Home > 9/11, KSM, O'Reilly, Scott Fenstermaker > Fenstermaker, Attorney for 9/11 Terrorist Seems to Have No Soul

Fenstermaker, Attorney for 9/11 Terrorist Seems to Have No Soul


Wow, I am not even sure how to describe what I saw on O’Reilly tonight.  Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer representing terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, nephew of 9/11 mastermind KSM, gave one of the most cowardly, if not evil interviews I have ever seen. 

Repeatedly pressed to answer whether or not 3,000 innocent civilians were murdered on 9/11, Fenstermaker repeatedly said that the jury would decide that, and in fact multiple times strangely argued that the number was actually less than 3,000.  He even made a snide comment when O’Reilly challenged why he, three times, argued that it was less than 3,000 people, indicating that it mattered to the other 200 people who he presumably was arguing were not killed.  How a laywer, who’s law firm is located “in the heart of New York City,” cannot admit that the worst atrocity in the history of our nation was committed on 9/11 is absolutely sickening. 

Perhaps even worse, when asked if he would celebrate if his client was allowed to walk free, while first simply defiantly arguing that for political reasons that would not happen, Fenstermaker said that he would celebrate the fact that justice had been served.  With a straight face, he admitted his honor in representing the most despicable scum on Earth. 

As far as I am concerned, this man is a traitor to his country, and for his complicity in proudly choosing to defend a terrorist that threatens all of the liberties that Fenstermaker takes for granted, deserves a fate similar to that of the terrorist he is representing.

Advertisements
  1. Anonymous
    November 24, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    Andrew writes, and I concur, “this man is a traitor to his country, and for his complicity in proudly choosing to defend these terrorists that threaten all of the liberties that Fenstermaker takes for granted, deserves a fate similar to that of the terrorist he is representing.”As a side issue, for decades lawyers have taken the view that they needn’t believe what they say in defending their clients. So if they think (or know) their client is guilty, it is permissible to claim he is innocent. My view is that this is immoral, and it disintegrates the integrity of the court. Now the counter is that if lawyers are expected to be truthful, there would be clients lacking anyone to defend them. That hypothesis has not been validated by evidence or theory. Rather, it is especially the case today, that there are many who would advocate: child pornography, snuff films, urination on religious symbols, sedition, treason, etc. I don’t know of any serious evil in existence that lacks defenders. Yet suppose there were a case where the crime were so heinous that no one would be willing to claim it were justified. Then the lack of an adequate defense for a potential innocent, would be more than offset by the gain in integrity of our legal system.In sum, let lawyers such as Fenstermaker have the conviction to say that they believe that the ‘crimes’ committed by those who want to defend America, are incomparably greater than those committed by the jihadists. Allen

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: