Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — David Remes, a Washington attorney who left a major corporate law firm to take on full-time representation of terrorism suspects held in the American detention center here, recalled vividly one of his early visits to meet with his clients.
“We were a group of lawyers, and the young guard was leading us through the camp,” Remes said. “Then he looked at us and at the huts surrounding the camp’s yard, and said, ‘This looks like a guided tour of a concentration camp.’”
Remes, who established the not-for-profit legal practice Appeal for Justice and now represents 19 detainees, tried to avoid such comparisons and stressed that he sees no equation between Guantanamo and the Nazi camps. Still, he added, “When you consider the way Jews were dehumanized as vermin, there’s an unfortunate echo.”
It is a sentiment born of Remes’s own sense of Jewish identity. And even if Remes’s way of putting it is his own, the source of personal commitment is one shared by many other lawyers representing the remaining 225 Guantanamo detainees in American courts.
Many of these lawyers are Jewish. In fact, Jewish attorneys are considered to be the backbone of the campaign to provide legal rights for the Guantanamo detainees, all imprisoned without charge or trial.
“Among the lawyers who were involved in this from the beginning, and even now, there is a substantive overrepresentation of Jews,” said Joe Margulies, law professor at Northwestern University and veteran fighter for the legal rights of Guantanamo detainees. Margulies and several other Jewish colleagues were the first to take on the cause, and they are still leading the pack in pro bono representation of the detainees once tagged by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as the “worst of the worst” of America’s enemies.
Since then, it has become clear that many of Guantanamo’s detainees had little to do with terror. At its peak, the camp held more than 600 detainees, but most have since been released without charge. Of the 225 remaining detainees, dozens, such as the Chinese Ouigers held in minimum security Camp Iguana, are waiting for a third country to accept them, since they cannot return to their homelands. Others — there are no exact figures — will be tried either by American courts or by military commissions. President Obama has also suggested his administration may seek to indefinitely incarcerate, without charge or trial, a small number of the remaining detainees whom prosecutors doubt they can convict, but whom they nevertheless consider too dangerous to release.
The struggle over these detainees took many turns until the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Guantanamo terrorism suspects have the right to habeas corpus — that is, to have their case independently reviewed by a court of the United States. Altogether, some 600 attorneys have represented detainees in their habeas corpus cases since the United States set up the Guantanamo center in 2002, and Jews still play a major role. Speaking with their clients means traveling to Guantanamo regularly for meetings that take place in Camp Echo, a facility built to accommodate these discussions.
Initial attempts to challenge the legal status of Guantanamo detainees in court were led by five attorneys, all of whom are Jewish.
“There was some debate about it in our office,” recalled Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, as he described the early decision within his organization to take on the defense of terror suspects at a time when America was still in shock after the September 11 attacks. “My answer was that what’s going on is so distinct in taking away fundamental rights, that we have to protect the right of habeas corpus.”
Not all Jewish attorneys share that view. When Nathan Lewin, a prominent Washington lawyer, was asked in 2008 to help prepare a brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of a Guantanamo detainee, he refused. “A lawyer is not a cab driver,” Lewin said. “A lawyer has the right, if not the duty, to look at the ideology of a defendant.” Lewin argued that, independent of their guilt or innocence, the presumed ideology of Guantanamo detainees stands contrary to his views as a Jew. “If someone tries to undermine my beliefs and convictions by attacking the Western world and Israel, I don’t want any part in representing these people in the legal system,” he added.
But Remes said that the collective Jewish memory of suffering and persecution was key to his motivation to protect Guantanamo detainees. “It made me identify to a certain extent with their suffering and persecution,” he said.
Margulies agrees. He speaks of Jewish understanding of other people’s suffering as “ingrained in our DNA,” and said that Jews understand “what it means to be singled out.”
Others point to the broader set of Jewish values of justice and tikkun olam as the driving force behind their decision to take on these cases. Jonathan Hafetz of the American Civil Liberties Union sees it as “an extension of the participation of many Jewish lawyers in human rights and civil rights causes” dating to the 1960s. “This is the new front,” he said.
Hafetz, who is a staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project, represented one of Guantanamo’s most widely known detainees. Mohammed Jawad was 15 when he was arrested in Afghanistan. He spent six years in American custody. Last August he was released, and upon returning to Afghanistan he alleged that he suffered abuse and torture in Guantanamo.
Hafetz and other Jewish lawyers representing terror suspects said their religion was never an obstacle when engaging with their Muslim clients. Karen Abravanel, a New York attorney representing a Saudi detainee, said that the issue of her religion was first raised only after several meetings with her client in Camp Echo. “He said, ‘Abravanel sounds like a Jewish name,’” she recalled. When she confirmed that she was Jewish, her client replied, “This is the first time I am in a room with a Jewish person.” From there, the two went on to discuss traditions, holidays and dietary laws. “It was pretty meaningful for me,” Abravanel said.
According to several Jewish lawyers, the only instance in which faith was raised as an issue with the detainees was before the first round of visits to Guantanamo. One of the attorneys, Tom Wilner, said he was told by two of his clients that their interrogators warned them that he, Wilner, was Jewish. “How can you trust a Jew?” one detainee said he was told. “They only want to take advantage of Muslims.”
The defense attorneys saw this as an attempt to drive a wedge between the Jewish lawyers and their Muslim clients. Wilner filed an affidavit to the court on the issue, which the court sealed. The military filed no response, he said. The attorneys agreed that the attempt failed.
Several Jewish attorneys also invoke the story of a detainee who asked his lawyer whether he was Jewish. When the answer was negative, the detainee was crestfallen. “I heard they were the best,” he said, according to the tale.
Another possible wedge issue was the attorneys’ views on Israel. “There is no distinction in the Middle East between Jews and Israel,” Remes said, “so sometimes it requires an effort to explain these are not identical.” Others also encountered situations in which they felt it necessary to tell their clients that they do not necessarily support all Israeli policies.
While attorneys visiting Guantanamo speak of the good rapport they’ve built with the detainees, guards and commanders on the ground report a different experience. Bruce Vargo, commander of the Joint Detention Group, said that since January there have been 750 assaults on guards, most of them involving the throwing of bodily fluids by detainees. “We call this a mental battlefield,” Vargo said. He stressed that guards are under strict orders not to respond to detainee provocations.
Most observers doubt that the Obama administration will meet its self-declared January 22, 2010, deadline for closing Guantanamo — one of Obama’s most publicized campaign vows. But clearly its days are numbered, and commanders on the ground are fighting a rear-guard action for the detention center’s legacy. Despite accounts by detainees and attorneys of abuse, the military believes that the center’s image is in large part a problem of bad publicity and misperceptions.
“This place has become a symbol of everything that has gone wrong around the world,” said Thomas Copeman, commander of the Guantanamo Joint Task Force — an apparent reference to the abuse of Muslim prisoners by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, and by employees and contract agents for the CIA at so-called black sites around the world. “When all is said and done, the truth will come out.”
But the defense attorneys, ironically, fear the center’s closing almost as much as they have been alarmed by its existence. Guantanamo’s shutdown, they say, will create a perception that all problems have been solved, while they believe there is still more to do.
“We don’t like a lot of the things that are happening,” Ratner said. He referred to the plans for continuation of a preventive detention program even after Guantanamo is closed, the continued incarceration of uncharged detainees in Afghanistan, and the use of military commissions instead of courts. “The problem,” he said,”is that the pendulum did not swing back the whole way.”
Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Claims Conference Chief Knew of $57M Holocaust Fraud Probe Earlier 
Rama Burshtein Offers Rare Glimpse of Orthodox World
Top Dog: Who Makes the Best Kosher Hot Dog in America?
What We Can Learn From Mel Brooks About Racism
Life After the Holocaust, at 90 and Beyond
You've successfully signed up!
Would these Jewish lawyers continue to represent someone who was an El-Quida or Taliban member who harbored hatred of Jews and other anti-Semitic attitudes which are part of fundamentalist Muslim ideology?
"Margulies ...speaks of Jewish understanding of other people’s suffering as “ingrained in our DNA,”..." Yes, so I must ask what these lawyers have done to help the families of those murdered on 9/11? How about the people who have developed health problems after working at the World Trade Center site?
