O'Reilly's interview with Scott Fenstermaker

[Driddle2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr3ALwhf9fA

I just wanted to get your opinions on the interview, as well as the entire situation.  

[Lord Bitememan]

It was your standard reporter vs. lawyer interview. I'm just happy O'Reilly kept his cool in this one and didn't degenerate into shouting over his guest, as he very frequently does.

The issue is this: Once you subjected the detainees to civilian trials you placed them under the aegis of the US justice system. Part of that system is that everyone is entitled to legal defense. So, once you put the detainees into the US justice system, you are obligated to provide them legal counsel. The legal counsel is obligated to mount a competent defense that is not based on bad faith. That's tricky when you have people who have openly confessed, repeatedly, without duress, that they did it. Furthermore, lawyers are obligated to abide by the wishes of their clients, and it is the wish of these clients that they plead not guilty and proceed with a trial, even though they openly admit they did it. So, you have to find some sort of coherent defense to present, even if it's bound to lose. If the men don't get counsel you cannot, legally, proceed with a trial. So, if they are unable to find counsel you will just have a mistrial declared. If the lawyers don't present a competent defense then any conviction you obtain will be overturned. Obama has decided that we have to go through the civilian courts, so, believe it or not, this man's defense, reprehensible as it sounds, is doing us all a favor. If these men are convicted, and they probably will be, they will stay in prison rather than getting sprung on appeal. In fact, the fact that he's stepping to the plate at all allows us the possibility of even having a trial rather than a mistrial. So, as bad as it sounds, the guy is actually serving a vital and needed role here.  

[haydenhearts]

hey anyone notice that guy cant answer a freaking question???  

[Lord Bitememan]

He can't, as an attorney representing these clients, answer questions that may be damaging to his case. If he does that, hello mistrial. So, if you were expecting him to come out as say "certainly I don't condone the heinous crimes my clients committed" you can forget about that. In short, it was probably a waste of O-man's time to interview this guy. There is so little he can actually comment on honestly it makes for poor television. What he should have done was gotten someone not involved with the case but supporting the position to come on and debate it.  

[Pumona]

Lord Bitememan is completly right. If you are an attorney, you can not talk about any cases that are pending. There really is no point in anyone doing an interview like this except to try to catch the attorney say something that he shouldn't say. This is what can be entertaining.  

[goodshot911SNK]

yaeh I think your right I have not seen it though