Video: Liz Cheney’s group goes after DOJ lawyers who defended Gitmo detainees

posted at 10:26 pm on March 2, 2010 by Allahpundit

Byron York’s been writing about this lately. There are nine lawyers now employed at the DOJ who helped defend Gitmo detainees but Holder will only release the names of two of them, leaving Congress in the dark about potential conflicts of interest. That’s ostensibly the target of this new spot from Liz Cheney’s outfit, Keep America Safe, but they end up going further than York or even the GOP has. Here’s York:

As the GOP sees it, there are two issues involved. The first is the nature of the Justice Department lawyers’ work on behalf of detainees. Republicans aren’t questioning whether terrorist detainees are entitled to attorneys; the courts have said they are, so they have attorneys. The question is whether those very lawyers should then turn around and handle detainee issues for the Justice Department.

Private lawyers can choose to take or not take cases. Sometimes they make their decisions based on money, sometimes on principle, sometimes because they are sympathetic to the accused. The lawyers who worked with the terrorist detainees chose to represent people who are making war on the United States. That’s certainly their right, but it’s entirely reasonable to ask whether they should now be working on detainee issues at the Justice Department.

Conflicts of interest are perfectly fair game for inquiry, but as you’ll see, the clip isn’t as broad-minded as York is in its treatment of possible motives for representing detainees. In fact, Morris Davis, who used to be chief prosecutor at Gitmo before resigning over his objections to waterboarding and the commission system generally, went ballistic over it:

“This is the typically regressive fear tactic that you expect from anybody named Cheney,” said Morris Davis, the former chief prosecutor at the Bush era military commissions, who has been a critic of the commission system…

Neal Katyal, who Davis faced off with in the Hamdan case, “was a very talented and dedicated attorney – he ws the perfect choice for [his position as deputy Solicitor General," said Davis. "To try to impugn his character or iimply he’s part of the 'Al Qaeda Nine' or whatever is just outrageous."

"Back in the 18th century after the Boston Massacre, we provided a zealous defense [to British soldiers], and a lot of people there have the same view,” he siad.

Katyal isn’t part of the “Al Qaeda 7″ referenced in the clip because he’s been named by Holder, but the implication clearly is that the ones who haven’t are being protected because they’re jihadist sympathizers. That’s … quite a charge. In fact, since we don’t know who they are, we don’t know if their clients were Al Qaeda or Taliban or some sort of loosely affiliated or unaffiliated jihadi snagged on the battlefield. So what’s with the “Al Qaeda 7″ bit?

None of this is an argument for Holder not to disclose the names — if he’s willing to own up on Katyal, he should disclose the rest to put public suspicions at ease — but I’d prefer to apply pressure to the feds without kinda sorta hinting that they’re in cahoots with Bin Laden. And yeah, no need to tell me in the comments that I’m a Chamberlain-esque RINO. I know.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

If only we lived in a more sane time…

daesleeper on March 2, 2010 at 10:29 PM

And yeah, no need to tell me in the comments that I’m a Chamberlain-esque RINO. I know.

And a beta-male too, in case you forgot…

joejm65 on March 2, 2010 at 10:29 PM

And a beta-male too, in case you forgot…

I’m sure I’ll be reminded repeatedly.

Allahpundit on March 2, 2010 at 10:30 PM

Trans-what-ency?

thomasaur on March 2, 2010 at 10:30 PM

Yeah, I love Liz but…this is overreaching just a bit IMHO.

SDnocoen on March 2, 2010 at 10:31 PM

Beginning with Holder, the whole Obama DOJ is a conflict of interest.

GarandFan on March 2, 2010 at 10:31 PM

What possible reasons does he have for not disclosing those names after Congress has asked for them repeatedly?

d1carter on March 2, 2010 at 10:32 PM

“You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.”

Rocks on March 2, 2010 at 10:32 PM

One has to be extremely sensitive to be offended at this. Of course we have the right to know. Holder knows that there is a legitmate inference to be drawn from the fact that he will not release the names.

GaltBlvnAtty on March 2, 2010 at 10:32 PM

That’s Chamberlain-esque RINO candy ass, AP.

I’da thought you hadn’t forgotten that.

