Lawyers Fight Back, Attack Keep America Safe For Reminding People DoJ Lawyers Defended Terrorists

This ad did two things…

It forced the DoJ to stop stonewalling and release the names of the lawyers who worked for free on behalf of terrorist detainees.*

It also got the media to focus on the real villains here, Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol.

It’s a given that anytime conservatives charge something damaging about liberals, the media doesn’t actually consider the charge being made but rather focuses on how horrible the conservatives are for daring to make it.

Today brings these two attacks on Cheney and her organization.

The NY Times begins in this predictably sad way…

In the McCarthy era, demagogues on the right smeared loyal Americans as disloyal and charged that the government was being undermined from within.

And blah, blah, blah. When people yeal “McCarthyism”, I tend to nod off.

Second a group of lawyers, including some who worked in the Bush administration, has released a letter which says in part,

The American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams’s representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston massacre. People come to serve in the Justice Department with a diverse array of prior private clients; that is one of the department’s strengths. The War on Terror raised any number of novel legal questions, which collectively created a significant role in judicial, executive and legislative forums alike for honorable advocacy on behalf of detainees. In several key cases, detainee advocates prevailed before the Supreme Court. To suggest that the Justice Department should not employ talented lawyers who have advocated on behalf of detainees maligns the patriotism of people who have taken honorable positions on contested questions and demands a uniformity of background and view in government service from which no administration would benefit.

Such attacks also undermine the Justice system more broadly. In terrorism detentions and trials alike, defense lawyers are playing, and will continue to play, a key role. Whether one believes in trial by military commission or in federal court, detainees will have access to counsel. Guantanamo detainees likewise have access to lawyers for purposes of habeas review, and the reach of that habeas corpus could eventually extend beyond this population. Good defense counsel is thus key to ensuring that military commissions, federal juries, and federal judges have access to the best arguments and most rigorous factual presentations before making crucial decisions that affect both national security and paramount liberty interests. To delegitimize the role detainee counsel play is to demand adjudications and policymaking stripped of a full record. Whatever systems America develops to handle difficult detention questions will rely, at least some of the time, on an aggressive defense bar; those who take up that function do a service to the system.

Here’s the thing, if you only listened to the defenders of the terrorist lawyers you’d get the impression that unless these brave defenders of American values stepped up and volunteered their services, the detainees would have had no legal representation whatsoever. That’s simply false. The military provided counsel to each of the detainees (pdf) and enabled them to challenger their status within the military commission system and federal court.

The defenders also say that these top flight law firms donated valuable services only they could provide. Okay but that’s not the same as saying they would not have been receiving competent and aggressive counsel to begin with. It seems these folks, the lawyers and their defenders, are saying that detainees are not only entitled to basic representation but the best available and nearly unlimited resources as well.

This is a level of service and protection not provided to the overwhelming number of actual Americas on a daily basis. I’m sure there are people caught up in legal problems not of their own making who would love to have the resources of a top flight law firm put at their disposal. Yet they somehow have to make the best of the lawyer they can afford or the ones provided to them by the courts.

There's also a practical matter that should concern everyone. Obama came to office promising to deal with terrorism in general and detainees in particular in a very different way than the Bush administration did. Shouldn't we know if the people designing and implementing these new policies have certain prior positions and affinities? No, you can't always tell a lawyers personal beliefs from teh cases they handle but you can't rule it out entirely either. It seems if nothing else, we should be able to make our evaluations on this.

As for the Boston Massacre analogy, it fails to persuade. Those soldiers were British subjects on British soil. Of course they were owed all the legal and traditional rights of any other Englishman. Al Qaeda terrorists held in Gitmo are none of those things.

I don’t think these lawyers share the ideology of al Qaeda and quite frankly I doubt Cheney and Kritol do either. Calling them the “al Qaeda Seven” was a way to grab attention and was well within the bounds of political discourse. Still the fact remains that these lawyers chose to use their talents and resources in the service of terrorists. They did so not to maintain some minimal standard of representation but to go beyond that basic standard and attempt to expand the traditional rights afforded terrorists and war criminals. Like all choices in life, this one has consequences. When you voluntarily associate with bad actors, some of that is going to rub off on you.

