The 50-Lawyer Poll

Features

Defense attorneys who have tried terrorism cases score the legal system's response to 9/11

September 2007 Issue
By Mark Hansen and Stephanie Francis Ward

If you want to know how well the justice system is combating terrorism, you’ve got to talk to the lawyers involved.

So we asked 50 defense attorneys who’ve worked on federal terrorism cases since 9/11 their opinions of the legal war on terror. (We also asked 50 prosecutors, but U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Dean Boyd told assistant U.S. attorneys across the country not to participate. He declined to tell us his reason.)

After you’ve seen how the defense lawyers answered, you can answer the questions yourself in our interactive poll.

survey result

Results from our interactive poll:

1. Prosecutors - If you were a criminal defense lawyer, would you be willing to represent Osama bin Laden in federal court?

Yes - 39 votes (33.62 percent) No - 56 votes (48.28 percent) I don't know - 21 votes (18.1 percent)

2. What grade would you give the entire US justice system -- including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches -- in the legal war on terror?

A - 8 votes (6.96 percent) B - 25 votes (21.74 percent) C - 21 votes (18.26 percent) D - 30 votes (26.09 percent) F - 31 votes (26.96 percent)

3. US Supreme Court decisions on terrorism issues have:

Unduly favored defendants - 34 votes (29.57 percent) Unduly favored the government - 39 votes (33.91 percent) Struck the right balance - 29 votes (25.22 percent) I have no opinion - 13 votes (11.3 percent)

4. Which branch of government has acquitted itself worst on terrorism legal issues?

Executive - 58 votes (49.15 percent) Legislative - 4 votes (3.39 percent) Judiciary - 32 votes (27.12 percent) All have aquitted themselves equally poorly - 11 votes (9.32 percent) I have no opinion - 13 votes (11.02 percent)

5. Which branch of government has acquitted itself best on terrorism legal issues?

Executive - 20 votes (16.95 percent) Legislative - 22 votes (18.64 percent) Judiciary - 46 votes (38.98 percent) All have aquitted themselves equally well - 6 votes (5.08 percent) I have no opinion - 24 votes (20.34 percent)

6. Which forum should handle the prosecution of enemy combatants captured overseas?

Federal courts - 45 votes (37.5 percent) Military tribunals - 62 votes (51.67 percent) Does not matter - 2 votes (1.67 percent) I have no opinion - 11 votes (9.17 percent)

7. The terrorism laws passed by Congress have made the US safer.

Strongly agree - 31 votes (25.2 percent) Somewhat agree - 21 votes (17.07 percent) Somewhat disagree - 11 votes (8.94 percent) Strongly disagree - 58 votes (47.15 percent) I have no opinion - 2 votes (1.63 percent)

8. Privacy rights have been unduly compromised as a result of anti-terror efforts.

Strongly agree - 70 votes (57.38 percent) Somewhat agree - 4 votes (3.28 percent) Somewhat disagree - 6 votes (4.92 percent) Strongly disagree - 40 votes (32.79 percent) I have no opinion - 2 votes (1.64 percent)

9. The terrorism cases brought in federal court have made the US safer

Strongly agree - 54 votes (12.8 percent) Somewhat agree - 91 votes (21.56 percent) Somewhat disagree - 69 votes (16.35 percent) Strongly disagree - 184 votes (43.6 percent) I have no opinion - 24 votes (5.69 percent)

10. Defense lawyers - Would you be willing to represent Osama bin Laden in federal court?

Yes - 31 votes (28.97 percent) No - 52 votes (48.6 percent) I do not know - 24 votes (22.43 percent)

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by B Williams - Sep 5, 2007 07:01 pm CDT

Should have asked whether the prosecutions thus far were based upon legitimate or contrived charges, and whether redacted testimony was really a means of covering the government’s lying tracks, accusing people of terrorism, obtaining “confessions” by means of torture is a coerced confession. The charges of Maussoui were entirely altered from the initial charges, which served their propaganda purposes, and he was kept silent in a brig for over 5 years. The “war on terrorism” is phony, a paranoid-based propaganda scheme to inflame dangerous zeal which tramples constitutional restraints under the tyrants pretense of “necessity”.
Posted by . - Sep 6, 2007 08:37 am CDT

Who were the lawyers? Do we get to see a list of names?
Posted by D Loew - Sep 7, 2007 10:50 am CDT

Although I do not agree with Mr. Williams’ statement that the “war on terror is a phony,” since terrorism is a real threat. However, I do agree with him to a certain extent.I agree with Mr. Williams to an extent.....It is outrageous that our leaders in the government have sought convictions based on coerced confessions. In sum, it seems ironic that fighting this so-called war on terror will require combating men of zeal at home and abroad. In sum, “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachments by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding.” - Justice Louis Brandeis - Olmstead v. United States (1928)
Posted by JD - Sep 7, 2007 03:19 pm CDT

This article SHOULD have been titled, “Here’s What 50 Leftist Attorneys Think about Terrorism.” If the 50 lawyers were all JAG officers, you’d get quite different results. Either way, this is a pretty insignificant story considering the small number of lawyers polled.

Perhaps the only conclusion we can draw is that the war on terror must be fought on the battlefield and not in the courts. Imagine if lawyers had stormed the beaches of Normandy with legal pads. Nazism would still be a significant force today.
Posted by Thorley Winston - Sep 12, 2007 10:55 pm CDT

I have to agree with the previous poster – what exactly is the point of asking 50 attorneys who went up against the executive branch (and usually lost) in a terrorism case which branch of government they thought acquitted themselves the worst? I suspect that most of your readers will see this as a case of “sour grapes” from an ideologically narrow slice of the legal profession. It would have been far more meaningful to include an equal number of prosecutors in these cases and/or an equivalent number of judges or clerks who worked on terrorism cases to get their views.
Posted by JDinDC - Sep 14, 2007 06:19 pm CDT

The problem is that the ABA is increasingly becoming just another radical leftist pressure group. It sad, and all too obvious. Just look at their choice of panelists when it comes to public events. A recent immigration panel had 12 (!) panelists, but they ALL had the same perspective: amnesty and open borders: good; enforcement of laws: bad. If the ABA wants to remain relevant, they need to diversify their staff.
Posted by Jay - Oct 12, 2007 09:01 pm CDT

The first poster—B Williams—is so quick to identify with people outside the U.S. government. Like most leftists, he’s more likely to defend a person that would slit his throat without hesitation than defend his own society. He’s suicidal. He’s also the type of person who believes the Bush Administration is completely incompetent yet capable of orchestrating massive lies and conspiracies at the same time. Liberalism is a mental disorder.