Or is that now too risque for the new owners?

JeffWeimer on March 2, 2010 at 10:33 PM

Amazing how so few can screw so many!

DougDavis on March 2, 2010 at 10:35 PM

I’d prefer to apply pressure to the feds without kinda sorta hinting that they’re in cahoots with Bin Laden.

No “kinda sorta” here. I’m convinced Bin Laden would be on the guest list eating arugula if he were still alive.

SouthernGent on March 2, 2010 at 10:35 PM

And yeah, no need to tell me in the comments that I’m a Chamberlain-esque RINO

It’s ok Allahpundit even though you are one… you’re OUR Chamberlain-esque RINO.

Plus, you do provide another view on the issue, sure we may not agree with you all the time, but it does get some of us thinking harder… It’s easy to be someone to be part of the party cheerleader squad… But what really counts is if you’re one who can actually argue you’re points and opinions, with facts against your own critics.

Razgriez on March 2, 2010 at 10:36 PM

I notice on memeorandum a headline that Cheney is questioning their loyalty. I don’t see that. I think calling them the AQ7 is someone with an ironic sense of humor. How many times has the Left beaten the Right over the head with some ‘Chicago 7′ etc. ?

motionview on March 2, 2010 at 10:36 PM

Ehhhhhhhhhh

I can understand the secrecy personally, I mean that could put their lives and their families in jeopardy.

Ingenue on March 2, 2010 at 10:36 PM

This is the typically regressive fear tactic that you expect from anybody named Cheney,” said Morris Davis,

Aside from his idiocy of “regressive fear tactic”, the name “Cheney” is a problem for him?

This is a pretty stupid thing for a lawyer to argue. The name “Cheney” is baaaaadddd ……

No more Lon Cheney movies … (okay, I forced the ‘e’ in there)

neurosculptor on March 2, 2010 at 10:36 PM

no need to tell me in the comments that I’m a Chamberlain-esque RINO

I believe that was Chamberlain-esque RINO jackass. (I kid!) But I agree with you, this ad goes a little too far, and would be more effective if it did not.

American Elephant on March 2, 2010 at 10:38 PM

This presidency is treason.

wildcat84 on March 2, 2010 at 10:38 PM

MM, Boss emeritus, has been hammering on Holder’s stonewalling recently.

conservative pilgrim on March 2, 2010 at 10:39 PM

And yeah, no need to tell me in the comments that I’m a Chamberlain-esque RINO.

RINO is too good.

Dirtbag would be more descriptive.

bill30097 on March 2, 2010 at 10:39 PM

He WILL stand with his muslim brothers.

capejasmine on March 2, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Sometime you need to be over-the-top to make your point. But not this time. The point was made – there was no need for the name calling. Al Qaeda 7 is too much.

huckleberryfriend on March 2, 2010 at 10:42 PM

OT:

Video of Palin after appearing on the Leno show.

conservative pilgrim on March 2, 2010 at 10:43 PM

At least we’ll know who to go after first if there is another Al Qaeda attack. Obama. Holder.

elduende on March 2, 2010 at 10:44 PM

Let’s ask Fred Thompson what he thinks. He knows all about representing Islamic terrorists.

tommylotto on March 2, 2010 at 10:45 PM

It is late, and I probably am obtuse, but why SHOULDN’T there be outrage that the DOJ hired terrorist defenders and won’t release the names? It isn’t like there is a shortage of lawyers for hire, so why these guys?

johnboy on March 2, 2010 at 10:45 PM

Dirtbag would be more descriptive.

bill30097 on March 2, 2010 at 10:39 PM

Wonderful.

Allahpundit on March 2, 2010 at 10:46 PM

“I’d prefer to apply pressure to the feds without kinda sorta hinting that they’re in cahoots with Bin Laden.”

I’d prefer that they would come out and “state perfectly clear” that they are not in cahoots with Bin Laden…

Seven Percent Solution on March 2, 2010 at 10:46 PM

RINO is too good.

Dirtbag would be more descriptive.

That – was uncalled for.

johnnybgood on March 2, 2010 at 10:46 PM

Why can’t this DOJ just be honest? If you act like you have something to hide and will ignore lawbreaking (Philadelphia polling station) then don’t be surprised when people come at you hard.

