Savage: "I'd hang every lawyer who went down to Guantánamo"
While discussing the case of two students on trial on charges that they provided material aid to terrorists, Michael Savage told a caller, "If I ran this country, I'd hang the lawyer. I would try her for aiding and abetting terrorism -- I'd hang her and I'd hang every lawyer who went down to Guantánamo to defend those murderers."
While discussing the case of two University of South Florida students on trial on charges that they provided material aid to terrorists, radio host Michael Savage told a caller, "If I ran this country, I'd hang the lawyer. I would try her for aiding and abetting terrorism -- I'd hang her and I'd hang every lawyer who went down to Guantánamo to defend those murderers." Earlier in the June 18 program, Savage said of the defendants and their attorney, whom he called "a shyster lawyer, a girl lawyer": "I would execute them and I'd execute the lawyer. How's that? I'd execute any lawyer who would do this to this country in a time like this -- I'd hang her. I'd hang her. I'd hang her for aiding and abetting terrorism. Don't tell me they're entitled to a rational defense, I'm so sick of this -- I could rip my desk and it's made of iron. I feel like Superman right now, I could take my hands and break my desk, that's how enraged I am today, I'm choked up with anger."
As Media Matters for America has noted, on the March 31 broadcast of his program, Savage advocated putting "left-wing lawyers" in Abu Ghraib, stating: "Cops are getting knocked off all over the country because of the rules of engagement, written primarily by the scummiest class in America, the vermin of vermin, which are the left-wing lawyers who should be put in Abu Ghraib with hoods over their head, as far as I'm concerned." He then said: "If I had the power by executive order, I would round up every member of the ACLU and of the National Lawyers Guild, and I'd put them in a prison in Guantánamo and I'd throw the key away. Or I would reopen Devil's Island and I'd put everyone in the ACLU into -- onto Devil's Island." He added, "But, you see, I fantasize. That's one of my flaws is I live in a fantasy land that can never be."
Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Savage's show, claims that Savage is heard on more than 350 radio stations. The Savage Nation reaches at least 8.25 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it one of the most listened-to talk radio shows in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the June 18 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Now, I want to ask you something. They find two Egyptians with pipe bombs, they get a lawyer, a shyster lawyer, a girl lawyer, who says that they were only fireworks and then she says nobody was actually harmed from the video they made on how to blow people up and kill them. I'm asking you, should they be -- I got to stop right here, because if it was up to me, I would execute them and I'd execute the lawyer. How's that? I'd execute any lawyer who would do this to this country in a time like this -- I'd hang her. I'd hang her. I'd hang her for aiding and abetting terrorism. Don't tell me they're entitled to a rational defense, I'm so sick of this -- I could rip my desk and it's made of iron. I feel like Superman right now, I could take my hands and break my desk, that's how enraged I am today, I'm choked up with anger.
[...]
SAVAGE: Sacramento, Phyllis, you're on the Savage Nation.
CALLER: Hi, hi, Michael. Listen, I guess Mohamed -- Mohamed there and Ahmed wanted to celebrate Fourth of July.
SAVAGE: Yeah, that's why they had a pipe bomb and their lawyer said they were firecrackers. I tell you, I'd hang the lawyer. If I ran this country, I'd hang the lawyer. I would try her for aiding and abetting terrorism -- I'd hang her and I'd hang every lawyer who went down to Guantánamo to defend those murderers. Two hundred rats ran out of New York and Boston to defend these people that would hang them and spit in their face. These guys hate Jews, they would kill Jews and half of the lawyers were Jews. Explain this to me.
CALLER: Michael, you --
SAVAGE: You want to let it all hang out? Why do Jewish liberal lawyers run to Guantánamo to defend Muslims who hate them? Can you explain that to me?
CALLER: No, my father was one of those guys. But I yeah --
SAVAGE: Well, it's the same as the Jewish lawyers and the ACLU who defended the Nazis who wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois. And you ask the Jewish lawyers, "Why would you defend Nazis who want to march in Skokie, Illinois?" And their answer is, "Because I believe in freedom." That's not why they did it, because I learned that one of them, one of the lead attorneys, did it for fame and nothing but fame. He used that as a mockery of the law itself, he made believe that that's what he believed in. He saw it as a good opportunity to get on the world stage and to be recognized. Most of it was done for money, do you understand that, Phyllis?
CALLER: Sure. Yeah, but what I'm calling about is that I want to encourage you, you are my brother in rage. We love you. I want to encourage you to continue, please.
