ABA Journal - Law News Now

Comments

• Report Abuse

1. Posted by msg - 5 months, 1 week, 9 hours, 4 minutes ago

   Have they no decency?!  Putting the rights of terrorists above the rights of american citizens?  Using activist judiciaries to further liberal agendas that will end up costing more american lives to be lost.  I hope they lose corporate clients over this.

2. Posted by Kevin Veler - 5 months, 1 week, 6 hours, 47 minutes ago

   Thankfully despite the comments of the ignorant (yes! ignornant:  meaning destitute of knowledge as you have not taken the time to read or comprehend the decision of the Supreme Court.  Stupid would mean you have read it but do not have the intelligence to understand.  I cannot determine whether the word Stupid is applicable and do not suggest it), there are some law firms willing to defend the Constitution and our liberties.  The decision is about a right to habeas corpus, which would include a determination whether the alleged terrorist is an american citizen or whether there was a lawful right to detain.  I could go on but it would not be of any use I am sure. 

   As for activist court, damn those Republicans for appointing 7 of the current justices on the Supreme Court.  When will the Republicans cease their liberal agendas? 

   Thank you to those firms who have the financial wherewithal to undertake these costly battles against an administration and Department of Justice that is failing its citizens.

3. Posted by msg - 5 months, 1 week, 3 hours, 48 minutes ago

   Isn’t it funny how the liberals always resort to personal attacks and name calling when they can’t come up with an articulate argument.  Apparently he feels that Justice Scalia is ignorant and destitute of knowledge and stupid etc… as well.  I also marvel at your ability to be able to know with certainty whether or not I have read the full decision.  I won’t lower myself to your standards to answer that question but I will say that I have a better understanding of the Constitution than you will ever have my friend.

4. Posted by stein - 5 months, 1 week, 6 minutes ago

   MSG did not have to read the decision, he got all of the information he needed from FOX News.  MSG should read the decision for the first time or reread it again and formulated his own opinion.  People who call others Liberals, intending an insult,  remind me of little bratty school girls.  MSG, I recommend that if you are going to adopt someone else’s opinion, find someone other than FOX News.

5. Posted by jmw - 5 months, 6 days, 10 hours, 40 minutes ago

   Based on declassified government records, fewer than 5% of Gitmo detainees were captured on the battlefield.  The vast majority had no identifiable involvement with terrorist organizations (although it is difficult to assess because, although they have been in prison for years, the detainees have never been charged).  Most—even one as young as ten years old at the time of detention—were picked up in broad sweeps or turned in based on allegations of neighbors who were solicited based on cash rewards offerd by the U.S. government.  Some were detained after the courts in Bosnia or other jurisdictions where they were arrested determined that evidence was insufficient to hold them.  Prior to and at Gitmo, they have been subject to torture in violation of the Geneva conventions.

   The legal defense of these men has relatively little to do with who they are as individuals and a great deal to do with the question of whether the United States is a nation governed by the Constitution and the rule of law—or whether we are a government along the lines of Communist China, North Korea or other totalitarian states. 

   The one clear prediction that can be made is that the vast majority of Gitmo detainees will never be tried because our government will not be willing to make public the lack of available evidence supporting detention of these men in the first place.

6. Posted by Sidney Jones - 5 months, 5 days, 12 hours, 41 minutes ago

   $17M indicates 17 thousand since the roman numeral “M” is for thousand.  If you do it right the M will have a short horizontal line over the top.  I know…..I’m being kind of picky.

7. Posted by anthony mcmanus - 5 months, 5 days, 12 hours, 4 minutes ago

   I applaud the pro bono work being done by some of these top firms, but when you’re charging close to $500. an hour for legal work the “bill” sure does add up quickly…

8. Posted by JFK - 5 months, 5 days, 11 hours, 39 minutes ago

   You focused on the cost of lost billings to the law firms.  You left out the much bigger cost—the innocent Americans that will suffer from attacks by terorists enabled by that boneheaded Supreme Court opinion.

