Outrage: Women Prosecutors at Gitmo Dare to Bare Their Ankles to Terrorist on Trial
In an article about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s complaints that his tribunal is unjust, I saw a nugget I found interesting. Namely, one of the defendants’ lawyers is complaining that the women on the prosecution team aren’t dressing according to his standards:
[Army Brig. Gen. Mark] Martins [the chief prosecutor] also defended women on his prosecution team who he said were dressed appropriately at the arraignment Saturday. He was responding to complaints from Cheryl Bormann, a Chicago defense attorney for Walid bin Attash who wore a long black abaya to court.
On Sunday, she said her client was offended by women who did not dress in conservative Islamic attire, feeling that it caused him to sin. “It is distracting to him to see a woman who has anything bare other than her face,” she said.
She added that she had met with her client a dozen times and always dressed respectfully. “He is that conservative,” she said.
Well, sure. I’m quite sure he’s also “conservative” enough that he disapproves of the women being lawyers to begin with. Better that they cover themselves from head to toe and remain uneducated.
And as for this business of the government trying to give him the death penalty? An outrage! Why, the death penalty should be reserved for women who are raped! It is culturally insensitive to suggest otherwise!
Walid bin Attash and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed can go to hell.
The sooner the better.
Paging Erin Brockovich . . .
Icy (62ec4f) — 5/7/2012 @ 1:27 amIt’s a shame this isn’t happening during the Bush administration. Then Cheryl Borman would have gotten a million US journalists (led by Andrew Sullivan) to agree with her.
Back then, female interrogators, dogs, and fake menstrual blood were denounced as prisoner abuse.
Now…I’m not sure she’s going to find an audience for her complaint. It’s too close to the election to try to make Obama look abusive for simply treating Muslim detainees like other detainees.
MayBee (8a2e4d) — 5/7/2012 @ 1:44 amIt’s a shame we are going to waste so much time and effort on these clowns. They are going to drag this out and make a mockery of the trial.
Jack Rackim (25fb9e) — 5/7/2012 @ 2:59 amI say why waste all of this time and money,just put them to death now.
With appeals and delays it may be 20 years before they get the death sentence they so richly deserve. Sadly many of the relatives of 9-11 victims will have passed on before them.
vor2 (6c8528) — 5/7/2012 @ 4:53 amDepressing….
These women are dressing conservatively already, and they are doing it to show respect and sensitivity to the defendant’s religion – not because they have to. They are not Muslim.
This is one thing that needs to be communicated to these people – the difference between being voluntarily respectful toward their beliefs, and being obliged to them. Seems to me that their confusion increases in proportion with our fear of causing offense.
On another note, it never ceases to amaze me how weak Muslim men are. The sight of a woman’s ankle presents them with a temptation they do not believe they can withstand. Poor, helpless dears, they just can’t help it. They must always be protected from women.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 5/7/2012 @ 5:41 amIs this what passes for critical thinking now in the criminal defense bar–that prosecutors have to dress to suit the defendant? What if he demands a burqua? What if the defendant belongs to some kind of religious sect that worships nature and advocates nudity? Did Ms. Borman really pass the bar, or is she just playing at being a lawyer?
rochf (f3fbb0) — 5/7/2012 @ 5:45 amAs the acting out and idiocy of the defendants (and their lawyers) at this tribunal is publicized, the stupider Eric Holder looks for ever wanting the trial to be held in a Manhattan Federal Courtroom to “demonstrate to the world the American justice system”.
elissa (93bf0f) — 5/7/2012 @ 5:49 amOn another note, it never ceases to amaze me how weak Muslim men are. The sight of a woman’s ankle presents them with a temptation they do not believe they can withstand. Poor, helpless dears, they just can’t help it. They must always be protected from women.
Comment by Amphipolis — 5/7/2012 @ 5:41 am
A few days ago read this fascinating study of Muslims who are criminals, and the theory that Muslim culture in general sees many things as out of one’s control which affects reactions to outside stimuli. (Here’s the study — search the document for the phrase “locus of control” for the most interesting part.)
At least among criminals, it does seem to explain why they seem to think that a scantily clad woman, for example, or someone who is angry at them, takes away their control over themselves.
no one you know (325a59) — 5/7/2012 @ 5:55 amThe patriotic thing to do is for all women attending the trial to go guerrilla and wear short skirts.
Paul (db0515) — 5/7/2012 @ 5:57 amOne reason I would make a lousy politician; If I were involved in the prosecution, the day after I received this complaint the women on my team would be encouraged to wear thong bikinis while working.