Furthermore, I would say that it is also ingrained in our DNA to follow the Torah to the best of our ability. That includes kindness to strangers and charity, but also keeping the laws of Kashrut and Shabbat. Could it be that these lawyers are being somewhat selective and even disingenuous in attributing Jewish ethics to their choices? I wonder if they also find a way to ascribe Jewish morality to supporting abortion rights and gay marriage? G-d gave us free will, so believe as you like, but let's at least be a bit more honest in defending our choices.
Im proud of the Jewish representation for the freedom fighters in Guantanamo. I also support the right of Iran to pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the hedgmonic designs of the US and Israel.
The comments of "Rabbi Tony Jutner" are not surprising since elsewhere he states he is opposed to anything that "convey(s) legitimacy upon Israel."
The idiot jewish Liberal personified as lawyer. Defending those who have you at the top of their enemies list.You have to shake your head in amazement at the cluelessness of these shmucks.
Alan Dershowitz got his start defending terrorists who killed Jews.
In 1972 Dershowitz defended Sheldon Siegel, a member of the Jewish Defense League, on a murder charge. Siegel made a bomb that the JDL set off in the offices of Sol Hurok, because Hurok organized a cultural exchange with the Soviet Union. The bomb killed Iris Kones, a Jewish secretary.
Dershowitz got Siegel off, not because he was innocent, but because his civil rights were violated. http://openjurist.org/482/f2d/38
In a case that has been all but forgotten , 100 years ago my grandfather was arrested in the middle of the night & thrown into a Russian prison for 2 1/2 years before he was aquitted by an all Christian jury. Comparisions can be made since he didnt get counsel for the first eight months of imprisonment
Thanks for exploding the myth that all Jews are smart. This article is complete proof that we have more than our share or morons.
I as a not smart Jewish lawyer. Please tell me why you will would help someone kill you and your family? will you help me if I only rob your house? Are you on drugs?
Unfortunately, the fact serves as another proof that jurisprudence has nothing to do with fairness, moral and ethical behavior, or even common sense, to Mike's point above. And that's how lawyers are cultivated. All these individuals listed in the article pursue is th name for themselves, because this is how they were taught in law shools but, esecially, in law firms thy first cut their teeth in. They do not care about the cause. All they care about their future careers as money-making opportunity. And all this demagoguery about comparing a criminal who would in a diferent circumstances slit their throats for being Jews - to revolutionaries and dissidents arrested back in Russia! Or to persecuton of civil leaders. Shame on them and their parents!
The 21st century version of 'useful idiots.' And unfortunately, there are plenty of them.
In fact, many of the Guantanamo detainees were and are completely innocent. They're not trying to kill Jews. Some of them were turned in by when the U.S. forces, who couldn't even speak the local languages, were paying bounties for "terrorists."
The first thing you have to do to protect Jews, or anybody else, is figure out who's really a terrorist and who isn't. You can't do that without good lawyers defending the accused.
One of the most important things Jews believe in is justice. These Jewish lawyers are upholding the most important Jewish traditions.
Guantanamo detainees, a perspective:
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/1207_courts_wittes.aspx
The lawyers mentioned here, along with others committed to justice such as Michael Ratner and Justice Goldstone, are certainly people to be proud of.
Of course, if concerns about justice were, as this article suggests, written into Jewish DNA, Israel would not have introduced weapons of mass destruction into the middle east, the Anti-Defamation league would not be collaborating with right-wing Christians, and the current Israeli government would not have slaughtered more than a thousand people in Gaza recently.
**A note to "Shalom" who posted a question above regarding workers who have been suffering health problems as a result of having offered their services at the site of the 9-11 attacks:
Amy Goodman, Jewish producer of Democracy Now, has perhaps done more than any other journalist to publcize this issue. See the Democracy Now website for extensive interviews with physicians and rescue workers, and information on how we can help.
'Of course, if concerns about justice were, as this article suggests, written into Jewish DNA, Israel would not have introduced weapons of mass destruction into the middle east'
You think, bunkie, maybe the fact they were/are surrounded by states which started several wars against them in the hope of destroying their nation and people, you think that just might have been a small reason for developing wmd's, huh?
Hi Allan,
Israel has been the pre-eminent military power in the middle east since at least 1967, and is backed by the most powerful military power in history. There is no way that any of Israel's neighbors could destroy Israel. The General Staff of the IDF has repeated this fact on many occasions. This tells us that concerns about survival could not have motivated Israel's decision to produce nuclear and biological weapons.