SAVAGE: Yeah, Mohamed was a civil engineering graduate student who came to the University of South Florida -- "Jihad U" -- in January of '07 on a student visa. I guess the homosexual university provost wanted some diversity in the university so they brought them in from around the world. You know how university fellows are, they like diversity in their midst. Megahed is a permanent U.S. resident who lives in Tampa with his family.
Oh man, here it goes. I admit, there are quite a few lawyers I would not mind seeing at the end of a rope, but all? Seems like he was a bit angry that day. Get over it.
Are you really defending this guy? you really don't have a problem with what else he said (even ignoring the "all lawyers" part)?
Plleassse! This is far from just a bad lawyer's joke - he's saying certain human being's have no right to a legal defense - and anyone who tries to defend them deserves to die!
I've actually felt sick to my stomach when I think of some of the digusting crap that comes out of this guys mouth! This is one of them! Put this lunatic madman on a street corner somewhere, I can live with that - but to think this is on our public airwaves just makes me ill.
The United States Constitution.
You might want to brush up on it.
Four words Weiner,
The United States Constitution.
You might want to brush up on it.
I remember reading about that document. But it was rendered "quaint" by the GWOT(TM)
"innocent until proven guilty"?
You must be talking about the guy who made the video that demonstrates how to remote-control detonate a bomb, using the remote-controller from a toy car that can be bought at Wal-Mart: and in the video, the guy exhorts (in arabic) someone (who knows who) to blow people up with this method: "don't be a suicide bomber" the guy says on his videotape... "do it by remote-control, the way I've described, so that you can kill more and more and more"
"innocent until proven guilty"?
He confessed!
He entered a guilty plea!
That's what happened today... don't you even know that?
"innocent until proven guilty"
Who are you talking about? The guy who entered the guilty plea?
Who else could it be?
If what you say is true, then that evidence will be presented in court, his detainment and eventual conviction will be upheld and he'll recieve his sentence. Save your indignation for when/if he's released despite said eveidence, not merely because he gets his day in court. He IS entitled to that - according to the US Constituition, the Supreme Court, the rule of decency, and the conservative idea of placing limitations of the power of the government.
If there's so much evidence against these guys, the convictions should be pretty easy to come by. And if there's no evidence, then ehy are they there, and how do we know the guilty anyway? There should be no reason not to try these guys in covilian courts unless the Bush admin. has somethign to hide. (Imagine that!)
What are you talking about "if what I say is true" and "if he's released despite the evidence" and "if there's so much evidence" and "if there's no evidence"...
HE ENTERED A GUILTY PLEA!
You're as bad the other guy, Pit... you either didn't even read about the facts, and just assumed them, in a frenzied response to what the Syphilis victim savage said... or if you read the facts, then you failed to understand them:
The guy who made the video, describing (in arabic) how to make a remote-control detonator from a toy that can be bought at Wal-Mart, he pled guilty to what it was I described...
HE CONFESSED AND ADMITTED TO THE FACTS!
...and where you make a reference to "there should be no reason not to try these guys in civilian courts"...
They are being tried in civilian courts. If you're going to comment on a criminal matter, you should at least have read the facts: the two guys were stopped in South Carolina: they're being held in South Florida: they're being tried (or have been making their Court appearances so far) in a Federal U.S. District Court in South Florida... the guy stood up in that U.S. District Court, and said "yes" when asked if he understood and agreed with the plea of guilty that he and his Lawyer had agreed upon with the Prosecution.
You're the same as the other guy Pit: you don't know what you're even commenting about, but you're eager as all get out to comment anyway...
It's not even worthy of being called a "knee jerk reaction", if it's devoid of knowing and understanding the facts... it's much worse than the simple "knee jerk".
I read the entire article. One pleaded guilty and faces up to 15 yrs when sentenced in September. The other pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.
What the hell does that have to do with Savage's insane rant that their attorney should be killed?
Nothing at all. I tried to relate his unrelated point to the matter at hand, but apparently all this guy want to do is rant. How gurenteeing someone the right to a fair and speeddy trial constitutes a "knee-jerk reaction" I'll never understand. Whatever. Probably part of the' Savage Nation.'
My noting the guilty plea has nothing at all to do with the radio guy savage.
Who said it did?
I noted the guilty plea in response to the poster niceguyeddie thinking that there was doubt about the guilt of the guy who made the bomb-making video... doubt about what he had done, and that there was some sort of hearing and deliberation process to go through... there isn't. He pled guilty.