Cindy Munford on March 2, 2010 at 10:46 PM

It takes work to find ways to defend such outrageous insanity.

TheBigOldDog on March 2, 2010 at 10:47 PM

It will be fun to observe the squealing protests.

alice on March 2, 2010 at 10:48 PM

Since when did the DOJ become a Classified Agency on par with the CIA or NSA. Those are federal workers and they have no right to anonymity.

Sporty1946 on March 2, 2010 at 10:48 PM

bill30097 on March 2, 2010 at 10:39 PM

It’s a darn shame you are forced to come here. What it part of you sentence?

Cindy Munford on March 2, 2010 at 10:49 PM

Dirtbag would be more descriptive.

bill30097 on March 2, 2010 at 10:39 PM

Did your mama have any children that lived?

thomasaur on March 2, 2010 at 10:51 PM

I think it’s over the top (and, for the record, I like Liz Cheney, Kristol, and Burlingame), but Holder does seem to be asking for it by refusing to release the names.

I still maintain he’ll be the first Cabinet member impeached since Grant’s time.

irishspy on March 2, 2010 at 10:52 PM

In fact, since we don’t know who they are, we don’t know if their clients were Al Qaeda or Taliban or some sort of loosely affiliated or unaffiliated jihadi snagged on the battlefield.

What are they covering up if they have nothing to hide ?
What is it about these people thats so horrible ?
Does CAIR not approve ?
Just release their names Erica
And we’ll decide if they are AQ7 or Tali9 or whatever
We are perfectly capable of unmasking your people.
You know like Ellie Light , recently.

macncheez on March 2, 2010 at 10:53 PM

And yeah, no need to tell me in the comments that I’m a Chamberlain-esque RINO. I know.

And a beta-male too, in case you forgot…

joejm65 on March 2, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Gentle reminder, AP — Al Qaeda doesn’t mind killing Christians and Jews as a matter of principle, but they really hate atheists. Hey, but it sounds like you’ll be safe in Texas.

As for bedwetters like Morris Davis and Eric Franken-Holder, the issue isn’t that these symps are providing legal defense for terrorists (not to be compared to the British army on active duty in their own colony, you fu*king idiot); the issue is that they are also working — unnamed, unknown — on other detainee issues on behalf of the American people.

Somebody start heating up the tar.

Jaibones on March 2, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Dirtbag would be more descriptive.

bill30097 on March 2, 2010 at 10:39 PM

No it wouldn’t.

Jaibones on March 2, 2010 at 10:55 PM

Remember that this is the same DOJ that leaked the names of the CIA interrogators.

onlineanalyst on March 2, 2010 at 10:56 PM

“bill30097 on March 2, 2010 at 10:39 PM has suddenly become an advocate for all things gay…”

Seven Percent Solution on March 2, 2010 at 10:57 PM

Ehhhhhhhhhh

I can understand the secrecy personally, I mean that could put their lives and their families in jeopardy.

Ingenue on March 2, 2010 at 10:36 PM

I’m glad your not concerned with your DOJ being filled with people who voluntarily defend and advocate on behalf of terrorist who murder Americans. But, he, at least THEIR FAMILIES are safe right?

TheBigOldDog on March 2, 2010 at 10:58 PM

the implication clearly is that the ones who haven’t are being protected because they’re jihadist sympathizers.

In this administration, which has marxists and maoists crawling all over the place, one would expect that the same (if not worse) is filtering through the administration’s mid and lower levels. And everytime they hide something, contrary to the fears of some, there is always some reason they are hiding it, in order to hide their own problems, which are usually considerable.

That’s … quite a charge. In fact, since we don’t know who they are, we don’t know if their clients were Al Qaeda or Taliban or some sort of loosely affiliated or unaffiliated jihadi snagged on the battlefield. So what’s with the “Al Qaeda 7″ bit?

It’s just a name, allah. Would the “Terrorist 7″ be better? It’s probably a play on the “Chicago 7″.

