Newsnews

Sat Mar 18, 2017, 01:15 PM

Lawyer Who Just Stopped Trumps Travel Ban Connection To Osama bin Laden

http://www.usanewsflash.com/lawyer-just-stopped-trumps-travel-ban-shocking-connection-osama-bin-laden/

Yesterday we learned that the Hawaiian judge blocked Trump’s travel ban. The judge actually cited that tourism is also at risk of dropping because of this travel ban.

A former acting solicitor general of the U.S. during Obama’s administration, Neal Katyal, filed suit on behalf of the state of Hawaii against the Trump administration, looking to block the president’s latest executive order.

However it is not this which makes Katyal so interesting, rather, it is his ties. Katyal has served as legal counsel for Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard, Samir Hamdan, on a pro-bono basis.

In other words, the attorney which lead the charge to stop Trump’s ban that would have kept millions of Americans protected, is tied with one of the biggest terrorists in the history of America. But hold on, it gets worse.

Katyal’s name floated around as a possible Obama Supreme Court nominee, and he has also sued the government on behalf of Osama Bin Laden’s bodyguard in 2006 during the landmark legal case Rumsfeld v. Hamdan.

13 replies, 184 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply Lawyer Who Just Stopped Trumps Travel Ban Connection To Osama bin Laden (Original post)
MumblyPeg Mar 18 OP
oflguy Mar 18 #1
GordieG Mar 18 #3
Letmypeoplevote Mar 18 #6
oflguy Mar 18 #11
liberalguy Mar 18 #13
Grumpy Pickle Mar 18 #2
Letmypeoplevote Mar 18 #7
Grumpy Pickle Mar 18 #8
MumblyPeg Mar 18 #9
Letmypeoplevote Mar 18 #10
Grumpy Pickle Mar 18 #12
clem kadiddlehopper Mar 18 #4
Letmypeoplevote Mar 18 #5

Response to MumblyPeg (Original post)

Sat Mar 18, 2017, 01:19 PM

1. Sweet

You just can't make this stuff up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 18, 2017, 01:26 PM

3. Of course you can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 18, 2017, 01:55 PM

6. Thank you for the laughs

I love it when silly lay persons attempt to understand legal concepts.

The US is a party to the Geneva Conventions and the courts exist to protect rights. The SCOTUS ruled that the Geneva Convention applied to Gitmo detainees. The rule of law won in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 18, 2017, 03:35 PM

11. What's not to understand?

The Judge and lawyer that has tried to block Trump's travel ban are political hacks for Obama that love terrorists as much as Obama does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 18, 2017, 04:49 PM

13. Sure you can, err will, err do, err... did

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Original post)

Sat Mar 18, 2017, 01:26 PM

2. Well now.

This is getting weirder by the day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 18, 2017, 01:56 PM

7. Only if one does not understand the Constitution

I am serious. I am laughing so hard at this thread that it hurts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 18, 2017, 02:38 PM

8. The 'Constitutional expert' that wants to allow illegals to vote ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 18, 2017, 02:55 PM

9. the same 'Constitutional experts'

that think the Constitution applies to every human on the planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 18, 2017, 03:06 PM

10. I love laughing a laypersons who get simple legal concepts wrong

No one is arguing this rather silly claim. Non citizen voting is very rare for a good reason



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 18, 2017, 03:36 PM

12. Steal a Social Security number ( happens all the time )

Sign up to vote....with a fake ID.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Original post)

Sat Mar 18, 2017, 01:33 PM

4. Righty get suckered once again.

Keep in mind that everything we publish is in good faith, sometimes the articles are satires and fake and we cannot make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of this information. Any action you take upon the information you find on this website (usanewsflash.com), is strictly at your own risk. usanewsflash.com will not be liable for any losses and/or damages in connection with the use of our website.


http://www.usanewsflash.com/about-us/

Is there anything too stupid for dumb righty not to believe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Original post)

Sat Mar 18, 2017, 01:53 PM

5. What a sad and silly post

The Hamden case was to defend the US constitution and the right of detainees at Gitmo to the protections of the Geneva Convention https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html

Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer, concluded in Parts V and VI–D–iv:

1. The Government has not charged Hamdan with an “offense … that by the law of war may be tried by military commission,” 10 U. S. C. §821. Of the three sorts of military commissions used historically, the law-of-war type used in Quirin and other cases is the only model available to try Hamdan. Among the preconditions, incorporated in Article of War 15 and, later, UCMJ Art. 21, for such a tribunal’s exercise of jurisdiction are, inter alia, that it must be limited to trying offenses committed within the convening commander’s field of command, i.e., within the theater of war, and that the offense charged must have been committed during, not before or after, the war. Here, Hamdan is not alleged to have committed any overt act in a theater of war or on any specified date after September 11, 2001. More importantly, the offense alleged is not triable by law-of-war military commission. Although the common law of war may render triable by military commission certain offenses not defined by statute, Quirin, 317 U. S., at 30, the precedent for doing so with respect to a particular offense must be plain and unambiguous, cf., e.g., Loving v. United States, 517 U. S. 748 . That burden is far from satisfied here. The crime of “conspiracy” has rarely if ever been tried as such in this country by any law-of-war military commission not exercising some other form of jurisdiction, and does not appear in either the Geneva Conventions or the Hague Conventions—the major treaties on the law of war. Moreover, that conspiracy is not a recognized violation of the law of war is confirmed by other international sources, including, e.g., the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which pointedly refused to recognize conspiracy to commit war crimes as such a violation. Because the conspiracy charge does not support the commission’s jurisdiction, the commission lacks authority to try Hamdan. Pp. 30–49.

2. The phrase “all the guarantees … recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples” in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is not defined, but it must be understood to incorporate at least the barest of the trial protections recognized by customary international law. The procedures adopted to try Hamdan deviate from those governing courts-martial in ways not justified by practical need, and thus fail to afford the requisite guarantees. Moreover, various provisions of Commission Order No. 1 dispense with the principles, which are indisputably part of customary international law, that an accused must, absent disruptive conduct or consent, be present for his trial and must be privy to the evidence against him. Pp. 70–72.

This thread made me laugh so hard that it hurt. Thank you for the laugh. I love it when silly laypersons gets concepts so wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Newsnews