An attack that goes too far
Finally, it is appropriate to criticize lawyers who defend terrorists and terrorist suspects. Contrary to what Walter Dellinger would like us to believe, these lawyers have no professional obligation to represent terrorists and terrorist suspects. They did so by choice and this choice, like all others, is fair game for criticism.
However, it is entirely inappropriate to suggest that these lawyers share the values of terrorists or to dub the seven DOJ lawyers “The al Qaeda Seven.” Unfortunately, this is what a video released by the organization Keep America Safe does.
I would rather give up my law license than represent Osama bin Laden’s driver, for example. And I take a very dim view of the decision by Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal to undertake that representation.
However, I would not deserve to have a law license if my personal views on this matter caused me to launch vicious, unfounded attacks on lawyers who exercise their right to represent despicable clients.
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: « Previous 1 2
rbj on March 6, 2010 at 1:15 PM
OK, got it. I was gonna revoke your mancard when I read your first comment, but your defense of your position was spirited and principled.
I pronounce you “not guilty” of the charge of unmanly conduct. These proceeding are closed and you are free to comment elsewhere.
Go forth and continue to do great things.
EFG on March 6, 2010 at 1:21 PM
Alright, let’s assume for the moment that ideology is not the driving force behind these lawyers decisions to defend accused terrorists in court. The fact that such a spectacle is taking place still raises many questions about the decision and the motivation behind it.
Was it motivated by money? Obviously not. The work is being done pro bono. So we can eliminate that motive in its most direct form. That does not eliminate the possibility of indirect financial rewards.
It could be motivated by a chance at fame. This is much more likely. Most (or all) of these nine lawyers volunteered for the work without being asked. Notoriety, even when somewhat negative, can be lucrative. Especially if the lawyer can later convince their client to waive client confidentiality privileges in order to write a book. The more press they get the better they look. But that does not correlate with accepting a relatively low paying (and obscure) position in the Justice Department.
This situation would be quite different if they had been appointed by the court. It would also be more understandable if they were asked by a third party to take on this burden out of a sense of legal equity. But from what I understand neither of those situations occurred. They rushed in of their own volition.
The evidence that we have of this situation points to a motivation that is indeed ideological on some level. The correlation between the Obama Justice Department and these attorneys also introduces the potential of a quid pro quo. Where they offered these positions as a reward for doing things that embarrassed the Bush administration? I feel that is a legitimate question to ask.
Hawthorne on March 6, 2010 at 1:33 PM
Thanks. Off to watch Yankee baseball & the snow melt.
rbj on March 6, 2010 at 1:38 PM
I think it’s exactly the right question to ask, although I doubt you’ll get an honest answer….
notropis on March 6, 2010 at 1:46 PM
in fairness to powerline, it was just one of them that said it was an attack too far, and the other two said it wasnt.
Anti-Harkonnen Freedom Fighter on March 6, 2010 at 2:07 PM
Liberals pick their clients because they share their politics. They may not share Al Qaeda’s values but they share the same goals. ***
Rocks on March 6, 2010 at 12:07 PM
You hit the nail on the head. I am a lawyer and have suffered through my fair share of lectures about how: (i) “everyone deserves a defense, no matter how awful;” (ii) “when you represent a scumbag, you’re doing your duty to our system of justice and it doesn’t mean you’re his friend or support what he did;’ and (iii) “pro bono is a very important part of justice.”
But nobody believes that anymore. The people who volunteered to represent those terrorists did so with a political agenda in mind. They were actively trying to hurt George Bush by any means necessary, and they didn’t care what happened to national security as a result.
If you’re going to enter a political quagmire, you deserve whatever criticism is sent your way. That goes, too, for the white-shoe New York law firms that poured millions of dollars in pro bono time and money into defending these GTMO terrorists.
Outlander on March 6, 2010 at 2:24 PM
The AQ 7 join the ranks of the AQ 700 (7000?) already in place. Islam is a long way from beginning to infiltrate government. It will be a lot easier with Obama at the helm.