C. S. P. Schofield (df34af) — 5/7/2012 @ 6:26 amI wonder if Ms. Bormann is so deferential to the other men in her life, say a husband, boyfriend or opposing counsel when her behavior does not meet their “conservative” expectations? Something tells me that given her career choice as a trial attorney (and chances are as a proud feminist) that she is not in the least concerned with their beliefs and quite possibly holds them in contempt. So how in good conscious can she defend this guy while submitting herself to his patriarchal demands? I would love to hear her twisted logic, but then again as a trial attorney and feminist, twisted logic is par for the course.
Ipso Fatso (7434b9) — 5/7/2012 @ 6:26 amFTFY
Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b) — 5/7/2012 @ 7:02 am“Look what you made me do” is the argument of a child.
Why does no one ever tell these creeps to man up, get some self-restraint and check themselves.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/7/2012 @ 7:13 amIf a Christian were to complain to a record label or a tv network or movie studio that the record, or programming, or film they’ve produced reveals “too much skin,” or “bad language,” the Christian would be mocked endlessly. That has happened so often, that I don’t need to cite specific examples.
But if a Muslim complains about an ankle, the liberals all start hyperventillating about how they can best appease the offended party.
Back in the 1980s when Tipper Gore and others were facillitating the labeling of records/cds that contained offensive language, the liberals all went ballistic, saving their sharpest knives for “prude” Christians who “want a theocracy.”
Of course, in reality, nothing was being censored by the government, rather, the music industry volunteered (along with retailers) to do the labeling as a way of helping prevent grandmothers from unknowingly purchasing records that might contain too much adult language or thematic element for an eight year old child to receive as a birthday present.
In retrospect, perhaps instead of Tipper Gore being the public persona, they should have recruitied a Muslim Imam to do the complaining about “offensive” material.
After all, a few years ago, we all saw how much courage the newspaper editors had when it came time to decide whether or not to publish “the Mohammed political cartoons.”
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/7/2012 @ 7:32 amBut would he do the prosecutor if she were dead less than six hours?
Ed from SFV (a7215d) — 5/7/2012 @ 7:35 amThe best thing about this? We don’t even need the “if a Christian did this” comparison for this one.
This is America. Your request is duly noted, roundly mocked, and of course, denied. Go piss up a rope and hang yourself.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/7/2012 @ 7:43 amI’m offended by the sight of an Islamic terrorist who doesn’t have a bullet hole between his eyes. Who do I file that grievance with, an attorney or a Marine?
CrustyB (69f730) — 5/7/2012 @ 7:50 amThis is a serious question because I don’t know the answer and this morning I don’t have the ability to research it:
In the event these defendants receive the death penalty for their murderous crimes what form will it take? That is, how/in what manner will they be put to death?
elissa (93bf0f) — 5/7/2012 @ 7:55 am#18
Old age, I suspect.
Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b) — 5/7/2012 @ 7:58 amNot sure, but Janet Reno in a thong would do it for me.
Ipso Fatso (7434b9) — 5/7/2012 @ 7:58 am“…should go to hell.”
Put them in a tall building about to be demolished by explosives. Let them enjoy martyrdom as they are crushed to powder.
GM Roper (a0b04a) — 5/7/2012 @ 8:05 am@elissa: Likely by hanging… possibly by firing squad but that would be treating them like Prisoners of war which they are not, they are common criminals. Dastardly common criminals to be sure, but common criminals none-the-less.
GM Roper (a0b04a) — 5/7/2012 @ 8:07 amwhat a sick waste of time and money and what’s sadder is how closely this whole sad affair resembles those farcical United Nations trials in the Hague for the murderous Bosnian weewacks what are expected to last til 2014
America is supposed to be better than this
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/7/2012 @ 8:25 amIslamophobes!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2012 @ 8:37 amSadly for Cheryl Borman, Islam only counts her objection as half a complaint.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 5/7/2012 @ 8:39 amActually, the proper method is to give them a choice: take them to the top of the Burj Khalifa and turn on a flame-thrower. They can burn, or they can jump. If they hesitate, they can do both.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 5/7/2012 @ 8:41 amUh C.S.P. Schofield in post #10—I don’t think you really want to see yer average 40 year old female attorney in a thong bikini. Some “cures” are worse than the problem. I’m not saying that some wouldn’t look good–but a blanket order to your female staff to “uniform up” might produce some outliers that are best seen only in a burka. (And I’m a Methodist!)
