The defendants in the KSM mass-murder terrorist trial are worried, according to their lawyer, that they will be unable to focus on the defense of their lives if female attorneys for the prosecution keep exposing their knees. Also, the defendants want to be protected from committing a sin if they can't keep their eyes away.Hey, at least the chicks at the prosecutor's table aren't giving them the Sharon Stone treatment. We do observe civilized limits.
One of the defendants had to be carried into the courtroom in a "restraint chair," which puts me in mind of the Elmore Leonard line about federal marshals who assisted a defendant in regaining his composure. Maybe blinkers would assist the composure of the others. But there probably are going to be lots of things about a capital murder trial that will be unavoidably painful.
14 comments:
From the article, "The civilian defense attorney of one of the men accused of plotting the Sept. 11 attacks wore a black hijab and long black robe at the arraignment of the five Guantanamo prisoners Saturday, and she wants other women to dress more modestly."
Theater of the absurd. And while the patience of the presiding Judge this past weekend might not rival Job, his patience certainly deserves an honorable mention.
"Maybe blinkers would assist the composure of the others."
I'll cover the cost of burlap bags with bungee corded openings, if Uncle Sam asks.
"But there probably are going to be lots of things about a capital murder trial that will be unavoidable painful."
Dear G-d, I certainly hope it's painful for the defendants.
...defendants in the KSM mass-murder terrorist trial are worried, according to their lawyer, that they will be unable to focus on the defense....
Maybe it was the stony expressions of the female prosecutors?
Makes me think the women present not associated With the defense should dress as provocatively as a stateside court would allow.
I do a couple of questions for the lawyers present, though. Ignoring the justifiable desire for the head judge to go especially carefully in this apparently first-of-a-type tribunal, my questions are:
1) both defense and prosecution have had three or more years to prepare their cases. Why is it necessary to have the next hearing of this arraignment next month? Why not next week, and move things along?
2) the defendants have chosen of their own intelligent and sane volition not to listen to the translations (with one disingenuous defense lawyer whining with a straight face that the simultaneous translation over the speakers was driving her bonkers) or to answer the judges' questions, or otherwise to participate in the festivities. Why is this grounds for delay? Why not enter the answers most favorable for the defense (e.g., not guilty pleas all around), and move the party along?
Eric Hines
" Also, the defendants want to be protected from committing a sin if they can't keep their eyes away."
The multi-culturalists should take note. They aren't kidding when they say this- they come from a culture and religious background that views their existence as something largely regulated by external forces (Insha'allah culture). It's irreconcilable with ours at some level, and this divide is a good illustration of why you can't really sit around and proclaim all cultures good and say we should be able to live tolerantly of all others beliefs (in our own country/society- they will conflict, and conflict resolution is sometimes a messy business.
It reminds me of how we have the Marines handle their Korans with white gloves, as a concession to their belief that our Marines aren't fit to handle the books.
As far as I'm concerned, this whole trial business is bullshit. There are no facts to find, no laws to enforce, and no difference of opinion between them and us about what has to happen. This is a debt of honor, and that means the trial is a joke. We all know what we're going to do here. When you go through the motions of the law, you're not taking the law seriously. That's a lie. We ought to be honest about what we're doing, and just do what we have to do.
What's happening now is exactly what the Left wanted to happen when it screamed we were denying the detainees their rights "under the Constitution." They *have* no rights under the Constitution, and there is no legal, ethical, or moral reason to bestow those rights on them now. The only right they hold is under Fourth Geneva -- the right to either be held in a cell until all hostilities cease, or the right to plead their case before a military tribunal.
Defense Attorney Bormann is an officer of the federal court, sworn to uphold the Constitution; by introducing the motion that shariah should take precedence over the genuine rights of the US citizens present, she has broken that oath. She should be removed from the proceedings and, at very least, disbarred.
Thirteen hours for an arraignment.
Thirteen hours.
Because the defense insisted that all the charges be read into the record. Followed by all fifteen defense attorneys -- yes, fifteen, because each defendant has two civilian and one military attorney -- introducing themselves and reciting their bona fide's for the record. Then a closing act of interrogating the presiding judge with insulting and irrelevant questions about his qualifications to sit in judgement of the defendants. All the while the defendants themselves did everything they could to disrupt and drag out the proceedings.
Thirteen hours.
Pathetic and ridiculous.
Did she introduce a motion for the women in court to dress more modestly, or did she ask. I couldn't read the link. If she just asked, then I'd give the request all the due consideration that it deserves (i.e. none). And I suspect the "short skirts" being referred to are those worn by military lawyers as part of their uniforms. At least in my day, women could chose the skirt or slacks (unless one was required by the OOD). But if the objection is that a military skirt is too short, then I think the requester should be told to pound sand.
No, she didn't make a formal motion, Mike. She just asked the judge to order those in court to dress more shariah compliant. Which I'm sure the judge gave it due consideration....right after she attempted to discredit him as being unqualified to judge the proceedings.
As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a maroon."
0>;~}
Did she introduce a motion for the women in court to dress more modestly, or did she ask.
"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..."
The hemline of a female Class A uniform skirt rises to the bottom of the kneecap. That said, I can't recall seeing a female in uniform wearing a skirt since '88 -- wearing pants is supposedly "more professional."
IMHO, Grim and Mr. Bill covered the bases when they said,
"There are no facts to find, no laws to enforce, and no difference of opinion between them and us about what has to happen."
"They *have* no rights under the Constitution, and there is no legal, ethical, or moral reason to bestow those rights on them now. The only right they hold is under Fourth Geneva -- the right to either be held in a cell until all hostilities cease, or the right to plead their case before a military tribunal. "
To summarize, "this whole trial business is bullshit."
BTW, and speaking of bullshit, when will the Ft. Hood murderer, Hasan, be tried and executed? Justice delayed...
...just do what we have to do.
I'm not sure that what we have to do is clear. Under ordinary circumstances, a death penalty would be entirely appropriate, but these aren't ordinary circumstances. These five want to be executed, for the sake of their martyrdom. Why should we reward them for their crimes? A life sentence at hard labor might be appropriate.
On the other hand, why should our resources be wasted on maintaining such as these for the rest of their lives? Maybe burning them is appropriate. Quietly, and without publicity.
Eric Hines
A life sentence at hard labor might be appropriate.
I'd vote for a life sentence which served a more useful purpose -- such as being staked to a fire ant mound.
No wasted resources.
Bill, why do you want to give fire ants indigestion? That's cruel and I'm calling PETA on you!
LittleRed1
Eric, we ought to be able to execute them in a way that doesn't martyr them- for instance, their favorite- beheading. I'm sure there are a number of choices available. Unfortunately, we signed Geneva, and now they want to apply that to everyone even if they don't fall under it's purview.
Post a Comment