BL@KBIRD on March 6, 2010 at 2:28 PM
No, it seems Scott and Paul believe the video goes “too far.” John hedges.
conservative pilgrim on March 6, 2010 at 2:29 PM
Without even clicking the link, I could have told you that this was written by Paul. He’s fairly consistent in rationalizing stunts pulled by the Obama crew.
onlineanalyst on March 6, 2010 at 2:44 PM
At a bare minimum, Americans are entitled to absolute assurance that the AQ-7 have nothing to do with terror prosecutions. To be sure, they’re precluded from working on any DOJ matter relating to a detainee whom they previously represented. That would be a clear conflict of interest. But beyond that, there are things such as “positional” conflicts of interest in which the lawyer is precluded from serving as a counsel, but it’s a just a darned good idea that you don’t–for your current client’s sake.
Assign the AQ-7 to other tasks–falling asleep on the Kevin Johnson charade or the New Black Panther Party might make sense. But keep them away from the prosecution of any detainees whom they’ve not represented before. We know where their sympathies lie.
BuckeyeSam on March 6, 2010 at 2:46 PM
Unless the American people elect someone like Barack Obama, and all that comes with that big-a–ed mistake.
capitalist piglet on March 6, 2010 at 2:52 PM
If it’s “appropriate to criticize” them, what on earth does he suggest we criticize them for if not for being terrorists sympathizers? Bad breath? Spelling? The author is writing faster than he’s thinking.
elfman on March 6, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Has the Department of Justice became simply polluted with an obtuse ideology or has it turned off the balanced treatment of jurisprudence. It has obviously been affected by the former but how long will it be before the latter is reinstituted to clean house. It might be a good time to fire some exposed attorneys. They are not representing the best interest of the American people if their predispostions toward the accused say otherwise. Way to go whoever. Compromising the U.S. Justice Department for a foreign entity does not bode well for oaths you took and the pledge of allegiance to the United States of America.
Americannodash on March 6, 2010 at 2:58 PM
Counselor Paul:
.
Your paragraph 3:
.
I believe you
.
Agreed. In fact, this seems obvious. How could such highly educated men and women, graduated of the finest schools America, members of the bar, and masters of litigation-fu, not know this?
.
Well, …
.
(emphasis mine)
.
They, these educated men and women, graduated of the finest schools America, members of the bar, and masters of litigation-fu, made an informed choice, with no duress involved.
.
Then paragraph 4:
.
Why is it “entirely inappropriate”?
.
C’mon Counselor, make the argument or “give up [your] law license”. Assertions will not do.
.
How many times has a lawyer pointed to past actions of a witness to impeach that witness?
.
By your own admission Counselor, “… these lawyers have no professional obligation to represent terrorists and terrorist suspects.”, “They did so by choice …”.
.
So. Are these lawyers then “Accomplices and Co-conspirators” or “Accessories After the Fact” to one or more Acts of Terrorism, Making War Upon the United States, Making War Upon American Civilians, and Murder, specifically the murder of Daniel Pearl (for starters)?
.
Is anyone going to at least see about taking the law licenses of these lawyers?
Arbalest on March 6, 2010 at 3:03 PM
As bl@kbird says, the caliphate will be grow and its tentacles with infiltrate through the imposition of sharia law rather than direct acts of terrorism.
I question the motives and sympathies of these pro bono lawyers. At any rate, I do not believe that they deserve a position in our DOJ, for their ideology appears to be at odds with our national security. Why were their identities such a deep secret otherwise?
onlineanalyst on March 6, 2010 at 3:13 PM
will grow, not will be grow
onlineanalyst on March 6, 2010 at 3:16 PM
Stepping back…
Isn’t our legal system built on the principal that all, even the worst deserve competent counsel?
Even if tried in military court they would receive counsel from JAG.
I just don’t see how law and order principled people would think attacking the lawyers who provide legally required counsel (from someone) is consistent with the intent of our justice system.
