch of suspected terrorists? as you say the treament and process must be seriously egregous for them to buck the system. We have a member here whos a JAG..be nice if he'd shed some light.

 

[LunarRay]

An attorney by definition is a member of the bar. After having taken the following oath:

"... to support the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the State of California, and faithfully to
discharge the duties of any attorney at law to the best of his
knowledge and ability. A certificate of the oath shall be
indorsed upon his license."

"... Yes, there is a license required by the California Business and
Professions Code. Because of the separation of powers
doctrine it is not enforceable against anyone in the judicial
branch. Licenses are issued and managed by the executive branch."

An attorney's job is to do anything and everything within the law to defend his client. He must do this notwithstanding any other oath he may take. An attorney is defacto part of the judicial (in my opinion) even when he serves in the military as part of the Judge Advocate General Corps.

The accused (again in my opinion) can select whomever he pleases (assume qualified to practice law) to represent him in any court or tribunal of law.

For this 'firing' to occur is simply outrageous!!!!

In my opinion!

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Zebo
They want to run a kangaroo court over there. For a military man to risk his career to complain about a bunch of suspected terrorists? as you say the treament and process must be seriously egregous for them to buck the system. We have a member here whos a JAG..be nice if he'd shed some light.

And correct this peasant if I'm wrong..

I guess one caveat to my last post would be if they were not members of any BAR... if that is possible.. which I don't think is..

 

[Moonbeam]

It would be bad for a Bush reelection if an innocent verdict was found. Guilt by political expediency is Republican justice.

 

[chess9]

This is the kind of America Ashcroft and Rumsfeld have given us. We should be so ashamed that we cannot lift our eyes above our waists. This is the lowest moment in U.S. history since the internment of the Japanese in WWII.

Any President who can countenance this kind of behavior needs to be replaced.

Kudos to the military lawyers who balked. Obviously, all lawyers are not snakes.

-Robert

 

[Witling]

Moony, one slight correction. The plea or verdict is "not guilty," which is different from "innocent." I hear, but do not know for a fact, that in Scotland the verdict is "not proven." Yes, politically there's no way we can not convict some of these people. But we're starting to cut the complete mistakes out of the bunch and release them. 100 or so to go this month. Gee, only 18 months later.

 

[kaizersose]

you dont have to pass the bar to practice military law, only civilian.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: kaizersose
you dont have to pass the bar to practice military law, only civilian.

You have to graduate from law school however.

That seems pretty screwed up however, I don't see how any sort of justice is going to occur under those conditions.

 

[rjain]

Sounds like the NYSE scandal all over again. Yet another case where the foxes are guarding the chicken coop.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: kaizersose
you dont have to pass the bar to practice military law, only civilian.

I think you be a bit mistaken.. but may be somewhat correct.. that is; you can stop and have a beer after being admitted to practice before the bar of the federal, Highest state court or district of columbia..


"To be awarded a commission in the Judge Advocates General?s (JAG) Corps, an applicant must meet all the usual qualifications for an Army commission. These include standards for mental and physical fitness, moral character, security clearance and citizenship. In addition, an applicant must have graduated from an ABA-approved law school and must have been admitted to the bar of either a federal court or the highest court of any state in the United States or the District of Columbia. An applicant must be 34 years of age or younger at the time he or she is commissioned in the Corps. Law students may submit an application in the fall of their final year of law school. The ROTC officers on educational delay for law school must submit application prior to November of their final year of law school.

Each application is submitted to a board of officers appointed by the Judge Advocate General. The criteria for selection include scholastic record, character, extracurricular activities, leadership ability, and both legal and nonlegal work experience. Each applicant must be interviewed by an active duty JAG Corps officer who has been designated as a field screening officer. The best qualified applicants are selected to fill projected vacancies.

A three-year tour of duty is required of all applicants who are selected for and accept a direct commission in the Corps. Officers may apply to a career force selection board to remain on active duty in the Corps more than three years.

JAG Corps representatives visit most ABA-accredited law schools in the fall and spring of each year."



Go Army... Go Go Navy!

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Moony, one slight correction. The plea or verdict is "not guilty," which is different from "innocent." I hear, but do not know for a fact, that in Scotland the verdict is "not proven." Yes, politically there's no way we can not convict some of these people. But we're starting to cut the complete mistakes out of the bunch and release them. 100 or so to go this month. Gee, only 18 months later.

Yes, that is under the innocent till proven guilty concept... However, the elimination of normal civil rights for the Gitmo Bay folks is accomodated by the presumption of guilt, I'd think.. How else can one justify holding a human against his will 'for as long as it takes' (based on the American way of life) under a presumption of innocent.. thus, I'd suggest the board (or finders of fact) pronounce the verdict in Latin and state: The board agrees with the allegations or if they don't then state: These men are innocent!

 

[rjain]

I'm pretty sure that under military law, you are guilty until proven innocent. That's the way a military has to work, I guess.

 

[Spencer278]

When are they even bothering with the kangroo court they should just hold them for ever. We all know the court will be a joke and even if they are found guilty of the crimes people will just assume the finds where rigged anyways. I do find it rather funny that we have to keep our politcal presoners in Cuba.