*Allah points out that FNC puzzled out the names and DoJ confirmed them, so my characterization of the ads impact was overstated. There is no doubt that it brought attention to the matter and possibly some public pressure on the department.

Posted by: DrewM. at 01:36 PM



Comments

1 OMG. (O/T) Rush just mentioned Dan Rather told Chris Matthews "Obama couldn't sell watermelons." (picking jaw up off floor) Rush says it's been taken down off MSDNC.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 08, 2010 01:39 PM (UOM48)

2 As for the Boston Massacre analogy, it fails to persuade. Those soldiers
were British subjects on British soil. Of course they were owed all the
legal and traditional rights of any other Englishman.

That is a devastating point that I have not heard mentioned.

Posted by: toby928 at March 08, 2010 01:40 PM (PD1tk)

3 I can't find my shine box.

Posted by: Dan Rather at March 08, 2010 01:40 PM (554T5)

4 Well, isn't this a fine truck-full of watermelons.

Posted by: Random State Trooper at March 08, 2010 01:41 PM (jWqDS)

5 I always let Rahm and Dave take care of the mellon selling.

Posted by: President Toonces at March 08, 2010 01:42 PM (554T5)

6 Except McCarthy -- while being a drunken demagogue and hyperbolic on occasion -- was actually proven to be correct.

Posted by: Vile Roman at March 08, 2010 01:43 PM (iBzKc)

7 Aren't watermelons by their very definition racist? And isn't that slang for environmentalists? Green on the outside, red on the inside? Poor Rather, what a schmuck--but since he's a libtard, there won't be the usual outrage----Sharpton?
Anyone seen Sharpton?

Posted by: dagny at March 08, 2010 01:43 PM (xTpw2)

8 I was really relieved when I learned my melon didn't meet the quality standards to be sold.

Posted by: Sherrif Joe Biden at March 08, 2010 01:44 PM (CfmlF)

9 Oh, and I just load the truck!

Posted by: Sherrif Joe Biden at March 08, 2010 01:44 PM (CfmlF)

10 In the McCarthy era, honest people demagogues on the right smeared loyal Americans showed that there were communists in the government who were as disloyal and charged that the government had been was being undermined from within.
FTFY NYT

Posted by: Vic at March 08, 2010 01:45 PM (QrA9E)

11 It's fox's fault. If we had everyone on Fox shot then no one would care if we defended the terrorists and then hid in the "justice" dept. Really.

Posted by: dagny at March 08, 2010 01:45 PM (xTpw2)

12 Sheesh. Out of all the fruits out there, I just had to pick watermellon.

Posted by: Dan Rather at March 08, 2010 01:46 PM (554T5)

13 In the McCarthy era, demagogues on the right smeared loyal Americans as disloyal and charged that the government was being undermined from within.
This is the big lie. After the soviet Union fell and we started to get intermittent access to Soviet archives, we learned that many of the accused really were communist agents. Somehow the left never wants to talk about that though. Apparently McCarthyism is a vice even when the targets really are traitors, which raises the question of which side the anti-McCarthyites are on.

Posted by: Dave R. at March 08, 2010 01:46 PM (LMn96)

14 I always let Rahm and Dave take care of the mellonselling smelling.
Posted by: President Toonces

FIFY


Posted by: ghost of no's past at March 08, 2010 01:47 PM (PI/0J)

15 My my my. Obama= NASA. Dave, Val, Rahm, Bobby and Eric are just another O-Ring failure.

Posted by: Cogent Observer at March 08, 2010 01:47 PM (jWqDS)

16 I don't think the question is whether or not the "suspects" (or detainees/whatever) deserve legal representation.Whether or not they are US citizens is irrelevant and where they committed their crimes is only relevant in terms of jurisdiction.

The point is, if we're going to charge them with crimes, be in in a civilian courtroom, a military tribunal, or in some other venue (eg currently non-existent national security courts), then they deserve legal representation.

The question, I think, is whether its appropriate for individuals who have previously donated their expertise to defend terrorism suspects, to subsequently represent the government in prosecuting them.

And to be fair to those involved, I'm not entirely sure it is automatically *in*appropriate. Reversing the usual progression of State Prosecutors into private defending counsel, individuals who have previously served as defense counsel *might* be uniquely suited to prosecute as they have studied the issues involved. .

But its a fair question.

Even apart from how well these prosecutors do their job, there is a serious public perception issue here. Lets say the defendants in these cases end up beating their charges. How much would that stink? How bad would it look for the Obama administration and these prosecutors?


Posted by: looking closely at March 08, 2010 01:47 PM (PwGfd)

17 What about fried chicken and greens? Can he sell those?

Posted by: dagny at March 08, 2010 01:47 PM (xTpw2)

18 Liz Cheney really is becoming a leading conservative voice. And proof of that fact is the way the left is going after her.


Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 08, 2010 01:47 PM (UOM48)

19 That's all well and dandy, but how many of these "zealous defenders of due process" from white shoe law firms volunteered their time and services to defend American Soldiers and Marines accused of war crimes?

It would seem that the same argument could be made (re: zealous representation is necessary) but none volunteered for members of "our team," who were instead left to raise funds in order to retain private counsel.

You can say that providing non-appointment pro bono services doesn't mean that an attorney shares the client's ideology, but you can't say that it doesn't reveal a whole lot about an attorney's sympathies.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at March 08, 2010 01:47 PM (IVQSY)

20 The good thing???? It is only a matter of time before this rag of a newspaper goes belly up.

Posted by: Vic at March 08, 2010 01:48 PM (QrA9E)

21 Ooops. That's 'melon', with one 'l'. I'm such a senile, old dumbass.

Posted by: Dan Rather at March 08, 2010 01:48 PM (554T5)

22 Who's representing the Navy Seals? (You know, the ones who supposedly bitch slapped a captured Taliban. Too bad they didn't shoot the bastard.)

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 08, 2010 01:49 PM (UOM48)

23 The Nazis were Right-wingers, McCarthy was wrong, Castro improved Health Care in Cuba, Islam is a religion of peace, Social Security Trust fund, etc. You tell the Big Lie long enough ...

Posted by: Jean at March 08, 2010 01:50 PM (/8Gs3)

24 You know, it's natural for the media to hate Liz Cheney, because she is related to Big Dick Cheney.

But Bill Kristol? Come on. He's about as threatening as a grandma watching Wheel of Fortune.

Posted by: shibumi at March 08, 2010 01:50 PM (OKZrE)

25 Vic, have you noticed any NYT stories on rapacious Mexican billionaires recently.

Posted by: Jean at March 08, 2010 01:51 PM (tTdaQ)

26 it strikes me that the argument for hiring these lawyers is sound, in principle, that good lawyers and law firms could take on these defendants in order to challenge constitutional questions and still be advocates of the law when prosecuting them.

however, the problem that the ad raises is: why the secrecy? holder and the lawyers should have nothing to hide and as government employees they should be required to stand in the open to be held accountable to any inquiries as any other agents of the taxpayers.

it's not the crime but the cover-up, as they say. not that there's any crime, there sure is a cover-up. that's the stink.

Posted by: gomm at March 08, 2010 01:55 PM (Ibk1S)

27 COMMUNISTAS !!!

Posted by: Rick Warren at March 08, 2010 01:55 PM (mhD2v)

28 @ 24 Bill Kristol? Come on. He's about as threatening as a grandma watching
Wheel of Fortune.

Not to the readers of the New York Times (i.e., rabid Lefties). When Kristol was hired to be the a token conservative editorialist, readers of the NYT went fucking nuts, writing histrionic condemnations of Kristol as a bloodthirsty, warmongering Neocon dirtwad, and threatened to cancel their subscriptions. Kristol lasted only a year there.

Posted by: Vile Roman at March 08, 2010 01:55 PM (iBzKc)

29 US Lawyers
Making the world safe for terrorists.



Huh,Wait a minute...!

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 08, 2010 01:56 PM (0q2P7)

30 Vic, have you noticed any NYT stories on rapacious Mexican billionaires recently.
Not lately

Posted by: Vic at March 08, 2010 01:57 PM (QrA9E)

31 Here's the thing, if you're going to be a brave defender of the rights of the downtrodden, bravely sacrificing your obscene salary to uphold the principles of the Constitution, you may also have to give up a cushy government job.
Come to think of it, if they are the "talented" attorneys that they claim they are, then why would they want such a job? Doesn't it pay a lot less?
On the other hand, if they are Marxists or jihadi sympathizers, then how would they behave any differently?

Posted by: AmishDude at March 08, 2010 01:57 PM (T0NGe)

32 There's also a practical matter that should concern everyone. Obama came to office promising to deal with terrorism in general and detainees in particular in a very different way than the Bush administration did. Shouldn't we know if the people designing and implementing these new policies have certain prior positions and affinities? No, you can't always tell a lawyers personal beliefs from teh [sic] cases they handle but you can't rule it out entirely either. It seems if nothing else, we should be able to make our evaluations on this.


You're right, but let us speak plainly:

Shouldn't we know if the “al Qaeda Seven” will prosecute the enemy combatants just as zealously as they have defended them?


What are the "al Qaeda Seven's" "certain prior positions and affinities"?

What is the probability that they will do the minimum necessary to prosecute the enemy combatants, or, as we've seen many lawyers and political appointees do, simply pay lipservice or even ignore points and things they don't like?

I have reservations about their positions and affinities, and expect to have to fight tooth and nail to get "minimum necessary" results from them.

Posted by: Arbalest at March 08, 2010 01:58 PM (BqSr3)

33 Who's representing the Navy Seals? (You know, the ones who supposedly bitch slapped a captured Taliban. Too bad they didn't shoot the bastard.)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 08, 2010 01:49 PM (UOM4
Amen. I hope those guys have some cushy contractor jobs, or other similar private sector slots, waiting for them. If it were up to me they'd be conducting training for other soldiers - helping them to find appropriate ways to suppress their natural andjustifiedurge to gun down every one of thosebastards after givingthem a few dozen cigarette burns and extracted finger nails. A slapping-around is less than nothing - it isn't even worth of a conversation.

Posted by: Reactionary at March 08, 2010 01:58 PM (xUM1Q)

34
I don’t think these lawyers share the ideology of al Qaeda

You sure about that, Drew? Not that they're bloodthirsty islamofascists, but I tend to think they'd be more than happy to bring about "fundamental change" in the U.S. by any means. They just (mis)use the courts instead of bombs.

Posted by: Dang Straights at March 08, 2010 01:59 PM (fx8sm)

35 Why didn't you come to me like a fuckin' man and tell me not to use the word watermelon?

Posted by: Dan "oops" Rather at March 08, 2010 02:00 PM (Vu6sl)

36 and yeah Jane the Nazis were right wingers, that was why Henry Ford liked them. Because they were thought to be strongly anti communist they got a free pass from America's rightwing until Hitler declared war on the USA. The right wing didn't want the USA to help Britain at all, when the Ruben James was sunk the rightwing were calling for the impeachment of the leftwing FDR.

Posted by: Rick Warren at March 08, 2010 02:02 PM (mhD2v)

37 #19

I think the problem isn't that there necessarily IS a conflict of interest (though there certainly might be). . .the problem is that there APPEARS to be one.

How can the public trust the outcome of these prosecutions if they are conducted by individuals who have previously assisted terrorists? It just smells bad, and more so given the demonstrated history of Obama's Justice Dept to politicize cases. (EG bringing KSM to NYC, dismissing charges in the Philly voter intimidation case, etc).

Individual lawyers who have previously represented accused terrorist clients should, at the very least, recuse themselves from active cases involving charges of terrorism.

I don't think that's crazy or unreasonable, and frankly I'm not sure why its even debatable. Fixing this issue is as easy as a verbal command by Holder (or Obama to Holder): "If you've previously represented terrorist suspects, you're off any cases involving terrorist prosecutions". That's it. . .its done. If the Obama administration wants to retain any credibility in its already questionable bid to use the criminal justice system to try terrorists, this is the least it can do.

This isn't going to damage the careers of those involved. The Justice Dept has (or should have) plenty of other juicy high-level cases to prosecute for these lawyers to work on.


Posted by: looking closely at March 08, 2010 02:02 PM (6Q9g2)

38 Also, don't forget that John Adams didn't immediately volunteer to defend the British soldiers. Had to be persuaded and THEN realized that his duty as a lawyer required him to do the unpopular thing.

Posted by: JFH at March 08, 2010 02:02 PM (DkCuG)

39 holder & the administration may respond by saying they are protecting these lawyers from undue scrutiny and smearing by the right, as the times' argues. that's infantile and if so, reflects an irrational verging on the paranoid fear of the right, i.e. fox news. boy, they really have built fox news into some kind of ogre
way out of proportion to it's influence. they really are scared of beck!

Posted by: gomm at March 08, 2010 02:02 PM (Ibk1S)

40 And we wonder why our side loses elections?
Here we have a winning issue that the public agrees with us and liz cheney on, and the true intellectual conservatives RACE TO THE FRONT to slam us! Now the media will parrot them as proof how radical we are.
GREAT JOB GUYS!
Yet another reason why I do not want anything to do with the intellectuals on our side. Thomas Sowell being the obvious exception

Posted by: Dan at March 08, 2010 02:03 PM (1jzSs)

41 Drewsie: "Still the fact remains that these lawyers chose to use their talents and resources in the service of terrorists"

Does it occur anywhere in your intrepid knuckleheaded mind that people need lawyers to discover why the government thinks defendants/detainees are "terrorists"?

Goddamn, you're stupid. I mean, you're a fucking lawyer!!?

Knuckleheads: They hate government, but oddly also believe whatever the government says.

Posted by: Diliwar at March 08, 2010 02:04 PM (lYrMD)

42 35-Drew is just showing us how reasonable and thoughtful he is. He will be eaten last.

Posted by: Pelvis at March 08, 2010 02:04 PM (LlaBi)

43 AmishDude, if they were so "talented" and "concerned" about our national security - then why didn't they figure out a solution during the Bush years? I wonder if a victim can file to have the prosecuting attorney removed due to bias.

Posted by: Jean at March 08, 2010 02:06 PM (7K04W)

44 as a political issue, what this issue does is threaten obama's claim of transparency in government. it will be an effective weapon against the administration & dems come the fall.

Posted by: gomm at March 08, 2010 02:07 PM (Ibk1S)

45 As for the Boston Massacre analogy, it fails to persuade. Those
soldiers were British subjects on British soil. Of course they were
owed all the legal and traditional rights of any other Englishman. Al
Qaeda terrorists held in Gitmo are none of those things.

Adams understood that taking
the
case would not only subject him to criticism, but might jeopardize his
legal practice or even risk the safety of himself and his family.
But Adams believed deeply that every person deserved a defense, and he
took on the case without hesitation. For his efforts, he would
receive
the modest sum of eighteen guineas.

Adams succeeded in casting grave
doubt as to whether Preston ever gave orders to shoot, and the Boston
jury
acquitted the captain.

Adams presented
evidence
that blame for the tragedy lay both with the "mob" that gathered that
March
night and with England's highly unpopular policy of quartering troops
in
a city. Adams told the jury: "Soldiers quartered in a populous
town
will always occasion two mobs where they prevent one." He argued
that the soldier who fired first acted only as one might expect
anyone
to act in such confused and potentially life-threatening conditions.
"Do
you expect that he should act like a stoic philosopher, lost in
apathy?",
Adams asked the jury. "Facts are stubborn things," he concluded, "and
whatever
may be our inclinations, or the dictums of our passions, they cannot
alter
the state of facts and evidence."

Posted by: Deety at March 08, 2010 02:09 PM (aVzyR)

46 Drewsie basically says that we don't need due process of law; fuck all that, because the government wouldn't ever lie.

Posted by: Diliwar at March 08, 2010 02:11 PM (lYrMD)

47 Erg,

First, I'm not a lawyer. I'm also not employed by a telecom company in Colorado.

Second,

Does it occur anywhere in your intrepid knuckleheaded mind that people
need lawyers to discover why the government thinks defendants/detainees
are "terrorists"?


That's what Detainee Status Reviews are for and the detainees do have counsel there. No go back to hooking up people's internet or we'll call your boss and tell him he's not getting his money's worth out of you.

Posted by: DrewM. at March 08, 2010 02:13 PM (9B5OK)

48 #45

If you think the issue is politically unpopular due to "transparency" concerns, wait until the gov't LOSES one of these criminal prosecutions and then see what happens.

Can you imagine the public response if KSM were acquitted of criminal charges? (Let alone in NYC only a few miles from the WTC site?)

Now imagine if some of the prosecutors on the case had previously represented other terrorist "suspects".

There is really NO upside for the Obama administration to permit lawyers who previously represented terrorist suspects to represent the gov't here.




Posted by: looking closely at March 08, 2010 02:14 PM (6Q9g2)

49 regardless of the lawyers' fitness to try terrorists or even to be in the dept. of justice, the secrecy is damning as a campaign issue. that along with the closed door negotiations on health care can be a most effective undermining of the administration's credibility, a real odor.

Posted by: gomm at March 08, 2010 02:14 PM (Ibk1S)

50 The John Adams defense for their actions presupposes that they were committed patriots in the first place. This wasn't Liddy picking back up his law license and coming forward to defend the "law" in the face of popular opinion. Nixon goes to China, OK I will give you some slack - Jane Fonda goes to Hanoi - F--- her.

Posted by: Jean at March 08, 2010 02:15 PM (vb5IK)

51 What conflict of interest? They'll be working to get them off in both cases, right?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 08, 2010 02:23 PM (EDERD)

52 those lawyers did not represent those terrorits under the Constitutional right to council because the terrorists do not have that right. They volunteered to work on their behalf to game the system.
They should be recused from working on any detainee related policy or case.

Posted by: Jeff at March 08, 2010 02:26 PM (FDdKZ)

53 #50

Its probably the least of his rapidly accumulating broken promises, but Obama campaigned promising unprecedented levels of transparency in his administration.

While I'm not absolutely convinced that his administration is any more opaque than numerous previous ones, its fair to say that Obama has barely kept up with *ANY* of the increased transparency promises he's made, and he's blatantly violated a number of them.

Any way you slice this, it erodes his credibility.

The problem with attacking him politically on this issue is that whomever he is running against would have to promise more transparency, that they themselves might not be prepared to deliver.


Posted by: looking closely at March 08, 2010 02:27 PM (6Q9g2)

54 Vic, have you noticed any NYT stories on rapacious Mexican billionaires recently.
Posted by: Jean at March 08, 2010 01:51 PM (tTdaQ)

Of course there have been! You can choose among hard-hitting stories like "Carlos Slim: Savior of Free Speech or Merely a God?" or perhaps "Carlos Slim and the Audacity of Hope Stuff"!

Posted by: The NYT at March 08, 2010 02:35 PM (RD7QR)

55 The DOJ is supposed to have rigorous screening processes to keep its new hires out of conflicts of interest. 'course, if you don't know who those new hires who defended the Gitmo Goons are, you can't tell if the DOJ is rigorously screening for conflicts.
Over on Volokh Conspiracy, the usual suspects are insisting this is all a matter of the highest legal nobility making sure our criminal justice system meets all requirements. They're reading minds, of course. They have no idea whether this is true or if the volunteers were wannabe Lynne Stewarts and Ramsey Clarkes.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at March 08, 2010 02:47 PM (d0ih6)

56 I don't mean to be a condescending snotball know-it-all, so forgive me for coming off that way, but I livein this world, at times,unfortunately,and the lawyers from these firms don't defend terrorists for reasons of ideology, politics, nobility, etc.
They do it for the money.
Not that they are paid for it directly, but these are big firms withlarge international practices. It's almost impossible to exaggerate the amount of money that is out there, and a huge amount of it is from Islamic states, and a huge amount of that is from the Saudis and the Kuwaitis.
You can imagine how good it must look to nationals of these states to hear that theirAmerican lawyers are working hard to redress oppressed Arabterrorists, how great it must sound to hearbe told by American lawyers that they are defendingIslam from the depredations of the Americans...Need I say more?
So forget the outrage, or trying to figure out why they are doing this, and most especially, forget about trying to appeal to the moral sense of people like these lawyers orthe firms theywork at.
They haven't got any. None. Nada. Zip.Zero. It's not that most of them are sociopaths, although some are, it's that they can convince themselves ofanything, absolutely anything, to justifywhat they do. And as they are cruel, callous, cynical people to begin with, it's not a hard job.

