Dear Wolf,

About your recent interview of COL Galligan, USA (ret.):

You claim to have heard from people (and who do you associate with that would ask this?): "how could a retired U.S. military officer, a full colonel, go ahead and represent someone accused of mass murder?"

So you ask a retired US colonel, a lawyer, to "explain to our viewers why you're doing this."

He gives the obvious answer-- obvious to you, obvious to me, and obvious to 95% percent of literate US citizens: "The rights that I'm asking be accorded to Major Hasan are the rights that service members live and die for."

This is the stark truth, but you either can't understand it or can't handle the way he stated it, so you fall back on the old right-wing line about how it sucks that the killer is going to get more due process than his victims. Predictably, the colonel proceeds to hand you your fatuous head.

Actually, Wolf baby, I think you're lying when you said you'd heard from people asking you how a retired U.S. military officer, a full colonel, could go ahead and represent someone accused of mass murder. While you don't seem exceptionally bright, I'll bet you don't talk with people that backward and stupid. You just needed to gin up a phony issue and keep that right-wing approach to the subject of legal rights and due process ("who needs 'em?") front and center. You really ought to be ashamed.

I remember you from your days in Jerusalem. You used to be somebody.

Hasan getting a trial is what democracy is all about. Justice, with Hasan represented competently and due process unfolding properly is a demonstration of American values and ideals and contrasts sharply with what happened at Ford Hood. I admire and respect Col. Galligan for what he's doing.
I guess Blitzer is racing to the bottom in his attempt to compete with Fox "news."

Do you think John Adams could become president today, after representing the Boston Massacre terrorists?

No matter what this is accused of doing tis man gets a fair trial while being represented but counsel. I think that is guaranteed under the constitution of the United States of America.

Wolf is so fucking dumb. I think an actual wolf is smarter.

Facepalm.

Blitzer should be happy as a pig in siht when Lieberman holds his public hearing next week

Just a second, there, bud. I seem to remember on numerous occasions you defending a mass murderer responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Why would you do that? And because of people like you, he'll never even have to face justice. How disgusting can one person be?

You sound like that twit from Kentucky was it? who tried to accuse VP Gore of enriching himself on the green movement and then whine about how she was just asking questions from her constituents. No, twobitz, "Everyone in the room knows exactly what you're doing."

That question can only be described as childish - and rather right wing.

Just to say I'm on the side of thinking this was a stupid Wolf at work. Could be this is a convaluted way of thinking he's being aggresive in his questioning. Could he be any dumber?

Dumbunny Wolfie wouldn't have dared to ask such unAmerican "questions" if Hasan weren't a Palestinian Muslim. Does he think this is the West Bank or something?

Looks like Wolfie is bucking for the vacated Lou Dobbs time slot, by attempting to prove that he, too, can be an ignorant, sanctimonious dick. Mission accomplished.

That makes absolutely no sense at all, what Wolf said.

Why would 13 murdered people get a fair trial? WTF?

So where does a retired Colonel draw the line for representing clients accused of crimes? Rape? Manslaughter? Petty Larceny?

Love you, people!! :-)
Defending the Consitutinal rights of the accused is what I do for a living as well; and it is gratifying to see that all of you (99%?) "get it"; no need to explain why we do it ("you wold not wnat to live in acountry where there are not people who do what we do") or anything about defending accused criminals to you TPMers.
That's why I love TPM, only (1) smart people and (2) a troll or two. And with that, Good Night.

I'm sure Wolfie was as indignant and outraged with Israels killing of innocent Palestinian women and children after their last botched foray into Gaza. Right?

The lawyer, his voice and his words were inspiring. Wolf on the other hand pissed all over the judicial system in the first 20 seconds in that tape.

It takes a special sort of idiot to criticize a soldier representing another soldier on Veterans' Day, seeing as they are fighting to uphold the Constitution and all....

I don't know whether Hasan is the shooter. For all I know he could have been chasing the actual shooter when the police woman shot him. All I know is that the press says he is guilty and has been saying it since the first minutes. If Hasan gets a fair trial and is convicted then I will know.

In the old days folks like Blitzer used the word "alleged" freely before conviction. Some time during the Dick Cheney administration all pretense of believing in the American system of justice fell away.

Asking the question is one thing--but the smug 'I'm sure he'll get a much fairer hearing than his victims' smacks of someone who doesn't understand the rights of the accused--or, more likely, resents them. That isn't uncommon, but it certainly isn't defensible, either. It was a terrible interview, and exactly what I would expect from CNN (or MSNBC, or FOX).

I think that for many people not well versed in the American legal system (or not very bright) it appears that a lawyer representing a criminal is somehow complicit in the crime. Or that the lawyer is enriching himself at the expense of victims.

However, without these lawyers, we would have no legal system at all. We'd have a medieval system of vindication based on pre-judgement and retribution.

Wolf Blitzer's treatment of Nidal Hasan's attorney was shameful and, frankly, un-American. This isn't about defending Hasan's actions--it's about defending the Constitution. Our criminal justice system (civilian and military alike) is part of what makes America a modern democracy, and the basis for that system is the Constitutional guarantee for a fair and honest trial rather than mob justice and lynching.

I don't doubt for a minute that Hasan will be found guilty and punished appropriately, but to dishonor the American process is to dishonor those who fight and die to preserve our system. Wolf Blitzer should apologize both personally and on-air to Hasan's lawyer and to all people involved in preserving our Constitution even when the job is difficult or distasteful.

I urge all on this thread to write to CNN and let them know how you feel. CNN actually has a fairly easy feedback setup, once you find the entry spot. (It's way down at the very bottom of the front page, in tiny type. Click on 'Contact Us'.) Once you get in, it's easy to find Blitzer's name on a list and have at him.

I love the comments I read on TPM, but it's also important to take our thoughts to the source and call 'em on their bullshit. Whether it does any good is anyone's guess, but at least it's there where they're able to see it.

Someone needs to step into the douchebag vacuum left by Lou Dobb's absence. Thanks for stepping up, Wolf. CNN has really become crap in the last few years.

But, but, but....Nidal's a scary brown person! He doesn't get a fair trial! Isn't that in the Constitution, or some other crappy old piece of paper?!?!?

For all laypersons not educated on the judicial system in our country, what it comes down to is this, lawyers owe an affirmative duty to maintain the integrity of the judicial system, a duty which trumps the attorney's obligations to the client. This is why Attorney Galligan is representing Hasan... to ensure a fair trial, its that simple. Consult the ABA model rules for further explanation.

How? Because without representation, there's no way to change Hasan from 'accused' to 'convicted' mass murderer.

"They asked me, how could a retired U.S. military officer, a full colonel, go ahead and represent someone accused of mass murder? And I want you to explain to our viewers why you're doing this."

Irony alert: If Blitzer wants to save the trial and brand him guilty, why does he refer to Hasan as "accused" instead of just saying he did it?

Wolf Blitzer (ass'-hat)- n. 1: waste of gravity 2: balloon boy

Wolf Blitzer drives me....nuts with his runonquestions....and inappropriate....pausesnottomention...inane interviews suchastheone....highlighted here.

Innocent civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Gaza) didn't get a fair trial.