Marc Thiessen has a devastating column in this morning's WaPost excoriating critics of the recent effort by Fox News and Liz Cheney to "out" the Justice Department Lawyers--political appointees of this President--who represented detainees at Gitmo and other vermin of Al-Qaida pedigree.
He's right--Americans do have a right to know who at Justice--seemingly in charge of helping to protect the country from terrorism--spent their carefree, pre-government lives providing for the defense of terrorists. His comparison of the legal community's silence (and complicity) during the witch hunts of former Bush lawyers is notable.
I don't begrudge the legal community the desire to provide defense to terrorists--it's sorta ingrained in the DNA of some lawyers to defend the lost causes (Ramsey Clark?). I do however, question the judgment of an administration that hires such people and then puts them in policy positions in a department central to the war on terror.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Every defendant, no matter how heinous their crime has a right to the very best defense. If it were you being accused, you would want that for yourself.
Um, yeah. That's kinda what I indicated in the final paragraph. That said, such lawyers shouldn't now be minding the store.
And then there's this, from the article:
"We need to be clear about what the American tradition is," McCarthy told me. "The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused -- that means somebody who has been indicted or otherwise charged with a crime -- a right to counsel. But that right only exists if you are accused, which means you are someone who the government has brought into the civilian criminal justice system." The habeas lawyers were not doing their constitutional duty to defend unpopular criminal defendants. They were using the federal courts as a tool to undermine our military's ability to keep dangerous enemy combatants off the battlefield in a time of war.
Why not take your theory further? If you represented an oil company you can't do work for the EPA. If you were a corporate lawyer you can't do work at Commerce.
You completely ignore the letter signed by over 30 conservative lawyers taking Liz Cheney to task. Why?
"The habeas lawyers were not doing their constitutional duty to defend unpopular criminal defendants. They were using the federal courts as a tool to undermine our military's ability to keep dangerous enemy combatants off the battlefield in a time of war."
If this was true, why did the Supreme Court rule in their favor?
Lastly, those out of power may gain again someday. Do you want Democrats going over the trial record of every Justice department hire to find something to throw at them? That's what Ms. Cheney is asking for.
Yeah right. what if Bush had appointed a bunch of New Jersey Mafia lawyers (sorry C.W.) or Klan lawyers who worked pro bono for the Grande Exhaulted Cyclops Wizard of Gadsden, Ala-Goddamn-Bama? Yeah I bet the press who leave that one alone.
These lawyers are leftist scum who in a just world would be sharing Cell Block C with their buddies, Al-Qieda scum.
Gentlemen,
What would your stance be if it were you who was accused of a similar crime and they defended you? Would you then judge them as unfit for public office?
Sorry Smoothfur. A line is crossed when a lawyer VOLUNTEERS to lend aid and comfort to the enemy--and then is put in a position to make policy pertaining to them. You and Bill C and others have to separate the "they have a right to a defense" argument (with which I will not quibble) with my "fine, but then it sends a bad message to have those lawyer making policy at Justice" argument.
Glenn Reynolds says it best--imagine the OUTCRY that would attend to there being a group of lawyers at Justice Civil Rights division who had done pro-bono work for white supremacists.
Post a Comment