Posted by: Joe Y at March 08, 2010 03:01 PM (6ykA8)

57 When John Adams defended the British Troops after the Boston Massacre, we we not at war with Britian. Adams was defending the rule of law and protecting his fellow countrymen. He was making sure they got a fair trail, in the hope that, in a different situation, he (or someone like him) would also be able to get a fair trial.
We are at war, and the al Qaeda Seven were defending not their countrymen, but their country's sworn enemies. Far from protecting the rights of their fellow Americans, by pushing to get the terrorists tried in civilian courts they are damaging the rights of their fellow American citizens. Because the nature of how we deal with terrorists is, and should be, different from how we deal with ordinary Americans accused of criminal acts.
By bringing people like KSM into civilian courts, they make it so that either he goes free, or all Americans protections from the government get lessened.
The al Qaeda Seven are well named. Because while they may hate America for different reasons than the terrorists do, their fight to make it harder to defeat the terrorists shows that they do hate America just as much as the terrorists do.

Posted by: Greg Q at March 08, 2010 03:03 PM (rOuM3)

58 this is all a matter of the highest legal nobility making sure our
criminal justice system meets all requirements

That there is some really funny shit dude.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 08, 2010 03:04 PM (EDERD)

59 the Nazis were right wingers

Nothing says right-wing like being socialist.

Posted by: National Socialist German Workers' Party at March 08, 2010 03:04 PM (PD1tk)

60 As others have noted, McCarthy has been proven correct despite what the shitheads at the NYT keep claiming; the same NYT that employed Walter Duranty.

Posted by: Captain Hate at March 08, 2010 03:28 PM (AsvYL)

61 Imho, this feckless shit started when these bipedal feces were accorded Geneva Convention treatment. Anyone with a single functional brain cell would have realized that the PROVISIONS of said convention precluded any such treatment.

Thanks SO much, you leftwit gomers.

With luck, the fallout from this will result in the left wandering the political barrens for decades to come.

Posted by: irongrampa at March 08, 2010 03:29 PM (ud5dN)

62 Meh,

The attorneys in question are terrorists sympathizers.

To give them more credit than that then one should also give them credit for knowing that the GCs prohibit trying POWs in civilian courts.

Posted by: Druid at March 08, 2010 03:52 PM (Gct7d)

63 The right wing didn't want the USA to help Britain at all

If by the "right wing" you mean Father Coughlin and Joseph Kennedy, you'd be correct. The situation was a bit more complicated than just left/right but if forced to make a choice there were probably more isolationists on the left than right; certainly the American commies beclowned themselves by preaching isolationism while the Russian/German pact was in place and then reversed themselves when Hitler violated it.

Posted by: Captain Hate at March 08, 2010 04:19 PM (AsvYL)

64 Purple.
You think that's funny. You should go to Volokh Conspiracy and read their stuff. They're mostly lawyers and law profs. They've gone on and on about this.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at March 08, 2010 04:32 PM (d0ih6)

65 You should go to Volokh Conspiracy and read their stuff.
They used to be reliably conservative/liberatarian but it seems that they have been drifting to the left lately.

Posted by: Vic at March 08, 2010 04:36 PM (QrA9E)

66 Puleeze! Prosecutors and judges have GINORMOUS discretion to determine a)if or when an individual is charged, b) the nature of the charges and what evidence will be used, and c) sentencing recommendations. Since the prosecutors control all of these factors, their beliefs and record DETERMINE whether or not justice will be done. Examining their beliefs, past cases and their win/loss record is the only way to determine if they are working in the interests of the American people and how effective they are at their job. The fact that they are hiding essential information from the public speaks volumes.

