Hardfire - subject - Gitmo Detainees

[BenBurch]

A two-part interview with Scott Fenstermaker, lawyer for two (and possibly three) of the Gitmo detainees

Part 1:




Part 2:

 

[T.A.M.]

These videos, which I have previously one of (Part 1) are quite interesting. This lawyer seems to walking the line of 9/11 trutherism. Other then that insanity, he seems like quite a reasonable chap.

Ron is looking well...good to see.

TAM

 

[Meed]

Ron seems a little out of sorts here. He is polite and rational for the most part, but 80% of the show seems to be Ron rambling about irrelevant things like 9/11 truthers, Marxists, "the left", "the right", and so on. Also his knowledge of things was off in some places. I would have liked to heard the guest expand more on his position.

Fenstermaker's "They did us a favor" was a completely irrational statement. But aside from that, he did make some good/interesting points.

 

[tfk]

There is a whole bunch of "I don't know the answer to that question, because I didn't ask", (because I don't want to know ...)

... that only makes sense if you're a defense lawyer and you want to be able to look yourself in the mirror each evening.

Hazard of the profession, I guess.

Defense lawyers. Kinda like anuses. Somewhat unpleasant. Everyone (innocent or guilty) needs one. Really glad you have one on those occasions when you really need them. Don't want to spend too much time in close proximity to anyone else's.

This is too easy. I suppose one could go on for hours with this analogy...


Tom

PS. His "the US military are terrorists" argument fries my ass.

He showed zero appreciation of the historical evolution of the concepts of how to deal with non-combatants in the midst of a war that happened throughout WW II.

It's simplistic and naive to apply 2009's military ethical standards to 1945.

 

[T.A.M.]

yah I can't read whether this guy is ambiguous intentionally, so he can sleep at night while he defends these turds, or whether he is actually really into the Woo.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

yah I can't read whether this guy is ambiguous intentionally, so he can sleep at night while he defends these turds, or whether he is actually really into the Woo.

TAM

That's the rub of a democratic society. People, regardless of charges, have a right to a fair trial and someone has to defend them. I'm rather impressed with defense lawyers who do, knowing the wrath they face.

 

[Seymour Butz]

One thing that just struck me, is that I've heard many truthers, etc say that they were reduced to tears after 9/11, couldn't go out of the house afterwards for weeks, etc.

We learn that later on they turned to twoof. Which we all know to be irrational.

This guy turned to a definite anti-war stance, going so far as to say that he believes that the military lawyers and the ACLU should be tried, judged, and convicted for war crimes, and executed themselves. This sounds irrational also.

EVEN IF the lawyers he speaks of were "doing a horrible job", how in the hell could that be raised to the level of a war crime?


Is there a psychological explanation for turning to irrational beliefs/statements after such a traumatizing event in ones' life?

Some sort of defensive mechanism that allows these irrational beliefs to seem true to someone that has been affected so severely by these events?

 

[T.A.M.]

That's the rub of a democratic society. People, regardless of charges, have a right to a fair trial and someone has to defend them. I'm rather impressed with defense lawyers who do, knowing the wrath they face.

Yes, I have a good friend (and Godfather to my daughter) who is one. He is a great guy. He thinks truthers are ****ing idiots.

TAM

 

[Meed]

There is a whole bunch of "I don't know the answer to that question, because I didn't ask", (because I don't want to know ...)

... that only makes sense if you're a defense lawyer and you want to be able to look yourself in the mirror each evening.

Hazard of the profession, I guess.

He's working pro bono.

PS. His "the US military are terrorists" argument fries my ass.

The CIA and US military have certainly engaged in terrorism by any reasonable definition in the past (whether or not one considers it justified).

He showed zero appreciation of the historical evolution of the concepts of how to deal with non-combatants in the midst of a war that happened throughout WW II.

?

It's simplistic and naive to apply 2009's military ethical standards to 1945.

I'm not sure what standards you're talking about--I believe it was Wiek who brought up the WWII comparison, though.

 

[Meed]

One thing that just struck me, is that I've heard many truthers, etc say that they were reduced to tears after 9/11, couldn't go out of the house afterwards for weeks, etc.

We learn that later on they turned to twoof. Which we all know to be irrational.

Hadn't heard that. Interesting though. I suppose the emotional trauma could have made them more susceptible to the woo.

This guy turned to a definite anti-war stance, going so far as to say that he believes that the military lawyers and the ACLU should be tried, judged, and convicted for war crimes, and executed themselves. This sounds irrational also.

Perhaps. It depends what he's basing it on (which is why I wish Wiek hadn't spent so much of the show on tangents).

EVEN IF the lawyers he speaks of were "doing a horrible job", how in the hell could that be raised to the level of a war crime?

"War crimes" does seem an odd term for it, although I don't know enough about international law to call it flat out ridiculous. If they were intentionally doing a poor job, though, then I'd imagine it's still a very serious crime.

 

[Meed]

That's the rub of a democratic society. People, regardless of charges, have a right to a fair trial and someone has to defend them. I'm rather impressed with defense lawyers who do, knowing the wrath they face.

Amen. It's bizarre to me that people have a problem with such a fundamental part of the constitution (not to mention the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

 

[Meed]

There's a more detailed interview with Fenstermaker at "the populist" - http://thepopulist.net/?p=371

I found this exchange hilarious:

TP: When you say [Mr. al-Baluchi] has refuted claims that 9/11 was an inside job: Does that mean he is aware of the overwhelming evidence for the controlled demolition of all three World Trade center Towers, and the complete lack of evidence for planes crashing into the Pentagon and at Shanksville? And that being aware of these facts, he still wants to take responsibility for the attacks?

SF: I think we have to be cautious of confusing the theories of anti-government zealots with evidence. Mr. al-Baluchi stated that he has no knowledge of the government’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks. I have seen no evidence of the government’s involvement in the attacks. [...]

TP: [...] Here is a documentary called “Loose change” that has been online for over three years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yx9NRX37SM

As you can see, the video effectively demolishes the official version of events. Are you aware of the implications made in this, and many other documentaries available online? Is Mr. al-Baluchi aware of this?

SF: I am not aware of the documentaries. Accordingly, I am also not aware of their implications. [...]

TP: Well, can you watch this video and tell us what you think?

SF: Can I watch the video? Yes. Will I watch the video? No.

 

[Brainster]

He describes himself in the interview with Ron as a longtime Republican, but when I looked him up at Open Secrets the only contributions I could find under his name were to Heather Wilson a former GOP congresswoman from New Mexico, and there the connection seems to be that they attended the Air Force Academy together. Which makes his comments about the military all that more startling.