A letter to my cousin in Iraq.

Well now I've seen it all.

The allies of jihadistan in the Supreme Court today performed a coup de gras on the Bush Adm.efforts to wage GWOT. In this case they overruled a decision that was also supported by Congress.

The ruling invalidates portions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which created military tribunals to hear the cases of those held at Guantanamo.
The decision was 5-4, with Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the four liberal justices on the court.
Writing for the majority opinion striking down the Military Commissions Act, Kennedy wrote, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

ABC News: Blow to Bush: Guantanamo Detainees Have Rights in Court (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/SCOTUS/story?id=5048935&page=1)

What the hell is he talking about ! He has just indicated that US Constitutional rights are to be granted on a global basis rather than just to US residents and citizens .

Habeas rights have never before been granted to foreign enemy captured on a foreign battle field. I agree with Bradford Berenson who said of the decision:

"The Court's decision today will deepen and complicate an already ridiculously complex and disordered morass of litigation brought by foreign terrorists against our government," said Bradford Berenson, former associate counsel to President Bush from 2001 to 2003. "The decision will magnify the already heavy litigation burdens on our government and, because it is limited to detainees held at Guantanamo, may increase the pressure on the government to close that facility. The available alternatives -- bringing al Qaeda leaders such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the continental United States or sending them back to detention facilities closer to war zones -- are less desirable and less safe for everyone. Such are the perverse and unintended consequences when the courts fail to afford appropriate deference to the political branches in sensitive national security matters."

This destroys the tribunal system at least . So now what ? Why not just have the moonbat judges in the San.Fran 9th Circus court hear the case and appoint an ACLU lawyer to their defense pro-bono ?

The ruling states that Congress cannot act to suspend habeas except through the Suspension Clause ;which states that Congress CAN suspend habeus in times of invasion or rebellion. To my way of thinking ,9-11 was an invasion... or did I miss something in translation ?

Justice Scalia wrote in dissent :

Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way that goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the Suspension Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed separation-of-powers principles to establish a manipulable “functional” test for the extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus (and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial reach of other Constitutional protections as well). It blatantly misdescribes [sic] important precedents, most conspicuously Justice Jackson's opinion for the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager. It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.
The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf

Right on!!

Be prepared to start training your troops on the proper way to read Miranda rights and grant them leave so they can testify at the trials .

Or I even have a better idea... set up all your equipment with the ability to blast Deguello from loud speakers to indicate no quarter . Why take prisoners at all ?

Tom

Face it Tom. The Military Commissions Act is a sham. I can't believe after all the adverse supreme court rulings, the struggles to prosecute anyone and now this you still think it is just! Gonzales should hang his head in shame for this one. The whole act should be invalidated. It basically already has been!

You sound hysterical.

Did you forget that people with rights can be found *GUILTY*?

America has the most desired freedoms of any country on earth... individual freedom from the power of the state. That is what makes America Great, and why folks like to immigrate here and citizens like to stay here.

It is always easy to talk about freedom and due process when times are easy, THE REAL TEST OF A COUNTRY IS HOW IT PRESERVES ITS CORE VALUES IN DIFFICULT TIMES.

Jihadist attacks on America since 911 are being handled very nicely by intelligence sharing, police work, snitches, surveillance, CIA activities, FBI activities... and, no thanks to Bush's war of Adventurism which has given just the motivation needed for Jihadist leaders to drive up the roles of membership in their various death groups.

Take a look at McBush's plan to *colonize Iraq* for its oil... think that will help any in our war against Jihadism??

NO IT WON'T. :)

__________________

Skell
You shouldn't complain David Hicks is back in your custody . He is a "free man now ;but well... not exactly . His full rights have not been restored have they ? Why not may I ask if he was not guilty ?

Sorry Skell, what happened today is the SHAM.

I have already weighed in on this in another post, and it would only sicken me even further to go into it all again.

American Citizen rights given to terrorists.