9. Posted by "Our" liberties - 5 months, 5 days, 10 hours, 58 minutes ago

   Messr. Veler misses the point - never before have “our” liberties been fully extended to non-citizens who are not on sovereign US soil. 
   Surely, some process is due to non-citizens detained during a war and held on foreign soil, but the question is how much process.  The elected branches created a cogent framework after thousands of hours of debate and thoughtful consideration - all for naught, as a cabal of unelected, unaccountable justices cherry picked the case before it could be decided by the DC Circuit.  What ever happened to exhausting all appeals before reaching the high court? 
   As for these law firms doing pro bono work for terrorist suspects, I have no issue.  Everyone deserves the best defense they can find.  But these firms also operate in a (generally) free market, and if I am to refer work or hire an attorney in the future, I will certainly think twice about Wilmer Hale or Bingham, given their obvious leanings.

10. Posted by JFK - 5 months, 5 days, 10 hours, 22 minutes ago

    The real cost to the law firm is the opportunity cost of what all of those lawyers would have done had they not been doing the pro bono terroristo work.  To the extent the lawyers would not otherwise have been billing at their normal rates, the cost to the firm approaches zero and the cost to the individual lawyers is the loss of personal time.

11. Posted by Baldwin Maull - 5 months, 5 days, 10 hours, 9 minutes ago

    Recognize the deferred income to the firms from the high-profile pro bono: firm prestige, lawyer morale, demonstrated ability to fight in any arena, increased attractiveness to smart and capable candidates, a recruiting tool, relief from the drudgery of corporate work, maybe even the chance to step into a court room.  The benefits turn to cash but outside traditional accounting.

12. Posted by Amazed - 5 months, 5 days, 9 hours, 53 minutes ago

    wow, it is amazing how vitriolic some of you folks can be be.  To those folks   I guess you were too busy attending the Federalist Society meetings during Con Law when the rest of the JD holding population learned about Habeas corpus?

13. Posted by Rogi - 5 months, 5 days, 8 hours, 34 minutes ago

    Ah, hyperbole, rhetoric and speculation run rampant when one’s hard pressed for facts.  I’m surprised the decision that Guantanamo detainees get a fair trial did not result in a mass outcry that this will signify the end of civilization as we know it.  Now all of these detainees will certainly get released and will go on to carry out their presumed terrorist attacks on the us, because if they weren’t guilty of terrorist activities why would they be in Guantanamo in the first place? I think cry of judicial activism became a knee-jerk reaction among many when the decision is not in accordance with their beliefs.  Of course D.C. v. Heller has nothing to do with judicial activism.  I think it’s a fair decision, but it the cry of judicial activism on Guantanamo decision reeks of double standard.

14. Posted by Pleased and Dissapointed - 5 months, 5 days, 5 hours, 35 minutes ago

    I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked to see so many comments suggesting that holding people without Habius Corpus is somehow a correct action (or even a sensible one, for that matter), but I’m certainly disappointed. The whole thing stinks of our WWII detainment camps for Japanese Americans, and many Gitmo detainees appear to have been picked for reasons just as arbitrary.
    But, thank goodness for those of us who care that Habius Corpus is keeping a foothold in American law.

15. Posted by Kyndra Rotunda - 5 months, 4 days, 3 hours, 22 minutes ago

    Lawyers are free to represent whom they wish.  But, there are countless military families in need of pro bono representation—including combat wounded troops, troops whose rights have been violated under the Service Member Civil Relief Act, and those who are fighting for veteran’s benefits they desperately require, and many, many more.  What are law firms doing to help the troops?

16. Posted by Anon - 5 months, 3 days, 1 hour, 3 minutes ago

    If this litigation didn’t get them above the fold in the Boston Globe, they would never do it.

17. Posted by Dick Brickwedde - 5 months, 2 days, 8 hours, 25 minutes ago

    Can the firm seek reimbursement from the US under the Equal Access to Justice Act?