NextGen on March 6, 2010 at 3:32 PM
I back Keep America Safe on this one. Whether people liked its tactic, it did work for the most open administration evah!
I feel that same way when I heard the Holder’s office, or the office that he worked at, donated over 3000 hours pro bono to the terrorists.
I’m not suggesting anything illegal. It just don’t like the look of it.
I haven’t forgotten Lynn Stewart and the hero worship she received.
Brass on March 6, 2010 at 3:34 PM
McCarthy would be proud.
The Race Card on March 6, 2010 at 3:42 PM
And it was Obama’s puppeteer George Soros who paid for Stewart’s defense. I bet we could find more ties with the Al Qaeda Seven if we dig around a little.
Buddahpundit on March 6, 2010 at 3:55 PM
NextGen at 3:32 PM
.
Yes, and your next sentence shows that you know this:
.
Why then do you write this:
.
.
But the answer is, well, the subject of national news efforts and many activist rallys; do you not know this:
.
–> Lynne Stewart
Arbalest on March 6, 2010 at 3:55 PM
McCarthy happened to have been correct, and his anti-communist stance was a solid defense of America. You seem to think that communists are good for America. Well, you must be happy now that marxists and maoists are infesting the White House like the plague, huh? Good stuff. No wonder the federal government has been engaged in an all-out assault on the American citizenry.
And, quite frankly, the Hollywood blacklists were correct, also. I don’t cry for the poor commies who weren’t allowed to have a megaphone with which to spread un-American propaganda as they now do. Hollywood is an absolute disgrace, these days, and would do much better if most of the communist/marxist/jihadist-supporting/America-hating scum working there were to find themselves blacklisted and forced to flip burgers at McDonald’s, where they belong and can do little damage to this nation.
neurosculptor on March 6, 2010 at 4:03 PM
Stepping back…
This is for American citizens, not (foreign) enemy combatants.
We’re talking about 2 sets of lawyers, which the Gitmo detainees got because of the SCOTUS Hamdan ruling (I think..someone correct me if I don’t have the case right).
The Leftist lawyers didn’t think the JAG lawyers were “fair and balanced” enough so they had themselves inserted into Gitmo to apply American civilian criminal standards to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.
Jenfidel on March 6, 2010 at 4:16 PM
@conservative pilgrim –
Scott redeems the site just now:
“Who are the al Qaeda seven?”
Anti-Harkonnen Freedom Fighter on March 6, 2010 at 4:33 PM
No, everyone has a right to competent counsel in both or civilian and military justice system which is why I made the point about JAG.
The national debate is about the proper venue for the trial not if they have a right to counsel.
I stand by my original comment, either civilian trial or military tribunal/trial, counsel will represent these people as part of the process. It’s one of the most basic tenants of our legal system.
The best legal system in the world…..
NextGen on March 6, 2010 at 4:57 PM
NextGen at 4:57 PM
.
.
Yet this is from your 3:32 PM post:
.
So even you know that these foreign enemy combatants would receive counsel, even in a military court/tribunal. But these foreign enemy combatants are not entitled access to the American civilian legal system, nor to all the rights of an American Citizen., even though your posts, and the Al Q. lawyers, are trying to imply that they are.
.
.
First, see above response.
.
Second, this thread is about the conduct of the Al Q. lawyers, how they are now on returning from the other team and expect to be treated as loyal, and how questioning their loyalty to the US and to the American People is unfair.
.
We saw Stewart’s conduct, we’re aware of the Hamdan case (among others), and we’re aware of the conduct and actions of the Al Q. lawyers (and now their names). There’s also the question of funding, apparently “someone” funded several lawyers/law firms lavishly: who? And were any of these lawyers bought by “someone”? Why should we now trust these lawyers to not somehow subvert the People’s case(s)? Perhaps you can answer.
.
(emphasis mine)
.
Your original comment contains this (and this seems to be your main point):
.
It looks like the the goal post and endzone are being moved.
Arbalest on March 6, 2010 at 5:48 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2