We may recall, in addition, that the Israeli government almost alone in the world, supported the Bush Administration decision to invade Iraq based on the claim that Iraq had introduced weapons of mass destruction into the middle east and then to have refused inspections. The fact, however, is that Israel -- and not Iraq -- is responsible for having introduced wmd's into the region and it is Israel -- not Iraq -- that has refused to have its facilities inspected.
In sume, the facts lead lead to the suspicion that Israel is not concerned about maintaining or creating peace in the region, and is not concerned primarily with defending itself, but is concerned primarily to maintain military dominance in the region in order that oil supplies to US and its clients remain stable. This should come as no surprise, as this is the role assigned to Israel by Kissinger and Nixon and the role it has continued to play to this day.
'There is no way that any of Israel's neighbors could destroy Israel. The General Staff of the IDF has repeated this fact on many occasions. This tells us that concerns about survival could not have motivated Israel's decision to produce nuclear and biological weapons'
Jeffrey, has it ever occurred to you that perhaps, just perhaps, a nation of 5 million people surrounded by 200 million arabs + the Iranians who would like nothing more than to see them disappear from the map of the Middle East by any means necessary, just might see a need to add WMD's to their arsenal? And has the thought ever entered your mind that the IDF's confidence is due to their knowledge, and their enemies knowledge, of what weaponry Israel can draw on in its defense?
You exhibit that peculiar strain of paranoia and illogic nonsense which is found throughout the muslim world and is all too common among many in the Western anti-Israel community. Anyone worried about WMD's should be worried about Iran, a nation run by a fanatic religious theocracy which has publicly called out and threatened Israel with destruction. Instead, you appear to be worried about a nation, israel, which has never threatened any nation with destruction and had never used any of the weapons in its WMD arsenal. You are a very silly fellow. But that's what paranoid ideology does to one's mentality.
Hi Allan,
You have condensed a great number of cognitive and historical errors into a small space, so I don't hope to be able to correct your "argument" here. I'll just mention two facts that you leave out and that shed light on your response.
First, you mention that there are more Arabs than Jews in the middle east.
This is true, of course, but irrelevant. What matters is the strength of the fighting forces. Israel possesses one of the three or four best air forces in the world and is backed by the most powerful military state in the history of mankind. The Palestinians have zero tanks, zero planes and a hodge-podge of other weaponry.
Let's take as an example the recent US-Israeli slaughter of in Gaza, during which Israel was responsible for 1,400 civilians deaths and Hamas responsible for about 7. This is a ratio of 200 to 1. So, the Palestinians are essentially defenseless against a foe which has consistently rejected peace in favor of territory for many years.
Prior to the Gaza attack, Israel bombed Lebanon savagely, and displaced about 500,000 people from their homes. Cluster bombs now cover much of Lebanon and continue to maim and kill civilians, especially children. Israelis suffer nothing at all comparable.
In short, Israel can attack its neighbors at will and has done so for quite some time. Meanwhile, it continues to colonize Palestine.
Second, you are correct that Mr. Ahmadinejad would like to see Israel destroyed, just as Israel would like to see the Palestinians destroyed. One difference here is that Israel might succeed, where Iran has about zero chance of doing the same, based again on Israel's preponderant military power.
Additionally, we might look at the historical record for insight into the reason Iranians dislike Israel and the US. In 1953 the US removed the country's democratically elected leader and installed the Shah, who instituted a terror and torture regime that lasted until the Iranian revolution. The Shah's internal police force SAVAK, which was modeled on the SS, tortured countless Iranian citizens and killed many as well. SAVAK was was trained largely by the US and Israel. While we may forget this, the Iranians don't.
As for Iran's weapons program: they are following Israel's example.
That's the short version, based on facts, and not paranoia.
Who Stole the Holy Land?
For some reason those people who are opposed to Zionism feel that a thousand-year old claim to the land of Israel by the Arabs is valid, while a 1,900-year claim by the Jews should be rejected as absurd. They say it is valid because the thousand-year-old Arab claim is more recent than the older Jewish claim. But if that is true, then surely the most legitimate of all is that of the Jews of Israel to the lands of Israel, because it is the most recent.
So let us see if we have this straight. The anti-Zionists claim that the Jews have no right to the land of Israel because before Israel was re-created in 1948, it had been almost 1,900 years since the last time that the Jews exercised sovereignty over the Land of Israel. And the anti-Zionists claim that it is absurd to argue that anyone still has rights to land that was last governed with sovereignty 1,900 years ago.
And on what basis do they argue that the Arabs have some legitimate claim to these same lands? On the basis of the claim that the Arabs last exercised sovereignty over that land 1,000 years ago.
You all with me? 1,900 year-old-claims are inadmissible. Thousand-year-old claims trump them and are indisputable.
Now let us emphasize that even the thousand-year-old Arab claim is not the same thing as a claim on behalf of Palestinian [sic] Arabs. After all, the last time that Palestinian Arabs held sovereignty over the lands of "Palestine" was ... never. There has never been a Palestinian Arab state in Palestine. Ever.
It is true that Arabs once exercised sovereignty over parts or all of historic Palestine. There were small Arab kingdoms in the south of "Palestine" already in late Biblical days, and they were important military and political allies of the Jews, who exercised sovereignty back then in the Land of Israel. After the rise of Islam, historic "Palestine" was indeed part of a larger Arab kingdom or caliphate. But that ended in 1071 CE, when Palestine came under the rule of the Suljuk Turks. That was the last time Palestine had an Arab ruler. After that, it was always ruled by a long series of Ottomans, Mamluks, other Turks, Crusaders, British, and — briefly — French. And in any case, why does the fact that Palestine once belonged to a larger Arab empire make it any more "Arab" than the fact that it also was once part of larger Roman, Greek, Persian, Turkish, or British empires? Now it is true that historic Palestine probably once had a population majority who were Arabs, but today it has a population majority who are Jews. So if population majorities are what determine legitimacy of sovereignty, Israel is at least as legitimate as any other country.
So why exactly do the anti-Zionists claim that a thousand-year old claim by Arabs who were never ruled by Palestinian Arabs has legitimacy, while a 1,900-year claim by Jews to the land should be rejected as absurd, even though the United Nations granted Israel sovereignty in 1947? The anti-Zionists say it is because the thousand-year-old Arab claim is more recent than the older Jewish claim. But if national claims to lands become more legitimate when they are more recent, then surely the most legitimate of all is that of the Jews of Israel to the lands of Israel, because it is the most recent!
The other claim by the anti-Zionists is that Jews have no rights to the lands of Israel (historic Palestine) because they moved there from some other places. Now never mind that there was actually always a Jewish minority living in the lands of Israel even when it was under the sovereignty of Romans, Greeks, Arabs, Crusaders, Turks or British. Does the fact that Jews moved to the land of Israel from other places disqualify them from exercising sovereignty there? The claim would be absurd enough even if we were to ignore that fact that most "Palestinian Arabs" also moved to Palestine from neighboring countries, starting in the late nineteenth century. But more generally, does the fact that a people moves from one locality to another deprive it of its claims to legitimate sovereignty in its new abode? Does this fact necessitate the conclusion that they need to pack up and leave, as the anti-Zionists insist?
If it does, then it goes without saying that the Americans and Canadians must lead the way and show the Israelis the light, by returning all lands that they seized from the Indians and the Mexicans to their original owners and going back to whence they came. For that matter, the Mexicans of Spanish ancestry also need to leave. The Anglo-Saxons, meaning the English, will be invited to turn the British isles over to their rightful original Celtic and Druid owners, while they return to their own ancestral Saxon homeland in northern Germany and Denmark. The Danes of course will be asked to move aside, in fact to move back to their Norwegian and Swedish homelands, to make room for the returning Anglo-Saxons.
But that is just a beginning. The Spanish will be called upon to leave the Iberian peninsula that they wrongfully occupy, and return it to the Celtiberians. Similarly the Portuguese occupiers will leave their lands and return them to the Lusitanians. The Magyars will go back where they came from and leave Hungary to its true owners. The Australians and New Zealanders obviously will have to end their occupations of lands that do not belong to them. The Thais will leave Thailand. The Bulgarians will return to their Volga homeland and abandon occupied Bulgaria. Anyone speaking Spanish will be expected to end his or her forced occupation of Latin America. It goes without saying that the French will lose almost all their lands to their rightful owners. The Turks will go back to Mongolia and leave Anatolia altogether, returning it to the Greeks. The Germans will go back to Gotland. The Italians will return the boot to the Etruscans and Greeks.