If your child was raped and murdered, would you want the prosecutor on the case to be a lawyer who 1) does not believe that pedophiles should go to jail, 2) he used to represent pedophiles, and 3) promoted legislation to reduce sentences or created diversionary programs (i.e. no jail time) for pedophiles? Or would you want the hang 'em high prosecutor who spends his free time advocating for the victims and their families?

If you were in family law court, would you want the judge who put the safety of the child first? Or would you want the judge who believed that all women lie about their boyfriends / husbands? What do you think is going to happen when this judge is presented with emails that the baby's father has threatened to kill his son? Well, the judge would call the mother a liar in court, give the father unsupervised with the baby, and then say "oops" when the father kills the baby and himself.


Posted by: BlackRedneck at March 08, 2010 05:08 PM (Mh30H)

67 Here's the thing: I don't want _my_ (read: American) interests represented by someone who has a basic sympathy for the rights, attitudes and motivations of terrorists. To me, that would be like forcing an accused terrorist to use a zealous anti-terrorist prosecutor as their defense. They are diametrically opposed. I want someone who has the interests of protecting us paramount. That's the adversary system, and how it works best. You want someone who jealously guards our defense, not the rights of terrorists and excuses or defends their actions.

Posted by: ms. docweasel at March 08, 2010 05:54 PM (kgwdA)

68 It is a Professional MLB jersey website, we offer cheap MLB jerseys,MLB authentic jersey. top quality with reasonable price, Free Shipping.

Posted by: shape ups shoes at March 08, 2010 09:25 PM (NA8ag)

69 Vic.
Volokhians, being mainly lawyers and professors, think themselves superior to the usual run of folks. I guess that means if the usual run of folks goes right, there's no distinction left in being right. So you have to go the other way.
If the usual run went left, imo, these guys would go right and be equally unpersuasive in their rationalizing.
The BDS and PDS is astounding. Especially among those who haven't been more than a summer vacation away from school into the real world since kindergarten.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at March 08, 2010 09:28 PM (aneaT)

70 Responded to you here: http://truthupfront.blogspot.com/2010/03/thoughts-on-al-qaeda-7-controversy.html

Posted by: John S at March 09, 2010 12:29 AM (ooFtI)

71 this is not guilt by association it is associating with the guilty ...

Posted by: Jeff at March 09, 2010 12:48 PM (FDdKZ)

72 Supra Vaider(47)

Supra TK
Society(19)

Supra
Thunder(

Supra
Suprano(1

Supra
Cruizer(

Supra Cuban(5)

Supra NS
Indy(6)

Supra
NS Trinity(7)

Supra
NS Strapped(9)

Posted by: Supra Thunder Wheat High at March 27, 2010 12:46 PM (YmevG)

73 air force one shoes
air jordan shoes
air max shoes
air yeezy shoes
supra shoes
alife shoes
creative recreation shoes
madfoot predator shoes
shmack shoes
basketball shoes
nike dunks
nike shox
nike air force ones
cheap air force ones shoes
discount air force one
cheap air jordan
discount air jordan
cheap air max
discount air max
cheap nike dunks
discount nike dunk
cheap nike shox shoes
discount nike shox shoes
cheap alife shoes
discount alife shoes
cheap supra shoes
discount supra shoes
air max shoes
buy air max
air max shoes sale
cheap air max shoes
discount air max shoes
air force one shoes
nike air force one
air force one sale
air jordan
air jordan shoes
buy air jordan
air jordan sale
air yeezy shoes
nike air yeezy
air yeezy sale
nike dunk
nike dunk sale
cheap nike dunk
discount dunks
nike shox
shox shoes
buy shox shoes
alife shoes
alife shoes cheap
buy alife shoes
Shmack Shoes
Shmack Shoes sale
CR shoes
buy CR shoes
MAD shoes
air max shoes
buy air max
air max shoes sale
cheap jordan shoes
discount shoes

Posted by: sousoushoes at April 04, 2010 10:27 AM (tBybO)






Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0198 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0099 seconds, 82 records returned.
Page size 67 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat