Here's who Supports the SC Decision regarding Gitmo
By LanceKates Posted in Law — Comments (41) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Here is a story about the recent Supreme Court hearing on Gitmo, deciding that these enemy combatants have, somehow, legal rights under the Constitution.
Noted in the article is this:
A University of Oklahoma law professor representing a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay welcomed Thursday's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. Randall Coyne, who teaches constitutional law and legal aspects of terrorism at OU, declined to identify his client.
Now, given Oklahoma's own issues with Terrorism, both the Oklahoma City Bombing in the 90's and also a recent issue with a student trying to get into a football game at OU with a bomb in his backpack (Thankfully turned away and the little wanna-be terrorist ended up blowing himself up on a bench outside the stadium.)
Who, then, is this Randall Coyne? How could a professor at the University of Oklahoma be trying to defend one of the enemy fighters from Gitmo?
Well, first, he is a Law Professor at OU, specializing in "criminal law, criminal procedure, capital punishment, constitutional law, and legal aspects of terrorism. (And he's defending the terrorist, so I'd love to know what he says about the 'legal aspects of terrorism.' A search of his Course Pages only gives information about the classes on Capital Punishment, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure I. . . . interesting which 'class' is left out of THAT list..)
In the 90's, he co-authored a report as an attempt to halt executions nationwide, and in 2005 continued to work to that end in Oklahoma for the "A.B.A.'s Assessment of the Death Penalty in Oklahoma."
Another book in which he helped write is called "Death Withoust Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States."
In fact, it appears the only form of death he's willing to support is that handed out by the terrorists and enemy combatants in Gitmo, whom he is defending.
He served as trial counsel to the defense team in United States V. Timothy McVeigh. (Yup, he defended the guy that pulled off the OKC Bombing in the 90's.... but feels we shouldn't have a death penalty because death doesn't solve anything.)
This... individual... (To be as nice as possible) is drawing a salary from the University of Oklahoma. To some small degree, I pay to keep this guy around. I want my money back.
I guess, yes, I question the patriotism of people who support terrorists and enemy combatants. That includes this piece of work professor as well.
Not just ANY Aademic Lefty...
This was one of the guys that helped to defend McVeigh.....
and is defending one of the terrorists/enemy combatants at Gitmo (though he refuses to say which one)
And some of my taxes support this guy as he's a prof in my state.
One or more of the 9/11 hijackers spent time at the mosque in Norman Oklahoma.
Nope... no connection.... nope...
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
I'm just saying, I would be very unsurprised to find that all his law school colleagues are right there in lockstep with him, ready and willing to undermine the Constitution, and give America over to both criminals and terrorists.
Unfortunately, some of my tax dollars are being diverted to the same crowd in Austin.
This professor you speak of, the connection you drew, that should beon the WaPo front page. You know, fair and balanced news coverage.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
There are MANY things that the press should cover, but do not.
It doesn't help with their agenda.
Thank God for the Internet, eh?
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
He's a law professor, he knows the law and he's taken a client who by law is required to have an attorney.
Does this make the military defense attornies for other terrorists in Gitmo bad people too? Or is that different because they're required to represent their client and this guy chose to represent his client?
He seems like a camera hound, he cares less about the client and more about the press.
He CHOSE to be part of the team to defend McVeigh, and currently CHOSE to represent one of the terrorists/enemy combatants at Gitmo.
His career is filled with trying to eliminate the death penalty.
I call into question the nature of someone who will choose to defend those who are responsible for great death and destruction, but will rail against the death penalty as punishment for those folks.
Does this make the military defense attornies for other terrorists in Gitmo bad people too? Or is that different because they're required to represent their client and this guy chose to represent his client?
Exactly. He chose, and they are assigned. Frankly, I'm of the mind that as they were enemy combatants/terrorists, there is nothing wrong with just holding on to them until this war is over. They were captured on the field of battle, trying to kill our soldiers via firearm or explosive device..... not arrested after weeks and months of investigation by police.