Ah, but that leaves the Arabs. First, all of northern Africa, from Mauritania to Egypt and Sudan, will have to be immediately abandoned by the illegal Arab occupiers and squatters, and returned to their lawful original Berber, Punic, Greek, and Vandal owners. Occupied Syria and Lebanon must be released at once from the cruel occupation of the Arab imperialist aggressors. Iraq must be returned to the Assyrians and Chaldeans. Southern Arabia must be returned to the Abyssinians. The Arabs may retain control of the central portion of the Arabian peninsula as their homeland. But not the oil fields.
Oh, and the Palestinian infiltrators, usurpers and squatters will of course have to return the lands they are illegally and wrongfully occupying, turning them over to their legal and rightful owners, which would of course be the Jews!
And right after all this, Israel will be happy to implement the Road Map in full!
The comments here seem to have wandered somewhat from the original topic. Those who fight to restore rights to those whose rights have been denied are the civil rights fighters of the 21st century. As a lawyer and a Jew I am proud, but not very surprised, to learn that a majority of those civil rights fighters are Jewish lawyers.
To: Joel Kauffman
As a member of a corrupt profession, you do not understand that you are part of the problem, NOT part of the solution.
Somehow, removing a cross or the ten commandments from a public place does not constitute a service to mankind. Your profession is responsible for removing prayers from schools or any reference to G-d in a public place. In fact based on your profession's performance over the last 30 years. I would be ashamed to admit I was part of that corruption.
The Law belongs to the people of the United States, not corrupt lawyers, that bend and twist it to their own ends. We are not a nation of laws, we are a nation of "Justice Under the Law". And when our laws fail to give US citizens (not terrorists) justice, then we will rise up and take care of the problem. http://www.jpfo.org/
I see you do not chase ambulances anymore, it is far more lucrative to advertise on TV. How many frivolous lawsuits does that bring?
The diference between lawyers and the rest of us is that we know America is inherently good. while you lawyers act on the premise that we are evil.
Thank-you to Mr. Kauffman for bringing the discussion back to Earth and to sanity.
Joel,
Proud but not surprised. That says it.
My last name is Lev. I am a a Levi, but am ashamed now of my Jewishness.
What, the backbone of those defending the prisoners at Gitmo are MOT (members of the tribe, in other words Jewish?). This is shocking.
This is a sad commentary on our people.
Virtually every terorist caught in the US or abroad since 911 has included Jewish targets.
They say it's being Jewish to defend..like it's Jewish to defend same sex marriages?
Don't we Jews get it? Are we destined to repeat WW2, when 6m of us were butchered, including 1.5m little children?
What is the matter with we Jews, have we no intelligence or common sense?
They and Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, the military wing of Fatah, the DFLP and PFLP, and of course Al Qaeda, have admitted their goal of wiping us and US out, off the face of the Earth, off the map. Most Jordanians and Egyptians, and Saudis have expressed their hatred for Israel (and Jewry). Fatwas have been issued using the Koran as guides.
Europe is being inundated with Muslims who want Israel destroyed. Jews are being attacked all over Europe, and it's spreading.
Few, if any, countries want these detainees..the US cannot find a place for them, and for good reasons.
These thugs have sympathzers..who will do anything to help them escape. Once free, many return to their former terrorist ways.
In Israel, there is no capital punishment. Israel is now considering freeing 1,000 prisoners for Shalit. Female Muslims will be freed soon. They are the worst killers. Barghouti, sentenced to 5 life terms, is allowed to campaign while in prison.
It seems that Jews are always at the forefront of movements...which simply motivates more people to hate us.
We defend a killer like OJ and feel sorry for the Muslim fanatics interned at Gitmo. It's a shonda.
In Iran, millions demonstrate "Death to Israel" and "Death to the US". Iran parades Shahab Missile which can reach Israel. They show their effectiveness during the Jewish holiday season.
I suppose we will never learn. Ask B. Madoff about morality.
While the Muslim world is preparing for the final jihad aginst us, Jewish lawyers are defending the same people who, if they were free, would contribute.