I say we charge the justices that voted for this with TREASON.

This is obviously an action taken against our own government during a time of war.

I say it qualifies as treason plain and simple.

Skell
you shouldn't complain David Hicks is back in your custody . He is a "free man now ;but well .... not exactly . His full rights have not been restored have they ? Why not may I ask if he was not guilty ?

He wad forced to plead guilty in order to finally be released after 5 years of imprisonment without charge and then a further 2 year awaiting trial while the Government produced more bogus laws and charges to try and prosecute. Even the chief prosecuter on his case has now left the military and is highly critical of the whole process. He thinks it's a joke yet you still support it!

Jihadist attacks on America since 911 are being handled very nicely by intelligence sharing, police work, snitches, surveillance, CIA activities, FBI activities... and, no thanks to Bush's war of Adventurism which has given just the motivation needed for Jihadist leaders to drive up the roles of membership in their various death groups.


What nonsense !

The very means that Bush has used to fight terrorism in the country has been widely criticized by the left . The methods you describe without the revisions since 9-11 led to the attack on 9-11 .

You don't think so ? FBI agent, Harry Sammit,pleaded with his superiors at FBI headquarters to be allowed to launch a nationwide manhunt for Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi, two of the hijackers of the plane that was crashed into the Pentagon , 3 weeks before 9/11. He was turned down by the lawyers in the National Security Law Unit of the FBI, who cited the FISA law that prevented this intelligence information from being used by the criminal division.

Sammit wrote in an email, on Aug. 31, 2001:

“Someday someone will die…and the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing everything we had at certain problems. Let's hope [the lawyers] will stand behind their decisions then, expecially since the biggest threat to us now, [bin laden], is getting the most protection.”

If Mohammed Atta had been picked up in Afghanistan while training for his mission to attck the US ;this decision would mean that he would be able to get himself an ACLU lawyer who would file all types of discovery for evidence the US could not surrender to the court lest it compromises other intel operations . He would most likey either get his case dismissed or tie up the courts at the tax payer expense for years .

Like I said in my other reply to you . This is possibly the goofiest most irresponsilbe decision in the history of SCOTUS .

Skell

Consider your country fortunate that he has not done what other released detainees have done . Abdullah Al-Ajmi was released from Guantanamo in 2005. In April, he blew himself up in Iraq, killing 7 Iraqi security forces and maiming 28 others. You don't have the time to collect evidence beyond a reasonable doubt on a freaken battlefield ! His lawyer said he was doing charitable work in Afghanistan . Was that what Hicks was doing ?

Bush says that American soldiers are fighting for America's Freedoms, on the one hand..
Then, tries to take away American Freedoms with the other hand.

What is it angry white guys, Freedom or NeoConFascism??

Incidentally, American freedom applies to anyone in our country or anyone in our custody. Some of those Jihadist scum have been in captivity for six years without due process.

WHO SAID THAT DEFENDING REAL AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL VALUES WAS GOING TO BE EASY?

I don't know what he was doing but I doubt it was charitable. But the problem is that you guys don't seem to know what he was up to either.

Sure I understand you can't collect evidence on a battle field. But surely in 7 years one can produce something that stands up in court? But no. They couldn't! Because the Military Commissions Act is flawed and stinks!

Dear angry white guys... Tom, nothing is perfect in the world of violence, Jihadism, war... citizens are going to die, *that is a given*, the goal is to keep the numbers to the very least minimum.

Skell I'm sure there was loads of evidence that we do not desire to release to a court. Evidence that if disclosed would compromise methods of collection or sources. That is why cases like this cannot be adjudicated in civilian courts where the burden of proof is overwhemingly in favor of the defendant. That is why so many of the detainees at Gitmo have already been released.


Choux ,the burden you would place on the system would make it come crashing down .The terrorists use the system against us Khalid Sheik Mohammed told his interrogators that he would say something to them after he saw his NY lawyers. Well after he got a little wet he began to sing like a canary. He provided substantiated intel that severely has undermined al-Qaeda's operation.