Comanche Voter (dc4fc0) — 5/7/2012 @ 8:51 amCriminal Justice intern at the Cook County State’s Attorney, 1978. The ladies in the office would wear suits, but skirt suits not pants, to court. Some above the knee skirts. They were professionals, they were women. It was not office policy, it was their policy.
That stuck with me for some reason. I was offended about six months ago when I saw a lady lawyer come to court in essentially a running suit and (I swear) white sneakers.
nk (875f57) — 5/7/2012 @ 8:56 amThe main problem with the Gitmo tribunals is that a group of left-wing attorneys, funded by Democratic partisan law firms, decided during the Bush admin to spare no expense in attempting to disrupt the entire process.
Not defend their clients’ rights, not present good defenses for their clients as I would support but to disrupt the process for political reasons.
This is just more of that nonsense.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/7/2012 @ 8:59 amI’m offended that the Muslims are offended.
…and why are they staring at women’s ankles ?
Perverts.
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/7/2012 @ 9:03 am“…and why are they staring at women’s ankles ?”
Elephant Stone – Dude, get real, it’s because their bewbs are covered up.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2012 @ 9:08 amI’m positive that all of this cultural insensitivity could be settled if they just unlimbered Rule-7.62!
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/7/2012 @ 9:25 amThey got bewbs? Allahu Ackbar! (*)
(*) – which means: God! Its a trap!
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/7/2012 @ 9:29 amAloha Snackbar to you too.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2012 @ 9:32 amNot defend their clients’ rights, not present good defenses for their clients as I would support but to disrupt the process for political reasons.
In the immortal words of Arnold in “Red Heat”:
Kill them first!
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/7/2012 @ 9:32 amGreetings:
Call me when Ms. Bormann signs up for the female genital mutilation option. I want to be there for that.
11B40 (614db2) — 5/7/2012 @ 9:53 amDaleyrocks,
Well, if AG Eric Holder and a couple of his Deputy AGs ever visit the courtroom during any of the trial proceedings, we can definitely say there are some “bewbs” being exposed !
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/7/2012 @ 10:01 amDear Patrick Frey,
The federal government requires religious accommodation in the workplace and even for incarcerated individuals (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000). I am not a lawyer, but I am curious about why it is not reasonable to accommodate the request of the plaintiffs in this case for the female prosecutor to cover herself. Why is this accommodation different and/or unreasonable in a system that otherwise mandates accomodation?
What a great blog! Thank you.
Yours truly,
ThOR
ThOR (94646f) — 5/7/2012 @ 10:36 amComment by ThOR — 5/7/2012 @ 10:36 am
Is this the same Thor?
nk (875f57) — 5/7/2012 @ 10:41 amElephant Stone – I think we can also say with some certainty that the defendant considers his counsel an infidel whore no matter what she is wearing, so she’s got that going for her, which is nice.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2012 @ 10:46 amDid any of them have a problem when they lived in European and (in the case of Khalid Sheik Mohammed) American cities? (Khalid Sheik Mohammed went to college in North Carolina and speaks fluent English.) Did any of them have a problem in big cities in Pakistan big cities in Pakistan? If so, they could have gone and lived in small villages.
The female prosecutors are in business dress. This is a phony issue, and false piety..it’s just designed to tangle up the court in contradictions.
Sammy Finkelman (0dadb5) — 5/7/2012 @ 10:51 am“The federal government requires religious accommodation in the workplace and even for incarcerated individuals (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000).”
Thor – Your suggested accommodation of the defendants is to impose a dress code on the entire court room? What other “accommodation” requests do you believe will follow if that one is acceded to?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2012 @ 10:51 amThe Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), Pub.L. 106-274, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., is a United States federal law that prohibits the imposition of burdens on the ability of prisoners to worship as they please, as well as giving churches and other religious institutions a way to avoid burdensome zoning law restrictions on their property use.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2012 @ 10:54 amDear nk,
The world plays by screwy rules, especially the legal profession. I was just trying to pose a value-neutral legal question about what appears to me to be a slippery slope, as wells as one of many aspects of the law that I find totally idiotic. I didn’t comment on the idiotic part because I figured that is an area in which we are all in complete agreement.
Better?
Yours truly,
ThOR
ThOR (94646f) — 5/7/2012 @ 11:01 amWell no, ThOR, if you are the same ThOR who made trouble for Karl at Jeff’s site, I would prefer not to engage you.
nk (875f57) — 5/7/2012 @ 11:04 amDear nk,
The only “trouble” I have made for Karl has been at this site, when I disagreed with his comments on Newt.