OK. So what you're saying is that the case you mentioned is not only completely off-topic, but a completely irrelevant example to the topic at hand as well. I gave you the beneift of the doubt, I guess I shouldn't have done.
WHAT IS YOUR POINT?!
A guy goes to COURT (if you're saying he 'plead guilty' this would have been in court, right?) and makes a plea. In this case, guilty, and, what? He goes free? Someone else (I think) said he got 15 years, but I'm not familiar iwth the case, so I don't know and you didn't say onw way or the other in your post. (That would be kind of important info.) If he didn't, then what's the problem? It sounds mroe like proof that the system works, and that the court can handle these guys.
The chowderhead is upset because he didn't get to torture him first.
Demo0202 wrote:
>>You must be talking about the guy who made the video that demonstrates how to remote-control detonate a bomb, using the remote-controller from
You apparently didn't read the article closely. Savage said " I'd hang every lawyer who went down to Guantánamo to defend those murderers." Savage is talking about lawyers defending the Gitmo prisoners (many of whom have indeed found to be innocent), not the students. So yes, Savage does not believe in the principal of innoncent until proven guilty, that is at least 200 years old.
I guess all the lawyer jokes are going to be revised as "talk radio hosts" jokes. Good news bad news, viscious aliens have landed up and down the Eastern seaboard, bad news. But they eat right wing talk radio hosts, FOX news employees, they urinate North Sea light crude and are heading west, which is the good news.
Of course he does. And I love it when these hypocrites attack the ACLU, the first organization to come to their defense when their own rights are being violated (they defended buth Ollie North and Rush Limbaugh, just to name a few, plus a slew of religious (Chriostian) organizations who's rights were being abbridged. Apparently if you apply principals and apply those principals to all people, that's left-wing liberal commie treason. Apparently only conservative can be defended on principal, but those same principals should NEVER be applied to liberal's.
In his fantasy world he'd hang all the lawyers? Well if I had a DEATH NOTE, "Michael Savage" would be the first name I'd write in it. (Try wiki if you're not an anime fan, and don't get the reference.)
One thing I like about MMFA's pieces on radio personalities is the paragraph that states how many stations this *man* is broadcasted from and how many listeners he has.
350 stations and 8 plus million listeners?!?! And the other two whackos (Shannity and O'Really) have MORE?!?! That's freakin' CRAZY! That comes to, what, 30 plus million listeners a week? Almost 8 percent of the nation listens to these liars and sociopaths and AGREE with their blatherings?
Wow... we have fallen a long way...
"That comes to, what, 30 plus million listeners a week? Almost 8 percent of the nation listens to these liars and sociopaths and AGREE with their blatherings? "
No necessarily. It might just be the same 8 million, not 8 million different listeners each.
rush is on vacation until monday.- sandss981580
Dominican Republic mothers, hide your sons this weekend!
Nice catch, Mag. Weiner obviously hates the troops and won't let them do their job.
But my favorite clip of the day (at least I didn't see this until today), is of America-hatin' Grampy. I'm eagerly awaiting the outrage from Hannity and the other idiots.
I first saw this on Abrams' show tonight, and GOP baboon Lars larsen (sp), when asked to explain the difference between Grampy's remarks and M. Obama's "really proud of America" sound bite, responded as expected; dodged the question, and summed up with "it's just different because it's different" (very popular defense with the wingnuts at this site)
I don't think these inflammatory comments on the radio, by this fevered Syphilis victim savage, are the best example of "Democrat-baiting", but that's what they are anyway, typical or not.
That's what all this habeas gitmo detainee terror martyrdom execution torture interrogation nonsense is, when it's initiated by Bush and Cheney and their many hacks and minions (of which the insane savage might be one): it's all just noise to bait Democrats, into taking the side of "terror suspects"... into appearing "soft on terror" and into appearing to be more concerned with the rights well-being comfort feelings and lives of "terror suspects", than of those people who might be threatened or have already died, in any kind of bombing...
It baits Democrats.
It doesn't bait me though. I didn't read closely the transcribed rantings above, of the insane Syphilis victim savage, but I clicked the link to the AP item about the plea that was entered in Court (today it seems): from that item, it seems that one of the two guys arrested did indeed make a video, that not only shows how to remote-control the detonation of a bomb (using a remote-control for a toy car that can be bought at Wal-Mart), but that the video also exhorts (in arabic) for someone or other to use this method to kill others (Americans, U.S. Troops, I'm not sure, and it doesn't really matter), and by using the remote-control method described, the bomber lives on (un-sacrificed in the attack), to kill more and more and more...