Yes I would've preferred the process to be swifter . But it has been the ACLU lawyers ,the Democrats and the court who have slowed the process down. Now they complain about the time it takes ? Gimme a break !

angry white guys

Didn't you hear ? We aren't angry anymore we are "bitter " clinging to guns and bibles . :>

Skell I'm sure there was loads of evidence that we do not desire to release to a court. Evidence that if disclosed would compromise methods of collection or sources. That is why cases like this cannot be adjudicated in civilian courts where the burden of proof is overwhemingly in favor of the defendant. That is why so many of the detainees at Gitmo have already been released. Hello tom:

If the burdon of proof is sooooo overwhelmingly in favor of the defendant, how come we have more people in prison than China or Russia where they don't have any rights at all.

No tom, you DRANK the Kool Aid, and you have a stain on your face.

excon

Beyond reasonable doubt...

Is that how we should judge the actions of terrorists on the battle field ?

beyond reasonable doubt ...........

is that how we should judge the actions of terrorists on the battle field ?Hello again, tom:

If we're going to execute 'em, you betcha! What?? Just a rumor is enough to knock 'em off?? To you, and your side, it is. But, not to me, and not to reasonable freedom loving people around the world.

Yup... What flavor did you drink? Grape?? Yeah, it's all over your face.

excon

Take no prisoners.

take no prisoners.

AGREE!

Give them a burial, instead of a trial.

Works for me.

Hello again:

This, from the NY Times, says it all:

"Justice = 5 ; Brutality = 4

There is an enormous gulf between the substance and tone of the majority opinion, with its rich appreciation of the liberties that the founders wrote into the Constitution, and the what-is-all-the-fuss-about dissent. It is sobering to think that habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States — a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year's presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties — but a timely reminder of how fragile they are."

excon

The last real example of brutality that I can recall, was seeing an American, BEHEADED and broadcast on Al-Jazeera television.

The very animals that contribute to this TRUE brutality, are the ones we just granted
Constitutional rights to.

I see nothing to celebrate,and find it disgraceful that anyone would.

Since even the majority opinion is that habeas can be suspended by Congress during times of war ;and the fact is... even if Imperator Anthony Kennedy doesn't like it;that Congress did indeed pass the provisions of the law in question... then how can he assert that Congress acted unconstitutionally ?

Anyway I hope Justice Kennedy contributes to the printing of pocket sized Miranda pamphlets in each language of the nations our soldiers are deployed in combat.

Hello again, prog:

I don't think you were around when I argued these points earlier. So, while I'm waiting for the sun to come out on my beach, I'll reiterate them here for your edification.

I don't disagree with you about the brutality of our enemy's. They're really bad people... Being a fellow of the Jewish persuasion, I have a special dislike these people.

But, our justice system isn't based upon how BAD the people are we're trying. Noooo, it's based upon how GOOD we are.

In OUR system of justice, we give rights to the worst of the worst, not because of who THEY are, but because of who WE are, and what WE stand for.

excon

Sorry Ex let me again give my counterpoint. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. At the time I told you our enemies would attempt to defeat us using our system against us just like Mordred did to Camelot. This action if left to stand will bring Miranda rights in battle , applying civilian rules of evidence to armed combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the end of preemptive action against terrorists.

since even the majority opinion is that habeus can be suspended by Congress during times of war Hello again, tom:

The correct reading of the Constitution is that habeas can be suspended by Congress during times of INVASION OR REBELLION. Not, as you so casually put it - WAR. In fact, the court found that that specific provision had not been met. And, I don't disagree with them. We weren't invaded and nobody rebelled.

It's a legal document. I think it means what it says. You shouldn't be so LIBERAL in your reading of it.

excon

9-11 wasn't an invasion ?

Quick quizz

Who said this :

A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.

9-11 wasn't an invasion ? Hello again, tom:

No, 9/11 was an attack. An invasion looks different - a LOT different.

I don't know who said it, but if it's not part of the Constitution, it ain't law.

excon

Hello again, prog:

I don't think you were around when I argued these points earlier. So, while I'm waiting for the sun to come out on my beach, I'll reiterate them here for your edification.

I don't disagree with you about the brutality of our enemy's. They're really bad people.... Being a fellow of the Jewish persuasion, I have a special dislike these people.

But, our justice system isn't based upon how BAD the people are we're trying. Noooo, it's based upon how GOOD we are.

In OUR system of justice, we give rights to the worst of the worst, not because of who THEY are, but because of who WE are, and what WE stand for.

excon

Using this logic, why did we not grant this right to the Germans, the Japanese, the Nazi's,
The Koreans, or the Viet Cong?

What, did these Justices finally come the their senses, and realize how wrong we have been in all these other conflicts?

I don't think so.

This decision had nothing to do with the constitution, and everything to do with the thumbing of noses, at the President and his Administration. The goal is to insure that we are defeated in Iraq, so that the Dems can laugh and shout "we told you so".

It is a disgrace, and in fact, I still say it could be grounds for charges of treason.

The actions of an individual or individuals, to undermine the President, and the Military, during a time of war.

Jefferson said it and was applying it while he was President to a situation much less severe than an invasion of the United States .

Bush says that American soldiers are fighting for America's Freedoms, on the one hand..
Then, tries to take away American Freedoms with the other hand.

What is it angry white guys, Freedom or NeoConFascism??

Like tom said, I'm not angry, just bitter.


Incidentally, American freedom applies to anyone in our country or anyone in our custody. Some of those Jihadist scum have been in captivity for six years without due process.

Last I checked the constitution read thusly:


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I don't see anything in there for al-Qaida.

The correct reading of the Constitution is that habeus can be suspended by Congress during times of INVASION OR REBELLION.

"unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

I'd say all those terrorists on 9/11 - and every continued attempt since - constitutes an invasion and public safety is at stake. Anyway, if you haven't read Scalia's dissent you should. If you ask me, it's Kennedy just being opportunistic again. He got conservative there for a while but now he smells another changing of the guard so he's shifting leftward again. He's doing his part to help "restore America's image in the the world." I don't care nearly as much about our image as I do our safety, and this was a stupid, stupid mistake.

The goal is to insure that we are defeated in Iraq, so that the Dems can laugh and shout "we told you so".

We're already 'defeated' in Iraq. And NO ONE thinks it's at all funny.

We're already 'defeated' in Iraq. And NO ONE thinks it's at all funny.

If you listen to the libs, your answer is correct.

If you look at the truth, and pull your head out of the sand, the real story is much different.

If you listen to what the Officers and Soldiers have to say, we have not lost, nor are we losing, but the truth has never mattered to the left, especially if it does not fit into their twisted plans to socialize this Great Nation.

The left wants us to loose, at any cost, and that is downright shameful.

We supposedly went to Iraq to liberate. In reality, we invaded and have become an occupying army the Iraqis want out. Graft and other profiteering have drained resources that should have gone into Iraq's infrastructure. And now we're caught in the middle of a religious and tribal conflict that we created.

It's OK, I understand how difficult it is for anyone to admit when they are wrong.

It is much easier to keep the blinders on, stay focused on the message "we have lost" and just ignore what the people who are there and fighting have to say about the situation.

It is much easier to ignore the voices of the people who live in Iraq, who tell our soldiers how much they appreciate what we have done, and what we are doing.

Instead, just keep paying attention to the Libs, who aren't there, who don't even know the progress that has been made, and who don't want to know that ANY progress has been made because dammit, it just does not fit into their ideals or what they want to happen.

The real truth, is that were it not for the Libs jumping on board with the environmental whaco's back in the 70's, we would have started obtaining our own oil over 30 years ago.
Had that happened, we would not be depending on any Middle Eastern Countries for our oil, and we would not have to worry about protecting OUR interests over there.

