Gitmo spy disbarred in Kansas

| November 23, 2012

CSE CSC sends us a link to an article about former Navy officer Matthew H. Diaz who smuggled out a list of Guantanamo detainees for a New York judge so the Left could create a stink for the legal rights of terrorists held there. Apparently, Kansas decided to disbar the little tattle-tale;

There, concerned about the legal and physical treatment of prisoners, Diaz printed out a list in early 2005 of all the detainees and anonymously mailed them to a civil rights lawyer in New York. That lawyer turned them over to the judge handling litigation in the cases of detainees.

After an investigation, Diaz was charged with disclosing classified material. In 2007, he was convicted at a court-martial, dismissed from the Navy and sentenced to six months in prison.

According to the Kansas Supreme Court decision filed Wednesday, Diaz’s concern about the treatment of Guantanamo detainees stemmed in part from what had happened to his father.

When he was a teenager, his father, who worked as a nurse, was charged with 12 counts of murder for injecting patients with a lethal dose of lidocaine.

His father was convicted and sentenced to death but died in prison of natural causes in 2010. Diaz strongly felt that Guantanamo detainees should have the same legal rights to appeal as his father had.

So, the son of a spree-murderer decided that Guantanamo detainees deserved some rights and took it upon himself to circumvent the whole reason they were imprisoned in Guantanamo in the first place. And because he took the law into his own hands, he thought he should should continue to be a lawyer. Diaz was hoping that Kansas would not disbar him so that he could again practice law in New York State, as if there aren’t enough convicted criminals practicing law in New York.

Category: Legal, Terror War

Comments (12)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Doc Bailey says:

    Have we somehow forgotten that the whole point of the law is that it’s followed

  2. Alex says:

    Why is it that we don’t execute people that commit Treason? Especially in times of war?

  3. E-6 type, 1ea says:

    @2 – Treason is the only law defined by the US Constitution, due to the fact of how badly the British used and abused it in the runup to the revolution. Only a very small handful of people (less than 40) have ever been tried and convicted of treason, and while what this guy did was wrong, and he deserves a much more severe punishment, I don’t think it classifies as treason as defined by the Constitution.

    “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

  4. TSO says:

    Isn’t Lidocaine what Vizzini tried to use to kill the man in black?
    Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

  5. NHSparky says:

    Kansas Sicilians…I hate Kansas Sicilians.

  6. ChopIT says:

    #4 – it was “iocane” powder – A deadly Australian poison, odorless, tasteless and highly soluble… as well as highly fictional!

  7. Ex-PH2 says:

    Personally, I would use chocolate to kill people. They would never know…….

    I vaguely remember the lidocaine poisoning, but there were also those Phillippine nurses who were killinhg people in intensive care, and the doctor in England who was poisoning his elderly patients when they came for their appointments. He did it with tea.

  8. Rock8 says:

    Does anyone else see the parallel between father and son? They both took matters into their own hands. They both suffer from the same deficiency in logical reasoning.

  9. MCPO NH USN (Ret.) says:

    I remember this guys father. He was a serial killer. Ah …. That is special … Doing something in memory of your serial killer father… A true Thanksgiving Story.

  10. Rob Crawford says:

    So, because his dad was a serial killer he felt sorry for a pack of mass murderers?

    Sounds like his moral compass has been demagnitized.

  11. Hondo says:

    Good for Kansas for disbarring his sorry ass.

    But the Navy? WTF were they thinking when they only gave him 6 months and a dismissal (officer equivalent of a DD)?

    Seems to me a charge of aiding the enemy (Art 104) would have been a slam dunk, as would failure to obey lawful order or regulation (Art 92). Both of those have far higher maxes than 6 mo.

  12. NHSparky says:

    Probably because they didn’t want to clog up the system with his worthless ass. Waste of ammo, so to speak. Just boot his ass out the door and be done with it.