The ad is good and direct, and it raises the question in a perfectly appropriate way. I want to know the answer.

neurosculptor on March 2, 2010 at 10:59 PM

Just release their names Erica
And we’ll decide if they are AQ7 or Tali9 or whatever
We are perfectly capable of unmasking your people.

macncheez on March 2, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Gee, I can’t imagine why he wouldn’t want to release the names.

Proud Rino on March 2, 2010 at 10:59 PM

Remember that this is the same DOJ that leaked the names of the CIA interrogators.

onlineanalyst on March 2, 2010 at 10:56 PM

At least we know who the Obama DOJ considers the real enemies.

TheBigOldDog on March 2, 2010 at 10:59 PM

Cindy Munford on March 2, 2010 at 10:49 PM

Was it part of your sentence?

k@#&!!!!!!

Cindy Munford on March 2, 2010 at 11:00 PM

neurosculptor on March 2, 2010 at 10:59 PM

hey, OT, but I just wanted to remind you we’re only 14 months away!

Proud Rino on March 2, 2010 at 11:01 PM

Was it part of your sentence?

k@#&!!!!!!

Cindy Munford on March 2, 2010 at 11:00 PM

It’s OK we all speak “Cindy M”.

thomasaur on March 2, 2010 at 11:02 PM

I can understand the secrecy personally, I mean that could put their lives and their families in jeopardy.

Ingenue on March 2, 2010 at 10:36 PM

Absolutely true.

So find (scumbag defense) attorneys some place else; D.C.’s crawling with them. Or remove these DOJ bedwetters from all business having anything to do with national security, terrorism, or detainees. But don’t keep their identities secret and leave them on DOJ business with detainees, fer cripes sakes.

Jaibones on March 2, 2010 at 11:03 PM

Forget about it. Hey, they are being totally transparent and honest about everything else, right?

No big deal.

Sporty1946 on March 2, 2010 at 11:03 PM

Didn’t these ass- wipes take random pictures of people working at langley and show them to the gitmo pigs in the off chance they might identify them so they could be dragged into court?

I’d rather have attorneys who would err on the side of capital punishment with these vermin

Sonosam on March 2, 2010 at 11:04 PM

Thank you, Liz Cheney. I’m glad somebody with some power and/or know-how is pursuing this. It’s outrageous. This whole situation has been bother the **** out of me but there’s been very little uproar about it.

The reverse of the situation would be if a Republican AG had been defending US military personnel. THAT the libs would be outraged about.

Django on March 2, 2010 at 11:05 PM

I believe also that this is the same DOJ that let the Black Panthers off the hook for standing in front of a voting precinct with clubs hurling threats and trying to intimidate voters…..

….Hope and Change….Hope and Change.

Baxter Greene on March 2, 2010 at 11:07 PM

Anybody who still thinks these radicals have anything but pure animosity for this country needs their heads examined. They’ve been waiting their whole lives for an opportunity like this and they are going to make the most of it.

TheBigOldDog on March 2, 2010 at 11:07 PM

hey, OT, but I just wanted to remind you we’re only 14 months away!

Proud Rino on March 2, 2010 at 11:01 PM

Yep. We’ll be very lucky to make it that far. The monetary catastrophe is much closer, I think, and the attempt to ram health scare through by reconciliation is going to create quite a bit of turbulence, if it passes even more. We are in the eye of the storm. The sun looks very pretty, but we are still at great risk, and The Precedent is pushing everything he touches to failure.

neurosculptor on March 2, 2010 at 11:09 PM

And yeah, no need to tell me in the comments that I’m a Chamberlain-esque RINO.

You forgot candy@zzed. :P

FloatingRock on March 2, 2010 at 11:12 PM

A political ad is politically biased? Shocker Allah. Oh, and it doesn’t need to imply – Obama is in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. They both want to destroy America and replace freedom with totalitarianism after all.

chicagojedi on March 2, 2010 at 11:13 PM

You don’t win by playing defense.

Gotta hand it to the Cheney’s; they all got cojones.

Bruno Strozek on March 2, 2010 at 11:15 PM

Gee, I can’t imagine why he wouldn’t want to release the names.

Proud Rino on March 2, 2010 at 10:59 PM

I can’t either since the liberals would treat these DOJ lawyers like heroes……

…..unlike the way they treat conservatives with death threats,vandalism,stalking,assault,and 24/7 protest in front of the houses of people like Cheney,Bush,and the Bush administration DOJ lawyers that liberals have carried out for years.

So much for all that “open government” and “transparency” that liberals are always “talking about” but never “practicing”.

Baxter Greene on March 2, 2010 at 11:17 PM

TheBigOldDog on March 2, 2010 at 10:58 PM

Hah yeah, right, you go with that.

Ingenue on March 2, 2010 at 11:19 PM

Jaibones on March 2, 2010 at 11:03 PM

Agreed.

I just understand the secrecy, that’s all. The other stuff, I’m just not surprised, sadly. Hah.

Ingenue on March 2, 2010 at 11:22 PM

we don’t know if their clients were Al Qaeda or Taliban or some sort of loosely affiliated or unaffiliated jihadi snagged on the battlefield.

Doesn’t “Al Qaeda” mean “the group” in Arabic? So “Al Qaeda 7″ is “the group of seven”, which seems appropriate considering the circumstances. Maybe you’re right, AP, and these people may turn out to be beyond reproach, (doubtful), but unless their names are released how can we know? I’ll reserve judgment about whether or not the inference is fair until after I find who these people are. If it turns out they’re the modern equivelent of John Adams then I’ll admit that the video went too far.

I’ll hold my breath. /s

FloatingRock on March 2, 2010 at 11:23 PM

thomasaur on March 2, 2010 at 11:02 PM

Thank you, you are such a dear.

Cindy Munford on March 2, 2010 at 11:24 PM

I’m much more of a candy-ass RINO than Allahpundit. The weird thing is that I’m much more loving of Liz Cheney than is AP. I think the reason is that I’m surrounded by leftist, and I understand perfectly where people like Morris Davis are coming from and it’s not from any noble perspective. AP needs to talk to more of the NYC leftists so as to learn to resent them more.

thuja on March 2, 2010 at 11:41 PM

“America is about to be run by progressives” ???

That about says it all…

This ad isn’t damning enough as far as I’m concerned!!

katy on March 2, 2010 at 11:42 PM

So people who went out of their way to voluntarily help the murderers at GITMO are above reproach? Don’t think so.
As for Morris Davis, I’m glad he resigned. We have enough termites in the foundation.

Hard Right on March 2, 2010 at 11:45 PM

katy on March 2, 2010 at 11:42 PM

+1 I suspect the Al Qaeda 7 share a view of the US Constitution that most Americans find appalling.

d1carter on March 2, 2010 at 11:56 PM

An argument that will only work on those already convinced about such inside-baseball, judicial-minutae wranglings.

Better to attack Holder DIRECTLY AND UNMERCIFULLY on what has already proved to be his FATAL WEAK POINT: trying to ram through the KSM trial in civilian court in NYC.

People were, and are outraged at that.

And are less interested in the machinations of lower-level, typically sleazy lawyers than they are with a stuptifyingly incompetent and delusional cretin as our country’s Attorney General.

Holder is an brainless jackass, and Obama a certifiable moron, of world-historical proportions, for choosing this destructive and clueless asshat to bungle this vital job.

profitsbeard on March 3, 2010 at 12:03 AM

The most disturbing part of this is what it says about Obama and his approach to the War on Terror. He could have picked people to staff his DOJ that had spent the last 6 or 7 years prosecuting terrorists and trying to put them behind bars. Instead, he appoints people who have spent the last 6 or 7 years fighting FOR the terrorists and trying to get them acquitted. The fox is guarding the hen house.

What would the left have said if Bush had staffed his DOJ with attorneys who did pro-bono work for, say, the KKK. They would have gone ballistic that these attorneys who represented these evil people are now working in the justice department where they are supposed to be prosecuting the people they once represented. Don’t see how it’s much different.

JohnInCA on March 3, 2010 at 12:26 AM

“This is the typically regressive fear tactic that you expect from anybody named Cheney,” said Morris Davis, the former chief prosecutor at the Bush era military commissions…”

Oh, and an exit question of sorts for all of you Chamberlain-esque RINO jackasses out there — is Byron York suddenly a Cheneyan wingnut, engaged in “regressive fear tactics”?

Just curious.

Jaibones on March 3, 2010 at 12:26 AM

So people who went out of their way to voluntarily help the murderers at GITMO are above reproach? Don’t think so.

Above reproach, certainly not. But it’s silly to get mad at attorneys for taking on clients that have done bad things.

Of course, given the prominent examples we have of attorneys aiding and abetting their clients’ actions and plots, it would make sense to be vigilant about maintaining proper ethical standards.

But getting mad at attorneys for representing bad clients? That’s bush league.

CliveStaples on March 3, 2010 at 12:41 AM

The most disturbing part of this is what it says about Obama and his approach to the War on Terror. He could have picked people to staff his DOJ that had spent the last 6 or 7 years prosecuting terrorists and trying to put them behind bars. Instead, he appoints people who have spent the last 6 or 7 years fighting FOR the terrorists and trying to get them acquitted. The fox is guarding the hen house.

Or the other way around, right? These defense attorneys will be able to identify the arguments that these terrorists will use, after all.

CliveStaples on March 3, 2010 at 12:43 AM

The most disturbing part of this is what it says about Obama and his approach to the War on Terror. He could have picked people to staff his DOJ that had spent the last 6 or 7 years prosecuting terrorists and trying to put them behind bars. Instead, he appoints people who have spent the last 6 or 7 years fighting FOR the terrorists and trying to get them acquitted. The fox is guarding the hen house.

What would the left have said if Bush had staffed his DOJ with attorneys who did pro-bono work for, say, the KKK. They would have gone ballistic that these attorneys who represented these evil people are now working in the justice department where they are supposed to be prosecuting the people they once represented. Don’t see how it’s much different.

JohnInCA on March 3, 2010 at 12:26 AM

You said it.

Cylor on March 3, 2010 at 12:44 AM

Or the other way around, right? These defense attorneys will be able to identify the arguments that these terrorists will use, after all.

CliveStaples on March 3, 2010 at 12:43 AM

Yeah, sure. I’d take that bet with you, and I’d offer you 50:1 odds, too.

neurosculptor on March 3, 2010 at 12:51 AM

Yeah, sure. I’d take that bet with you, and I’d offer you 50:1 odds, too.

I’m not clear, are you betting that these former defense attorneys will not vigorously represent their client, the United States government, in litigation pertaining to terrorists?

So not only are they bad people, they’re bad lawyers?

CliveStaples on March 3, 2010 at 1:57 AM

Due Process…

It’s what makes our system great. Not weak.

Our Constitution is good. It has served us well… it is sad that so many who claim to want to secure it throw out the ideals as long as it temporarily inconveniences them.

Put them all on trial… let’s have it out and see if it stands up to our ideals.

lexhamfox on March 3, 2010 at 2:00 AM

I certainly don’t want to suggest that lawyers who defend terrorists should be driven from polite society. In our legal system, someone has to defend the terrorists for them to get a fair trial, even if it’s a military tribunal rather than a civilian court.

But for those same lawyers to be given the job of setting policy concerning terrorists seems an obvious conflict of interest.

but I’d prefer to apply pressure to the feds without kinda sorta hinting that they’re in cahoots with Bin Laden

True enough. On the other hand, I’d like to have a little confidence that the people charged with a significant part of our security are not “in cahoots” with bin Laden, directly or indirectly. And if you can’t see the distinct possibility that some of these lawyers are more concerned with protecting terrorists from us than vice versa, then you really haven’t been paying attention to the left since the Vietnam War.

Allah, you give too much presumption of innocence for these people. Obama truly is a radical who would like to throw out capitalism and major chunks of the Constitution, and he’s surrounded by people who believe the U.S. is always evil and in the wrong, and that all our enemies are simply responding to our mistreatment of them, and that the best way to peace is to throw down all weapons and give our enemies whatever they want. These are people who not only associated with Bill Ayers and his group, but actually approve of what he did. Obama’s wife actually said that America is “downright mean,” and that for the first time in her life, she was proud to be an American.

So Morris Davis can throw his hissy fit of outrage, but the reason people don’t trust the Obama administration is because it is not trustworthy.