Now, as for this guy savage: he's about as unsympathetic as any victim could ever be, from the ravages of his disease (Syphilis), or from any other mishap or accident or death the guy might suffer (he's as worthy of compassion as is a rabid dog)... but in the interests of actual People, Human Beings, whether they be Americans or U.S. Troops or whoever (it doesn't really matter), who might be killed in a bombing: in thier interests, I'd have happily tortured this guy who made that video, I'd torture him to death, in an effort to find out if he had any accomplices, or any knowledge of any others who do or did or simply advocate, what his little video describes.
Death is too good for the guy (the video guy, not the radio guy savage)... prison is way too good... and deportation? I'm not exactly sure what to do with this video remote-control bomb guy, but I'd hesitate to deport him: maybe he walks free in Egypt, I don't know... he'd be a hero in saudi arabia though, I'm sure of that.
Sure, hang him electrocute him shoot him lethally inject him, torture him to death... as long as he doesn't bomb anyone, or teach or otherwise exhort others, to bomb anyone.
As for his Lawyer, and entering into the proceedings that her client claims the materials in the trunk of his car were simply "fire-works"?
Don't hang the Lawyer for that: that's what Lawyers are supposed to do, they're supposed to advocate for their clients, and speak for them, on their behalf, the things they wish to say (however unbelievable) in their own defense... Lawyers are not supposed to Judge their clients: that function is the function of the Court, and of the Judge (obviously).
What are talking about, "before or after he was tried and convicted"?
He entered a guilty plea, he confessed.
It's already on the record... didn't you even read it?
Imagine that, he confessed. And since it wasn't coerced by torture, the confession doesn't get thrown out, and we can put him in prison. Sorry you didn't get to live out your little torture/revenge fantasy. As for me I'm glad the system worked.
The system did work. And if the guy knew of anyone who was planning to bomb anybody at all, Americans or U.S. Troops or whoever, by his method or any other method: or if he knew anyone who had already done what his video describes, I'd have happily tortured the guy to find these things out, and would torture him to death if that's what it took...
You and your type are worthless in Law enforcement, if you think the rights of terrorists are more important than the lives of bombing victims... the higher the profile you and your deluded weak kind make in the Democratic Party, the worse that Democrats do politically, nationally... and for good rerason: sensible People don't feel safe with you and your kind in authority, in positions of Protecting People, against terrorists or anyone else...
That's why Republicans bait Democrats with this kind of stuff: to draw you and your kind to the front, and sink Democrats politically with the American People in the process.
That's another of the strange effeminate weaknesses that disquailifies you and your kind from consideration by the American People for positions of Law Enforcement, and and the function of Protecting the American People: you think that it's all just acting like a "tough guy"
It's not.
The functions served to the American People, by the U.S. Armed forces and the FBI and the various other Law enforcement authorities of the Federal Government, are not the function of acting like or being a "tough guy"
And because people like you think that way, is why the American People are often repulsed by Democrats nationally... repulsed by them, when people like you are drawn out from among Democrats... which is why Republicans bait them in this manner: to draw the likes of you out, and sink the Democrats nationally with the American People, who seek National Security from those they entrust, with the administration of their Federal Government.
Interesting that you're suddenly this big, bad, "bring it on" tough guy.
You may remember a certain president, in office for nine months prior to 9/11. This president refused to read intelligence bulletins. He refused to meet with top intelligence officials - all so he could cut shrubery on his ranch. Then 9/11 happened...and he had not a damned clue as to what to do - except go on reading "My Pet Goat". The man I'm alluding to is George W. Bush. He's the biggest pussy of them all. He's not a tough guy. He can talk tough, but he was too much of a chicken to even serve his country in uniform. How many of your worthless Republican chickenhawk politicians and pundits have served this great nation?
Oh, that's right...most of them got deferments because they had family members in high places who could pull strings for them. That's patriotism for you! They're all losers - and Republicans in general, are losers.
And you have the balls to say that Democrats don't know how to protect the country? Really? Under the Clinton Administration, the WTC was bombed. Those involved were tried, found guilty and sentenced to long prison terms. What has Bush done to find Bin Laden? Last time he was asked about Bin Laden, Bush said that Bin Laden didn't matter anymore and that he doesn't know where he is. Tough guy, indeed.
You guys just suck all the way around, with your war-mongering, pussy attitudes about the government keeping you safe, etc. Get real, wipe the sh!t out of your pants, and grow a spine.
Furthermore, you forget that when you put your country on the defensive to the degree that we have, the terrorists are made that much happier. They know our government is in trouble for wire-tapping. They know our government has cracked down on it's own citizens, requiring them to have passports to leave the country (if they expect to return). They know they have put our military on the offense and that our military has been stretched thin, thanks to the fear weak-mindedness that you and your ilk display - almost on a daily basis.
You righties make me sick. You scream and yell about protection, but forget that when we have to give up freedoms (even in principle), you're giving in to those who would like to see our nation fail. That makes you a sympathizer, bub. The rest of us go on living our lives without sh!tting our pants on a daily basis out of the fear of being the next victim of some sort of terrorist attack.
Listening in on my phone calls doesn't keep me safe. Reading my (e-)mail doesn't keep me safe. Acting all tough, beating your chest like Tarzan doesn't make you tough, either. So get off your ass, tough guy, join the military and go fight, if you think this is such a worthy cause.
Now, put down this month's edition of Hustler, pull up you pants, get out of your mom's basement and join the military. What are you waiting for, tough guy?
Dem0202 wrote:
>>The functions served to the American People, by the U.S. Armed forces and the FBI and the various other Law enforcement authorities of the Federal Government, are not the function of acting like or being a "tough guy"
And this may come as a surprise to you, but these entities still have to follow the US constitution, which strictly prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," or torture. Places like N. Korea and China practice torture and use your type of thinking. Maybe you should renounce your citizenship and move there. You might like it better, considering your scorn for human rights.
Dem0202 wrote:
>>The system did work. And if the guy knew of anyone who was planning to bomb anybody at all, Americans or U.S. Troops or whoever, by his method or any other method: or if he knew anyone who had already done what his video describes, I'd have happily tortured the guy to find these things out, and would torture him to death if that's what it took...
Are you intentionally posting stupid stuff today? You didn't even answer Jimmy's post. If the suspects were tortured, then they could not have been convicted. They would be free, exactly the oppostite of what you claim you want. You didn't even answer this point, but you go on a rant about torture, which is (a) against the constitution (which you apparently don't even understand) and (b) counterproductive, because tortured confessions usually don't reveal any reliable information and (c) outright unethical and (d) shows you don't know anything about law enforcement beyond what you get from a TV show.
Dem0202 wrote:
>>I'd have happily tortured this guy who made that video, I'd torture him to death, in an effort to find out if he had any accomplices, or any knowledge of any others who do or did or simply advocate, what his little video describes.
Good grief, what a stupid, knee jerk reaction! You do realize that what you advocate is against the US constitution (specifically the bill of rights), don't you? Since you love to throw out inflamatory rhetoric, let me ask you, Dem, why do you hate the US constitution? Why do you hate human rights?
Well, I spew my filth for three hours a day
Over at the savage nation.
But the crap I spew ain't bought no more
Poor, poor pitiful me!
(chorus)
Poor, poor pitiful me!
Poor, poor pitiful me!
Oh, Boehlert wont let me be
Lord have mercy on me!
Woe, woe is me!
Well, I started a lawsuit against a group of ragheads
And I aint namin names
But the lawyers aint doin me no good
against those CAIR flames
Yes, he really screwed me over good
He was a stinkin GITMO lawyer
He filched my pocket for my change
Lord, sorta like a waring blender
(repeat chorus)
Well, I say all sorts of hateful stuff
Down at Savage nation,
As long as sponsors send in cash,
I'm covered is all I'm sayin!
(repeat chorus)
Poor, poor pitiful me!
Poor, poor pitiful me...
Nice job, Snoop.
You're our "Excitable Boy".
As a lawyer, I am saddened everytime the term is held up as a strawman or joke. Even when people defend the generalization, they many times say something like, "I know a few attorneys I'd like to string up...", etc. Why is that okay?
BTW, all lawyers take an oath to, and the mission of the ACLU, protect the U.S. Consitution, the state constitution, abide by the law and the ethical requirements of the state and federal Supreme Courts. The ACLU and any defense attorney in a criminal case is really protecting the constitution when he/she makes the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonble doubt. A few guitly go free to ensure that you get a fair trial and the state proves its case. You don't have to prove your innocence. If the prosecution fails to prove its case, even if the defendant is obviously guilty, he goes free. We can't let incompetence be an excuse either or their incompetence will someday put an innocent party in jail. Remember, the state has an obligation not to try a person unless a true bill or indictment, standing alone unchallenged would result in conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Quite a high standard to be sure, but that is what our constitution requires.
Sorry Pal, the detainees don't get the same rights as US citizens. They now have the right to challenge their status as "enemy combatant", though.
And I suppose our captured soldiers should get that same treatment, too? The protection of soldiers from another nation's criminal proceedings, which may afford less protectons than ours, is the reason for the many treaties we've signed, including the Geneva Accords.
As for your misguided disrespect for attorneys, I can't speak to a closed mind. I'll just say that if most people are good, then so are most attorneys. If you think the profession draws the worst people or fosters bad behavior, you're not a thinking person. But the same can be said, erroneously, for priests, evangelists, politicians, used care salesmen, plumbers, roofers, insurance agents, and any other maligned group. Generally speaking, generalities about people should be distrusted.
Palecon wrote:
>>the issue is that foreign combatants get the same rights as american citizens. you and the supreme court might agree, but i don't. they should be given the rights and treatment that every one in the afghanistan prison system enjoy. i'll continue to lose sleep over how mistreated lawyers are in our society. 99% of you give the rest a bad name.
First, please change your name to neocon. My understanding is that palecons actually know the constitution and are against abuses by a too-powerful government.
Now let's just change your quote to how it should read: "the issue is that human beings get the same rights as american citizens. you and the supreme court might agree, but i don't. they should be given the rights and treatment that every one in the afghanistan prison system enjoy."
You see, the term "enemy combatants" is meaningless, meant to strip other human beings of their natural rights. The term only means that the Bush gov't thinks that they are terrorists--not that they have proven in a court of law that they are. Many of the gitmo prisoners have already been set free after being subjected to torture, so there is no reason for me to automatically assume any of the remaining ones are terrorists. Further, whether ultimately guilty or not, all humans have the right to contest their imprisonment and defend themselves in a fair trial. Those rights go back at least 200 years. I'll point out that it was one of the founding fathers who defended the British troops accused in the Boston Masacre. (The troops were found innocent.) Even 200 years ago it was recognized that humans, even ones very unpopular and accused of killing your fellow man, deserve a trial.
But I guess you don't believe in the constitution, do you?
In this regard, Lawyers are very much like other Officers of the Law (and while they're sometimes called "Officers of the Court", it's just as appropriate to say they are Officers of the Law: because they have the word Law right there, in the name of their profession)... they are like other Officers of the Law, in that their knowledge and their practice of the Law, and their connection to the Courts and the other Officers thereof, gives them special insight, and the opportunity and the means, to corrupt the Law: that is, if they also have the motivation.
And while they (Lawyers) share this power to corrupt the Law and it's proceedings (share it with cops and Judges and Legislators), they have and share the power to make the Law work also, and to acheive for us all, JUSTICE... And Justice For All, as the Pledge often cited by us, concludes.
Lawyers (like cops and Judges and Lawmakers) are at once the agents of the corruption of our Laws and Legal System, and are also the working of those Laws and that System: they make both JUSTICE and INJUSTICE, as their motivations lead them, by the means and opportunities they have, and by the special insights they possess, in the privileged profession they enjoy.
And if the better Angels of the Law are our Salvation from it's and our Legal Demons (and that is true, and the word Salvation is a good one), and if the number of Good Lawyers is something we'd wish to increase, over the number of bad, then there is good news for us: because there are many millions and millions of Lawyers, and many bad ones I 'm sure, but there are also many millions of cops and Judges and Lawmakers too... and while we do not always have the power ourselves, to decide or even have any input, into who becomes a Lawyer (and what their motivations are for becoming one), we do choose our cops and our Judges (or at least we choose those who Appoint them), and we choose and Elect our Lawmakers.
If the power of the bad in this case, can only be rectified by the same power, held in the hands of better Angels honest cops true Judges wise and uncorrupted Lawmakers, and Good Lawyers... then there is Good News for us all: We have the ultimate Power... People do.
I don't know how many bad Lawyers there are out there, but I know there are plenty enough cops and Judges and Lawmakers, to rectify the wrongs those Lawyers do... and there are so many millions of us People, to choose and Elect our own Lawmakers (and choose and Elect those who Appoint our cops and Judges), that We are so many, that all We need do is apply ourselves in this matter, to see JUSTICE in America...
And JUSTICE For All
I suggest We apply ourselves to this matter so seriously, as to maybe even make a Pledge (and make our children Pledge also, every day), and to conclude that Pledge with those words, and mean them.