I don’t know what Jeff’s site is. It is news to me that Karl blogs elsewhere. That must be another ThOR.
Yours truly,
ThOR
ThOR (94646f) — 5/7/2012 @ 11:12 amWell, then, your question was answered by daleyrocks at Comment #43.
nk (875f57) — 5/7/2012 @ 11:16 amI’ve always been religious about my desire for lower taxes and limited government. In fact, I pray for it every day !
I’m offended when other people do not adhere to that same religious belief.
Why won’t the ACLU return my phone calls regarding this issue ?
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/7/2012 @ 11:25 amI’ll just repeat the advice my father gave me concerning hula girls: just keep your eyes on their hands.
Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b) — 5/7/2012 @ 11:30 amIf the defendants want to wear hijab as a “religious accommodation”, I would expect that might be considered… 🙂
Sue (6623c5) — 5/7/2012 @ 11:40 amThis would be a fun topic for a Sockpuppet Friday thread…
“1/32nd of me is offended !”—Elizabeth Warren
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/7/2012 @ 11:43 am“1/32nd of me is offended !”—Elizabeth Warren
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2012 @ 11:57 amSiouxishCherokee American PrincessThe presiding judge needs to establish control over his courtroom, but the grip of political correctness is, I’m sure, being imposed from the Commander in Chief on down, so I don’t look for that to happen. The deference to the defendants’ sensibilities and the tolerance for their shenanigans that I’ve seen reported so far ought not be permitted even in a civilian courtroom, and certainly ought not be permitted in a military commission trial. But the fact is that our Commander in Chief is ashamed of being American, and he’s imposing that down the line.
Beldar (2a462a) — 5/7/2012 @ 12:04 pmBack in the day Western countries knew how to handle barbaric customs. Genl Sir Charles Napier, when confronted with suttee (sati) was quoted:
“This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”
Theodore (827167) — 5/7/2012 @ 12:07 pmhttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/06/no-credible-evidence-for-warrens-claim-to-native-american-ancestry
“1/64th of me is offended! Well, maybe, uh, umm…” – Elizabeth Warren
Sue (6623c5) — 5/7/2012 @ 12:07 pmUh, you people do realize that religious accommodation only requires the government to permit you to practice your religion on yourself, not to force others to follow your religion?
max (131bc0) — 5/7/2012 @ 12:15 pmShow trial, Beldar. And it did not start with Holder. How did we get there, a theater?
nk (875f57) — 5/7/2012 @ 12:16 pmI hate to feed an obvious troll, but in case anyone else is wondering: I am a lawyer, and in my legal opinion after even a cursory review, it is 100% clear that the federal statute cited by the troll above cannot possibly, or even arguably, apply to these military commission trials. To begin with, the detention facilities at Guantanamo are not “institutions” as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1997, which include only institutions “owned, operated, or managed by, or provid[ing] services on behalf of any State or political subdivision of a State.”
And only a fool, or an enemy of the United States, could argue with a straight face that a prosecutor’s hem length imposes a “substantial burden on the religious exercise” of the defendants. By contrast, it is overwhelmingly obvious that preservation of decorum and order during these trials is “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.”
Anyone smart enough to find this statute and construct this argument is also smart enough to know how stupid and invalid it is.
Any lawyer making the kind of argument the troll made above would be sanctioned for bad faith; trolls, however, don’t need law licenses, and bad faith is what they’re all about. They’re not quite the same scum as terrorists, but ethically, they’re in the same ballpark. Were this troll to be commenting at my blog, I’d ban his IP address in the proverbial New York minute.
Beldar (2a462a) — 5/7/2012 @ 12:19 pmI think the most important thing right now is that the defendants know that Rosie O’Donnell supports their constitutional rights and that they should not abandon hope.
Terrorists, America’s nutjobs have your backs!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2012 @ 12:24 pmThat right there is the crux.
Submit to their views, views which often are incredibly intolerant and sexist and otherwise just plain wrong, or else you are guilty of some Orwellian oppression.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/7/2012 @ 12:24 pmThOR ith thILLY!
Icy (62ec4f) — 5/7/2012 @ 12:29 pmI would just ask these members of AQ, in the observance of my religious requirements, would they prefer I use a “center hold”, or a “6-o’clock hold”?
Just trying to be accommodating.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/7/2012 @ 12:30 pmAD-RtR/OS,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t your religion require you to practice “the center hold” five times a day !?
I’m sure that the members of AQ will understand !
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/7/2012 @ 12:37 pmI think the most important thing right now is that the defendants know that Rosie O’Donnell supports their constitutional rights
— Now THERE is someone that should, out of respect for the defendant’s beliefs, wear an abaya . . . AND a niqāb.
Icy (62ec4f) — 5/7/2012 @ 12:37 pm25-rds per session, five-sessions per day (good thing I got that Kimber conversion for my 1911).
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/7/2012 @ 12:43 pmI also predict that when and if convicted (as I still think very likely), during their appeals, these same defendants will doubtless argue that the chaos and lack of order during their trials is a basis for overturning those convictions: “How could my client get a fair trial when interpreters were talking at the same time as the judge, lawyers, and witnesses? How could my client have gotten a fair trial when he was obviously busy praying on his knees, rather than paying attention and cooperating with his defense, and the judge was permitting that?”
Those arguments will be rejected, however, and instead, the defendants’ continuous impeding of the judicial process should be considered, and appropriately so, as aggravating factors justifying more severe sentences and/or conditions of continued confinement.
Beldar (2a462a) — 5/7/2012 @ 12:43 pmBeldar for Attorney General.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/7/2012 @ 12:45 pmThey should receive the same consideration as their fellow believers extended to the members of that supply convey in Fallujah.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/7/2012 @ 12:46 pmFair is Fair!
You know, if these members of AQ were to end up like the Blind Shiekh (literally), they would no longer be subjected to the exposed ankles of these women in the courtroom. Hey, I’m just laying potential options on the table.
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/7/2012 @ 1:04 pmIt is at times like this I have to ask myself: WWHD*?
*What would Hulk Do?
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 5/7/2012 @ 1:35 pmMaybe the judge should be a woman, and wear a two piece, black of course?
Alex (c76e4d) — 5/7/2012 @ 2:07 pmCulturally insensitive tools of Teh Patriarchy, you all are.
JD (d4dd44) — 5/7/2012 @ 2:09 pmIronically, today,
A woman dressed in a black burka was removed during President Obama’s inaugural re-election campaign stop at Virginia Commonwealth University Saturday.
According to a White House pool report, photographers observed the woman being escorted out of the gym by Richmond police and other security officials. The woman appeared to be wearing dark clothing and U.S. military pins and was carrying a book. She cooperated with police, according to the report.
Dana (4eca6e) — 5/7/2012 @ 5:00 pm“It is distracting to him to see a woman who has anything bare other than her face,” she said.
She added that she had met with her client a dozen times and always dressed respectfully. “He is that conservative,” she said.
No, Ms. Bormann, he is not *that* conservative – he is man who has a seriously distorted view of women and sees them as objects to use that turn him on. He has no self control over his baser impulses and nobody has ever instructed him in how to man up and use some self-discipline because women are creatures of dignity and grace, and you, Ms. Bormann just debase yourself and enable his sickness as you dress to make yourself “respectful” for him.
This is such bullshit that it makes a girl want to go sit in the courtroom rocking the cleavage and showing some serious thigh.
There are 3,000 people who were not treated respectfully, whose families were not treated respectfully, and million of Americans who were not treated respectfully. I wholeheartedly agree with Patterico: Walid bin Attash and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed can go to hell.
Dana (4eca6e) — 5/7/2012 @ 5:10 pmWere these delays common in the 1860’s, let alone colonial times?
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 5/7/2012 @ 5:59 pmY’know, a Presidential Candidate who promised that the day he was sworn in, these swine would be given a bullet in the back of the head would accomplish two things;
1) Win in a landslide.
2) Cause dozens of Liberal twits to die of conniptions.
C. S. P. Schofield (df34af) — 5/7/2012 @ 6:44 pmMr. Ejercito (#74 — 5/7/2012 @ 5:59 pm): Consider the case of Major John André, the British spy captured on September 23, convicted on September 29, and hanged on October 2 — all in 1780.
There are examples from the American civil war of spies being captured, tried, and hanged over a period measured in hours, not even days or weeks.
But from “modern times,” consider the case of Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942): Eight Nazi spies were landed by U-boat on the Long Island and Florida coasts in mid-June 1942. All of them were in government custody by the end of June, and they were tried by military commission between July 8-August 4, 1942. The SCOTUS had heard their habeas corpus petition on July 29-30, and released a per curiam decision denying relief on July 31. The six who received death sentences were executed on August 8, 1942.