And since we can’t just throw the bum out, you’ll have to excuse those of us who are determined to watch him like a hawk.

(And I somehow avoided calling you a Chamberlain-esque RINO..)

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 3, 2010 at 3:16 AM

CliveStaples on March 3, 2010 at 1:57 AM

It’s a very safe bet that their interests are in pretty direct conflict with America’s interests. I don’t know if they’re good or bad lawyers – I hope they’re bad, since they’ll do less damage that way, as with The Precedent.

You can live in a theoretical world, if you want, but the fact is that people don’t just decide to spend their pro-bono time representing America’s worst enemies because they have nothing better to donate their time to. There are few that do it out of a dispassionate requirement that they perceive, without being sympathetic, but not in general, and certainly not from the nutcases who comprise The Precedent’s circle and outer orbit of friends/comrades.

But, go on and pretend that the ACLU is not really a left wing organization that has little interest in our Constitution (save what parts can be used and abused to forward their political agenda) or is in sync with American interests, which is a laughable proposition.

But, if you just go on all the other wackos, morons, criminals, marxists, and maoists that The Precedent has surrounded himself with, at every level, you are making a pretty bad bet assuming the innocent nature of these attorneys’ reasons for spending their time representing of our enemies. I don’t trust them. No one should.

Just look at Holder, who doesn’t belong there, either. He’s the moron who decided to have the New York show trials. I mean, come on. They are nuts over there.

neurosculptor on March 3, 2010 at 3:41 AM

I think this whole thing is a lot simpler than it seems. I think it’s two immature boys playing off each other.

Duh Won refuses to release his long form cert but releases something he calls a b/c. Erica refuses to release his master shyster list but he does release two related names.

Whoever goes the longest without being forced to disclose is the winner. I haven’t a clue what the prize is other than bragging rights.

Prove me wrong.

platypus on March 3, 2010 at 4:15 AM

Considering that so many who have been assigned to assist the detainees in some manner by the Government have turned out to be or turned into sympathizers/co-conspirators, it’s not too far a stretch to at least be suspicious of anyone that has been in that position. Given that they can use their current position to ascertain the workings of the Bureau that will be prosecuting the detainees for the near future, it is reasonable to assume that some might use this ‘inside information’ at a later date (or pass it on to those still representing the detainees) to enable defense tactics more likely to succeed; I see no problem with these lawyers being pinpointed and given greater scrutiny.

That Lynn has chosen to brand them with an inflamatory sobriquet is merely an attention-getting tactic made to point out the possible worst-case scenario.

I applaud their efforts. If Holder hadn’t already shown his willingness to subsume the law and justice for racial and party affiliation, perhaps we wouldn’t be so shrill and aroused by his silence on this.

jcw46 on March 3, 2010 at 5:21 AM

Dirtbag would be more descriptive.

bill30097 on March 2, 2010 at 10:39 PM

Dude, you have issues.
Although I disagree with Allah a lot, Dirtbag is not what comes to mind. I was offended when I read it. Slinging mud is not commentary.

IowaWoman on March 3, 2010 at 6:04 AM

But getting mad at attorneys for representing bad clients? That’s bush league.

CliveStaples on March 3, 2010 at 12:41 AM

“getting mad at attorneys” sort of misrepresents the entire argument. You should come back from the simpleton liberal fantasy world you stumbled into (“attorneys bad, soldiers good”) and join the actual argument (Anonymous DOJ attorneys representing and defending terrorists who attack the U.S. and also working without restriction on other DOJ business).

It makes for a more meaningful discussion.

Jaibones on March 3, 2010 at 6:27 AM

The fact that he is withholding the names of the attorneys makes it controversial. There is already mistrust of Holder and Obama, why do they make it worse by doing things like this? I suspect because their is a reason, why should I believe otherwise, what has the Obama administration done to make me believe I need to give them the benefit of the doubt?

Smoke = Fire

conservnut on March 3, 2010 at 7:07 AM

Damn-it

Their = There

conservnut on March 3, 2010 at 7:08 AM

Is Holder included in that count?