The purpose for prisoner camps during a time of war like this is not that they are guilty of some civil crime or of a violation of the united states criminal codes.... but that they are trying to kill our soldiers on the field of battle and given the choice between killing them outright so they can't continue to kill us and capturing them and removing them from the battlefield so they can't continue to kill us.... we chose life.
Now the left wants to punish us for that choice so that they can score political points during an election cycle.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Let me clarify my point here. The reason this doesn't seem like a big story is because there are tons of lawyers out there who represent the scum of society that are not court appointed lawyers. For them it's about the press coverage or even the big score.
If this guy gets his client off, he's now able to charge more money for his services. I've come to the conclusion that most lawyers are soulless beings, which is why I always keep one on speed dial.
Also if he ever gets the death penalty outlawed, that's even more money for him, because he can represent the same scum over and over again when they get out of prison and commit the same crime. Like I said, I truly believe this is about money and not about his political agenda
However, is this really news. A lawyer doesn't have character. Sometimes I think we, as humans not just RedStaters, make mountains out of mole hills. This is a non-story. Another lawyer has no character, most normal thinking people would never hire him and if he can get people off, most criminals will hire him. And that's what he's banking on. There's always going to be a ton of scum in this country, and a decent portion of them will have money.
What brought me out of lurking had to do with Boot Camp and training (Also I had to remember my password). It just happened this was the first topic I saw when I came on here.
As for dismissing this, what good is this going to do. We can complain about the "academic left" and saw this guy is scum. This story wouldn't make anyone more likely to vote for a Republican in any campaign. As a matter of fact this post doesn't even mention his political affiliation.
I think we should spend more time talking about actual issues.
Exposing scum like this for their terrorist supporting ways is VERY important.
Remember that many on the left believe it is all a problem invented by President Bush.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
But if that's how you feel, quit defending this freak and just get on talking about actual issues :-)
But a lawyer who makes a career out of trying to get rid of the death penalty, while choosing to defend terrorists.....
I find that very telling that he applauds the Supreme Court Decision and it ought to bring a bit of light for those who support this decision by the Supreme Court.
Kind of a "Are you sure you're on the right team? Look at your teammates..." thing.
I specifically wrote about it as it is very telling of those who would support this decision, those who would support/defend terrorists and those who would rail against the death penalty... and also because this punk collects his paycheck from a college local to me and I help fund his lifestyle so he can run off and do this crap.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
but when it comes to high-profile defendants like Brian Nicholls in Atlanta, whose trials threaten to bankrupt even wealthy jurisdictions like Fulton County, suddenly nobody wants to do their annual pro bono service for the defense.
Well, this guy defended McVeigh... that's pretty high profile in my mind.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
It still bothers me that counties and states have to pay multiple lawyers $300/hour and up for cases like I mentioned.
The lawyer in question has a history of choosing to defend anti-American terrorist, and has a position of power at a state funded school. He is teaching a whole generation based upon his personal interpretation of the Constitution, with the intent of usurping the Constitution itself. All on the taxpayers dime. The fact that you can't see the detrimental side effects of what this man is choosing to do is sad. All citizens should want to protect our Nation, its Constitution and its institutes of so called "Higher Education". If we don't stand up to un-ethical lawyers they will grab as much power as they can until we all fall under their tyrannical rule.
But yeah...it's not news....pffft!!!
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
to be on Obama's short list for District judges.
___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!
The most I will say is this: even the worst scum of the earth, if they make it to a civilian courtroom and see trial, they deserve zealous representation. If these are his issues, if this is what he wants to fight for, then go nuts.
From a pragmatic point of view I can see the appeal of having exclusively lower-tiered lawyers represent those whom we deem unworthy, but fairness demands that some experienced and credentialed lawyers fight for the causes the rest of the profession (and indeed the public at large) won't touch.
Would I do as this man has done? No. While I agree with the SCOTUS decision yesterday, I would not go to great lengths to make a career out of defending members of Al Qaeda, or Tim McVeigh and so on. That being said, even the Nazis at Nuremberg were afforded zealous representation.
While I am not without ethical qualms with the proposition, on balance I have no problem with a lawyer who steps up and does this sort of work if that's what he believes. There emphatically are intellectually honest reasons to oppose the use of the death penalty generally. I personally do not oppose it, but I'm not blind to the arguments against it.
The most I will say is this: even the worst scum of the earth, if they make it to a civilian courtroom and see trial, they deserve zealous representation.
Oh, yes, Legal Citizens and Legal Immigrants do have a right to a trial, though this man is rooting for enemy combatants and terrorists to be given the same rights under the Constitution, and he is volunteering to defend them, just as he defended another terrorist a decade or so ago.
That being said, even the Nazis at Nuremberg were afforded zealous representation.
I wasn't aware that the Nazis at Nurenberg were granted rights under the United States Constitution to a trial, nor did they receive defense from lawyers who made a career out of fighting the death penalty because 'death isn't the answer' while defending people who deal out death to innocents.
While I am not without ethical qualms with the proposition, on balance I have no problem with a lawyer who steps up and does this sort of work if that's what he believes.
Oh, I do not think less of him for going and doing things he believes in. I think less of him for the things he believes in.
I also think less of OU for having this man on staff and towards my home state of Oklahoma for letting my tax dollars go to his paycheck.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
The topic of this thread is 'who supports the SCOTUS ruling', it is NOT about the example given.
Let us add to the list:
Al Quaeda
Hamas
Hizbullah
Dhimmi Western Europe
China
Syria
North Korea
Jimmah Carter
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Heh.
Jimmy Carter...
A man with a spine so big that he was able to almost singlehandedly fight off a swimming rabbit.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
I have to echo some of the reservations.
There are a lot of intertwined things here.
1. He's defending scum.
2. He's a law professor at OU.
3. He may be (do not know, no proof) teaching OU law students some twisted, perverse, non-traditional interpretation of the law.
As to #1... that's sort of what lawyers do. Each attorney has his/her own standards for what sorts of accused he/she wants to defend. But some folks are into defending the indefensible, whether for $$ or for media exposure, or whatever. I don't think that makes him a great guy, but neither does it make him an unpatriotic scumbag.
As to #2... that's separate and separable from his work on criminal defense cases. In other words, if he were just a lawyer in private practice, does that somehow change our views on defending McVeigh or irhabis or whatever? I don't think so. Whether OU should employ this man to be a professor is a question for OU. As much as I oppose lefty academics, I don't believe that ideology is a good basis for firing someone. Bad scholarship is, but I see no evidence to suggest he's a phony or a terrible scholar.
Yes, you do pay to keep that guy around. Is that something you can take up with OU or your governor or whatever? Sure. Is it likely to succeed? Probably not.
I'm no fan of the way academic institutions are set up -- see Thomas Sowell's work on exposing the amazing hypocrisy of academics -- but I'd say save your outrage in this case for situations where it can make a real difference.
As to #3... again, I see no evidence that he's doing a particularly bad job teaching his students. If he's teaching that the Constitution actually says the Supreme Court has the power to declare war, then that makes him a phony, and he should be fired for that. But it doesn't follow that simply because a man is a leftist, that he doesn't teach the law fairly as he honestly understands it.
Again, not saying you oughta congratulate him and invite him over for Sunday dinner... just thinking this sort of minor BS is immaterial in the grand scope of things.
-TS
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan
But the pattern should at least make you question his motives.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
As to #1... that's sort of what lawyers do. Each attorney has his/her own standards for what sorts of accused he/she wants to defend. But some folks are into defending the indefensible, whether for $$ or for media exposure, or whatever. I don't think that makes him a great guy, but neither does it make him an unpatriotic scumbag.
His career has been in fighting the death penalty and defending terrorists. Yes, that makes him an unpatriotic scumbag.
As to #2... that's separate and separable from his work on criminal defense cases. In other words, if he were just a lawyer in private practice, does that somehow change our views on defending McVeigh or irhabis or whatever? I don't think so. Whether OU should employ this man to be a professor is a question for OU. As much as I oppose lefty academics, I don't believe that ideology is a good basis for firing someone. Bad scholarship is, but I see no evidence to suggest he's a phony or a terrible scholar.