Beldar (2a462a) — 5/7/2012 @ 8:19 pm(André would have been hanged sooner but for Washington’s attempt to negotiate with the British to exchange André for the just-escaped Benedict Arnold.)
Beldar (2a462a) — 5/7/2012 @ 8:21 pm“The SCOTUS had heard their habeas corpus petition on July 29-30, and released a per curiam decision denying relief on July 31.”
Beldar – But was their Counsel wearing a burkha?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2012 @ 8:42 pmDaleyrocks, that’s a good point too, actually. Were I presiding over that commission, I would not have convened it while any lawyer was so dressed. I would have given said lawyer 10 minutes to appear in professional garb appropriate to her position in these proceedings on penalty of contempt of court; if she persisted for more than a day, I’d strike her from the defense team and forward a recommendation to her licensing state bar that she be formally disciplined for unethical behavior.
The way this is being handled, though, isn’t the practice of law and the administration of justice — it’s Ringling Brothers. Nobody can get a fair trial, and justice cannot be served, under the Big Top.
I know the traditional wisdom: If you can’t pound the facts, pound the law; if you can’t pound the law, pound the table. But there ought to be — and in my experience almost uniformly is — a very low tolerance for literal table-pounding or other disruptive behavior in a courtroom. The more grave the matters under consideration, the more essential that there be dignity and order. That’s not as a favor to the prosecution; that’s because it’s the minimum life support requirement for justice.
I’d wager a large steak dinner that our host has been present, and perhaps a movant (but not necessarily), on many occasions when criminal defendants have been shackled in their seats and even gagged, or maybe even banished from the courtroom entirely to watch (if they’re lucky) a video feed of their trial while they’re doing a Hannibal Lector routine in a straight-jacket strapped to a set of hand trucks. Someone gets up during the middle of proceedings and starts praying — to Allah, to Jesus, to Obama, or whoever — in any civil or criminal courtroom, state or federal, that I’ve ever been familiar with, they’ll get one warning and opportunity to correct their behavior before they lose all choice in the matter. And that’s the way it’s gotta be.
You think a criminal defense lawyer in Houston or Los Angeles gets to wear costumes, even to “make a point”?
I’m just thoroughly disgusted with what appears to be going on there, and the blame has to rest squarely on the presiding officer. The defense lawyers and the defendants will absolutely take advantage of every cubic centimeter on their side of whatever line the judge draws, but that’s just all the more reason to draw and maintain sharp lines that require acceptable behavior.
Beldar (2a462a) — 5/8/2012 @ 2:24 amBeldar,
I find it telling that his lawyer felt the freedom not only to wear the distracting garb and risk a warning or worse from the judge, but even more so, that she also felt the freedom to rebuke the female prosecution for their lack of “respectful” garb.
How was it that she was able to so rightly peg the climate of the court and the leeway she/her client would be permitted? It seems in a normal courtroom, a defense attorney would not take such a risk, even more so in such an enormously high profile case. Is the court bending over backwards in a crude form of p.c. to accommodate the religion of peace so as not to offend? How then does this not expose a presupposed bias?
One wonders what pressures are being exerted from higher up.
Dana (4eca6e) — 5/8/2012 @ 5:55 am#
Clearly, these long delays are not inherent in the concept of the death penalty itself. Although Quirin was much shorter than most death penalty cases at the time, since there was a direct appeal from the commission to the Supreme Court.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 5/8/2012 @ 8:02 amLink to Usenet comment thread is here.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 5/8/2012 @ 8:07 amCan anyone imagine Adolph Eichmann getting away with this kind of BS? I think it is time to erect five soundproof bulletproof booths for each of the accused, complete with two guards for each and insert them therein for the duration. They might consider erecting one more for recalcitrant counsel “time outs”.
Vnjagvet (31d371) — 5/8/2012 @ 8:23 amVnjagvet,
And then when they’ve been placed in the booths, we can pour in clear epoxy resin and leave them there.
C. S. P. Schofield (df34af) — 5/8/2012 @ 8:41 amCan?
Should.
Must, even…
There is no “can”.
IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States (8e2a3d) — 5/8/2012 @ 5:38 pmThis attorney’s last name is Bormann? That’s my last name as well, down to the spelling. I really hope I’m not related to her. If I am, I apologize and denounce myself.
Andy (036a5c) — 5/8/2012 @ 9:25 pmFrench, Greeks vote against imaginary austerity…
That scared me… for a few seconds, that comma between the two didn’t register and I thought my worst nightmare had been realized.
Colonel Haiku (b2c1b5) — 5/10/2012 @ 6:21 pm