We would be able to just sit back, and watch them all kill each other, destroy their own oil fields, and fight over who has the correct religion, and it would not effect us in the slightest.

We HAVE to have their oil, and they know it, which puts us at a huge disadvantage of having to try to "police" that area of the world, so our nation can continue to exist.

It is the failed policies of the left, that put us in this position to begin with.

The real truth, is that were it not for the Libs jumping on board with the environmental whaco's back in the 70's, we would have started obtaining our own oil over 30 years ago.
Had that happened, we would not be depending on any Middle Eastern Countries for our oil, and we would not have to worry about protecting OUR interests over there.

It is the failed policies of the left, that put us in this position to begin with.

If those environmentalists had been listened to - way back in the 70s - we wouldn't need so much of 'their' oil to begin with. Even if we hadn't found a solution to our love for gas guzzling cars (I loved my 69Charger and wish I still had it :o ) we could have much better, or at least as good, methods for heating houses, supplying electricity, etc.

The failed policies of the right continue to keep us dependent on oil and other disappearing or environmentally damaging energy sources.

Please tell me, exactly what failed policies on the right have kept us dependent on oil?

The failure to invest in 'green' tech (wind, solar, geothermal... ) or even pretend to support them, while continuing to provide subsidies to oil and coal.

Are you saying that the "'right" needs to invest in green tech?

I didn't know it was up to politicians to invest?

I thought we had a free market system, where these type of investments were up to the private sector, I had no idea that the politicians needed to invest.

Perhaps we should forward this message to congress?

Of course politicians 'invest.' That's what the subsidies oil and coal get. It's also things like $1/yr leasing to pump oil out of an area.

OK, thing are getting much clearer to me now.

The politicians are paying the subsidies for oil and coal.

And to think that all this time, I thought they were just using our tax dollars.

Which crazy right winger do you think makes the biggest investment?

The failure to invest in 'green' tech (wind, solar, geothermal...) or even pretend to support them, while continuing to provide subsidies to oil and coal.

I notice your lack of nuclear energy...


President Bush's Crawford ranch uses geothermal... I wonder if Gore's mansion in Nashville does? Or what his electric bill runs... :)


As to the right's lack of will to invest in green, see below

Cape Wind Energy Project- Kennedy faces fight on Cape Wind - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/27/kennedy_faces_fight_on_cape_wind/)

Just wanted to add that Obama again displayed that he doesn't have a clue. In this case he helps make my point.

He said :

"that principle of habeas corpus, that a state can't just hold you for any reason without charging you and without giving you any kind of due process -- that's the essence of who we are. I mean, you remember during the Nuremberg trials, part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we still gave them a day in court and that taught the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law. Now the Supreme Court upheld that principle yesterday."

Forgetting that what Obama is really talking about is the priniple of "having a day in court" and not habeas... Nuremberg did not give the prisoners access to US courts .It gave them a tribunal trial... much like the plan that the law SCOTUS struck down would've done. Would this court have ruled Nuremberg unconstitutional? I think so. I would also point out that the Nuremberg trials were held after the war was won. It wasn't performed in the middle of the war. We did not release detainees in the middle of the war to fight and kill our soldiers again.

Afghan Prison Break - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121357820902476095.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks)




The point of keeping enemy combatants at a remote location like Guantanamo is that it offers some assurance that they will not return to the battlefield to KILL MORE Americans – something many have done when given the chance. Yet last week's Boumediene decision makes it all but certain that Gitmo will soon be shutting (or should we say opening) its doors.. .

As for security, the Kandahar prison break is not the Taliban's first, and it won't be its last. To the extent that the Supreme Court has made secure detentions more difficult, it has made the task of our troops MORE DANGEROUS.