Or maybe call it the “T&A 9″? (Taliban & Al Queda)

So they worked for terrorists? As the liberal media would put it, it could be worse…they could have had banks or oil companies as clients.

albill on March 3, 2010 at 8:06 AM

I think it an excellent ad. And as I’ve said on my blog, hiring these 9 is like hiring Mafia lawyers for an organized crime division. Holder and Obama should get MORE heat about this.

WannabeAnglican on March 3, 2010 at 8:12 AM

The fact that he is withholding the names of the attorneys makes it controversial.

If he disclosed the names, these people would face constant calls for resignation or termination, and who knows what else. The fact that they defended terror suspects (presumedly put on trial during the Bush administration) should not preclude them from serving in the DOJ.

The Bush administration decided to put these people on trial, that means they need a defense. Someone had to defend them to put them through the due process of our judicial system. It’s how things work. I’ve always admired people who defend the worst sort of criminals/terrorists because it’s a job that has to be done, but you open yourself up to idiotic attacks like this one.

Glad to see the spirit of the late senator from Wisconsin is alive and well in the Republican party.

Tom_Shipley on March 3, 2010 at 8:15 AM

Let them have a taste of their own medicine. Have you all forgoten what tactics was used against Yoo and other “Bush’s lawyers”? This holier than thou attitude is viewed as a weakness by the left and MSN. Why should we let them do all the attacking? Okeefe was right to use their tactics to bring the fight to them.

atiem on March 3, 2010 at 8:26 AM

What possible reasons does he have for not disclosing those names after Congress has asked for them repeatedly?

d1carter on March 2, 2010 at 10:32 PM

My first thought also. What makes the others any different?
It could just be another diversion to split peoples focus.

Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2010 at 8:30 AM

As the military under sissy/poseur Obama has learned — with any administration willing to grant the rights of American citizens to battlefield terrorists, you simply need to kill everyone who raises a gun against our troops. No prisoners. Summary judgment and execution on the battlefield.

Otherwise it’s weenies like Allah, Shipley, Holder and Obama deciding how many chances we give our enemies to kill us. Bush, or at least his idiot lawyers, also belongs in this group of Upham clones.

Jaibones on March 3, 2010 at 8:38 AM

Why shouldn’t Liz Chaney’s group, Keep America Safe, bash the Øbummer White House for its opaque practices. Anytime it sends one of the progressive, liberal, elite operatives like this Morris Davis fellow into a slobbering rant, all the better. Rage is not a rational viewpoint.
.
Adding to the bonus points, the pressure on Eric “New Black Panther Party Sympathizer & KSM Trial Planner” Holder just got a little more intense. I guess Mr. Holder can sympathize a little with the pressure felt by Alberto Gonzales from liberal critics over several years duration.
.
This Keep America Safe Ad was very mild, not even close to the criticism the Bush White House felt over the AUSA resignations. Keep up the pressure!

ExpressoBold on March 3, 2010 at 8:43 AM

The fact that they defended terror suspects (presumedly put on trial during the Bush administration) should not preclude them from serving in the DOJ.

Tom_Shipley on March 3, 2010 at 8:15 AM
————
Yes, it should. It’s a conflict of interest.

fossten on March 3, 2010 at 9:02 AM

If he disclosed the names, these people would face constant calls for resignation or termination, and who knows what else. The fact that they defended terror suspects (presumedly put on trial during the Bush administration) should not preclude them from serving in the DOJ.Tom_Shipley on March 3, 2010 at 8:15 AM

Do you mean like the Left who stalk Prof. Yoo and try to get him fired for his legal advice to Pres. Bush? At most these people would need to recuse themselves. Nice to see you back.

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Yes, it should. It’s a conflict of interest.

How is it a conflict of interest?

Tom_Shipley on March 3, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Do you mean like the Left who stalk Prof. Yoo

Who stalked Yoo?

I find it funny that conservatives always defend Yoo. You know he basically said that, echoing Nixon, if the president does it, it’s legal.

If an Obama lawyer made these rulings — essentially giving the president to power to ignore Congress and any laws they pass (in the case, that we cannot torture enemy combatants) and do what he wants — Liz Cheney and her pals probably would have stormed the White House.

Tom_Shipley on March 3, 2010 at 9:11 AM

Comment pages: 1 2