Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (554097)	3/9/2010 10:40:55 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574809

It seems to me that this is exactly Liz Cheney’s point. These are lawyers who represented avowed enemies of the United States – for free – because they thought it made them look good. If you don’t share that view, she’s saying, maybe you don’t share their other views about how the justice system should handle terrorism cases. That's Liz Cheney's opinion and only an opinion. Its clear that her father's anger and hate is morphing into her. Very sad. But put that aside. I don’t doubt that many of the pro bono lawyers for the detainees saw themselves in exactly that light — they intended to vindicate principles they valued, and not to give comfort to the defendants. We can still learn a lot about a lawyer who takes a case on that basis. Almost by definition, issues that split the Supreme Court can be argued either way. But these lawyers felt so strongly about these arguable principles that they sacrificed paying work and instead went to work without charge for people they loathed – just to turn their principles into law. Doesn’t this tell us something about the strength and content of their principles? And isn’t it fair for Liz Cheney to ask whether the rest of the country shares those principles? Its sad how you all construct these flimsy arguments in order to justify turning on your fellow Americans. Does it make you all feel good?