What I understood is that Obama was implying that the word "trial" stands for a reason and that we shouldn't lower standards to that of witch trials. Now some have made a point about the tribunal aspect at Nuremberg, which is factually correct. However, although it was tribunal "trial," which basically meant going through the motions to produce punishment upon the guilty (and rightly so), that the principles of habeas corpus applied at Nuremberg, should at least apply to detainees at Gitmo.

Bobby

And that is being met if the liberal ACLU and SCOTUS judges would stop blocking it. The MCA was done exactly the way it should work... Congress with the input of the Executive making a national security decision. SCOTUS the one branch that has no role in it has 3 times blocked the means to expiditiously move the process along at the same time they complain that it's taking too long.

As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in dissent :


"The majority merely replaces a review system designed by the people's representatives with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by federal courts at some future date."

Now some have made a point about the tribunal aspect at Nuremberg, which is factually correct. However, although it was tribunal "trial," which basically meant going through the motions to produce punishment upon the guilty (and rightly so), that the principles of habeas corpus applied at Nuremberg, should at least apply to detainees at Gitmo.


Bobby just wanted to add that the Chief War Crimes Prosecutor at Nuremberg was Justice Robert H. Jackson . You may also know him as the judge who's precedencial decision was just scrapped by this SCOTUS decision . And what decision was it ? Well he denied Habaes rights to a Nazi prisoner because there had been "no instance where a court has issued habeas corpus to an alien enemy who...has never been within its territorial jurisdiction."

FindLaw | Cases and Codes (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=339&page=763)

This is also as a matter of coinidence one of the Justices I frequently quote when arguing that the Constitution is not a suicide pact .
"If the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

To be quite frankly with you Tom, my personal view and opinion of how civilian criminal trials, tribunals trials, what the ACLU or any decisions based upon our government security via Congress or our current Republican administration, are far enough apart that my defence or support of either candidate, Obama or McCain, would be waste of time and irrelevant. But in short, I personally think investigating to the degree to which an enemy carries out orders, being rightfully or wrongfully accused via trial, is key. I don't see the need of a tribunal trial as much as just an inevitable punishment phase, but an investigation. And I can't see where permitting habeas corpus to it's full extent would impede a decent prosecution team, but rather it helps in exposing the fuller truths about the individual involvements which also provides us insights on others.

Hello again:

In my usual understated way, I must reveal an earthshaking truth that appears to be hidden from you. I don't know why it's hidden. Maybe it's because you refuse to look.

Yes, I'm telling you that the Emperor has no clothes.

If the government takes away the right to challenge ones confinement from ONE GROUP. What's to stop the government from declaring YOU to be a member of that group and locking you up forever?

Even though the designation would be wrong, and you are a full fledged American citizen WITH your habeas corpus rights (theoretically) in tact, and you could prove it too, if you could get in front of a judge... But, you can't get in front of one, can you?? That right doesn't belong to people in YOUR group.

So, talk all you will about THESE people who don't have habeas corpus rights, while I sit back in wonderment, knowing that NONE of us has habeas corpus rights.

excon

Bobby
Give you one quick objection . Discovery is a b*tch. Much of what they are held on is intel that we would not rather share. Therefore more often than not they end up being released rather than the government giving up important intel .

Just remember the case of civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart who was the lawyer for the blind Sheik Omar Abdul-Rahman .Stewart was convicted in February 2005 of providing material support to terrorists. She passed on information to terrorists and acted as a go between contact for the terrorist.

Ex ;if I was on the battle field in Afghanistan perhaps I'd have some splainin to do . David Hicks argued he was doing charity in the AQ camps . Do you believe him ?

Stewart was convicted in February 2005 of providing material support to terrorists. She passed on information to terrorists and acted as a go between contact for the terrorist.Hello again:

Well, that clinches it. NONE of 'em should have lawyers.

excon

Ex What about the rest ? Do you think sensitive and important intel should be given during the discovery phase ? KSM told his interrogators that he would not talk until he had his NY lawyers present . Well when he got a little wet he changed his tune and provided excellent information that has been very useful against AQ.