The unpatriotic scumbag is a professor teaching young minds about constitutional law and the 'legal aspects of terrorism.' . . . Keep in mind, he does not beleive that the government has the right to exercise the death penalty and that terrorists/enemy combatants who are not american citizens or legal residents ought to have the protection of the Constitution. Did I mention that he teaches Constitutional Law and believes that noncitizens ought to have Constitutional legal protection reserved for citizens and legal residents?
As to #3... again, I see no evidence that he's doing a particularly bad job teaching his students. If he's teaching that the Constitution actually says the Supreme Court has the power to declare war, then that makes him a phony, and he should be fired for that. But it doesn't follow that simply because a man is a leftist, that he doesn't teach the law fairly as he honestly understands it.
He believes, and cheered the SCOTUS for deciding, that enemy combatants/terrorists who are not citizens or legal residents ought to be extended the legal protection of the Constitution... Did I note that he's a professor of Constitutional Law? Yes, I'd say off hand that if he believes that... then what he is teaching is wrong.
Again, not saying you oughta congratulate him and invite him over for Sunday dinner... just thinking this sort of minor BS is immaterial in the grand scope of things.
Pile up enough 'minor BS' and you end up with a huge pile. At what point do YOU start paying attention to it?
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Are you calling everyone who is against the death penalty un-American?
Now also found at The Minority Report
Nope, just misguided.
I do suggest that everyone against the death penalty who actively seeks to get Constitutional protection for enemy combatants/terrorists is an unpatriotic scumbag....
here's why:
They'll defend the terrorist/enemy combatant, who is killing innocents, but attack a government for executing mass murderers.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
moral grounds are misguided?
Keep painting with that broad brush.
Now also found at The Minority Report
The death penalty (be it via punishment for mass murder or via self-defense in my home/on the streets) is vital for the protection of the innocent as well as a deterrant from crime (The reason why governmental 'death penalty' doesn't deter crime is because it may take a decade or two to get around to the execution, so there is no fear)
However, in states where someone is easily able to obtain a concealed carry permit, where they can defend themselves even if it means death to the attacker, crime drops.
Fear of death is a GREAT protection for the innocent.
If there is no fear of retrobution (and no, going to prison is not a fear-inspiring thing for a mass murderer), then the criminal has no problem committing crimes.
I don't support the death penalty because I like killing people. I support the death penalty (and the idea of self-defense) because I value innocent life... the innocent lives taken by the murderers, my own innocent life being protected against a mugger/killer, and the innocent lives that are saved from harm by criminals who were either executed or chose not to victimize someone out of fear of being executed.
Now, I don't support the death penalty in murder cases for random acts of passion like a guy coming home and finding his wife sleeping with another man....
but for cases of mass murder... murder of children (like what recently happened in Oklahoma, where two little girls were executed by some people simply because they were walking along a country road one day)... yes, those lives are more precious than that of the murderer.
The question I often pose to those who oppose the death penalty is this:
Why is it that you're more concerned about the life of the criminal than that of the victims and future victims?
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
that believe that killing is wrong, even as a punishment or a deterrent for a crime.
Now also found at The Minority Report
There is a large difference between killing and murder. Please don't confuse the two.
Also note that while a part of the death penalty is for punishment for crime, much of it is to deter crime and save future victims from becoming statistics.
Yes, the Death Penalty isn't serving as a great way to deter violent crime, but most of that is due to anti-death penalty folks gumming up the system so that people end up on death row for decades, many dying while waiting to be executed.
On a private level, we each have a right to defend ourselves to the point of killing an attacker. Do you also believe that this is wrong as well?
If so, I would love to know why you feel the life of the attacker is worth more than the victim.
If not, how do you separate the killing of an attacker for the safety of an individual from the killing of a duly judged convict foe the safety of the public as a whole? (The Public, of course, being made up of individuals)
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Shocked, shocked I say!
If I didn't know already where I come down on the Great SC PowerGrab of 2008, then just knowing where left-wing academian cornflakes stood -- I'd know that the right thing for America is just the opposite of where they stand.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO