Is this a case of smear or transparency?
Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy, The Cable:
Several former Justice Department officials have criticized the group Keep America Safe, which is led by Liz Cheney and William Kristol, for its attacks on the department for hiring lawyers who have defended terror suspects in the past, including one particularly controversial ad calling some of them the “al Qaeda 7.”
“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,” reads a letter organized by the Brookings Institution’s Benjamin Wittes and signed by David Rivkin, Lee Casey, and Philip Zelikow, among other prominent Republican lawyers.
“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.”
Why does this matter, and go beyond “talented lawyers taking honorable positions” by lawyering up on behalf of “accused” terrorists who wish to kill Americans? Because in the “war on terror”, we may be winning it on the battlefield and in some cases, behind the scenes; but in the court of law, thanks to such organizations as the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU, America has been on the losing side of 3 of the 4 major war on terror cases that have come before the Supreme Court.
And if these are just honorable, patriotic lawyers doing their honorable duties, then Eric Holder and the Obama Administration really should have no objections to the transparency, should they? After all, this is “the most transparent administration in history”, right?
Thomas Joscelyn takes a look at their body of work. Marc Thiessen devotes an entire chapter (“Double Agents”) in Courting Disaster to the lawyers involved in defending al Qaeda terrorists, and their connections to Eric Holder. (See Thiessen’s op-ed in WaPo here; and if you are so inclined, Eugene Robinson’s attack on Liz Cheney and Keep America Safe here).
Andrew McCarthy also weighs in on why this issue matters.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Great job Liz Cheney! We need more fighters like her.
The Boston Massacre has NOTHING in common with the present day situation. The British soldiers were cornered by a mob, and the officer Adams defended, never gave an order to fire upon anyone, which is why he was deemed innocent in the end.
The fact that the Brookings Institute is falling back on this fake meme says one of two things: Either they are stupid, or they know no one actually knows history (per the statist’s 40-year effort).
And as we’ve seen around here, the statists don’t care about historical facts.
-Holder also defended Chiquita Banana when they hired terrorists to kill plantation workers.
-He also let Puerto Rican terrorists free when he worked for Clinton.
In a better time and place, Holder would be be in a docket.
If this were all about them representing bad guys why all the hush-hush ?
Because this has nothing to do with representation for the dregs of society.
These lawyers all passed over Americans that hadn’t committed terrorist acts yet still needed representation JUST so they could represent miscreants that want the destruction of Liberty.
Then no matter how much the US Att’y Gen’l wanted these men to be in his DOJ he still had to do it in secret.
Now, that’s transparency.
Liz Cheney is a disgrace. What we have is a bunch of lawyers who accused the previous administration of violating the U.S. Constitution. The cases went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court agreed that the administration had overstepped the bounds of law.
So because the lawyers acted to force the previous admiistration to follow the law, that supposedly makes them BAD GUYS? And they should not be managing the new administration’s affairs because they proved that the previous administration violated the law?
This is Alice in Wonderland logic. Cons are getting more and more unhinged by the day.
Bill Burck and Dana Perino reveal that Holder failed to disclose his own briefs he filed on the Padilla case during his confirmation.
Read the whole thing:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=OTI5OWJhYjU1ZDc4ZTk4M2M0YmMyOTliYWRlZTA0N2I=
@Missy
Another great find, ma’am.
The Dems that approved him knew damn well what his background was, and that is exactly why he was approved. I’ll bet they helped him with the questionnaire.
If we out here knew, they all knew.
Funny…None of them treasonous assholes seem to want to lift a finger to help my 3 SeAL brothers.
Patvann —
I see that no one actually grapples with the real reason the criticism is b.s. — Neel Khatyl and Holder and the three GOPers who represented detainees all WON THEIR CASES. Every one. The Supreme Court found that the Bush administration had violated the Constitution.
You are saying it is “treason” to prohibit the goverment from violating the Constitution.
Think about how nutty that position is. Because you are saying, in essence, that Holder, by upholding the Constituion, deserves to be executed, which is the punishment for treason. That is the kind of thing I would expect from Castro’s Cuba or Pol Pot or Pinochet. It is simply un-American. Which is why so many conservatives are calling “bullsh*t” on Liz Cheney and on your position, too.
Sorry dork
We are talking about the amicus briefs. Try to keep up.
Does anyone remember the case of Lynne Stewart? The radical lawyer who defended the Blind Shiekh who was convicted for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Stewart herself was convicted for providing material support for another planned terrorist attack.
These Al Queda Seven are in positions with access to loads of confidential and likely classified information. Do we really think they are the best we can find to do this work in such a position?
Eric Holder is the most politicized Attorney General since Nixon’s A.G. John Mitchell. It seems his first requirement for new hires is that they be an America hater like himself and Obama.
Which causes me to wonder…. BLOB, why haven’t you accepted a post at DOJ? Surely nothing disreputable in your past should be a roadblock considering how many scumbags Holder has hired.
BRob
Once again you fail to see the problem as it pertains to Holder and the DOJ employees and their previous involvement with the detainees. I can excuse Patvann’s emotional response in his last statement, because I too, care about the fact that there are true american heroes that are dumped on by the same lawyer fraternity that represented and is still representing the interest of terrorists. But that is a whole different arguement. The one you involve yourself in is based on conflict of interest, and as such, all should have been disclosed in my opinion at the start of employment, but at the very least, when the public demanded. Supposedly you are some sort of paralegal type, and therefore should know that conflict of interest is a big no no to hide in law. Regardless of winning their cases, they should be in the habit of recusing themselves in any instance of conflict of interest. In no case should they be involved in the decisions regarding the handling of terrorists, the prosecution of terrorists or anything else involving terrorism at the DOJ.
Mike, you are a blithering idiot. Answer my question:
since when does winning your case and opposing government engaging in unconstitutional overreach mean you “hate America.” How does enforcing the Constitution, in your crummy little mind, prove that someone is “the enemy.” You cons make less and less sense every day.
I think Andrew Volokh put it well here:
“Consider McCarthy’s basic argument that lawyers who represented detainees ‘aided the enemy in wartime,’ and should normally be guilty of treason. If that’s true, isn’t the federal judiciary, and aren’t the Justices of the Supreme Court, also guilty of treason? In fact, aren’t the judges the kingpins of this treasonous plot to ‘hurt the war effort’? After all, lawyers only make arguments to judges. It doesn’t actually help detainees to make argument courts reject. It’s up to the judges to rule one way or the other. If the lawyers are aiding the enemy, they’re only minor players: It’s the judges, and especially the Justices, who are the real guilty parties, as they’re the ones that actually help the detainees by ruling in their favor. Does McCarthy think the Justices of the Supreme Court are guilty of aiding the enemy, and that (if we treat them like everybody else) they should be ‘indicted for coming to the enemy’s aid during wartime’?”
Holder and Company successfully opposed the Bush administration because the Bush administration was showing no respect whatsoever for the Constitution. THAT is why, time and gain, Bush lost in the Supreme Court. Only the cons, however, would argue that proving one administration violated the Constitution means you should not be permitted to work in another administration that is trying to abide by that same Constitution. You are on a very lonely island on this one, becase you make no sense whatsoever.
The result of the Supreme court case was that Congress established new rules for Military tribunals. KSM (under the new rules) was tried, and he pled guilty in Dec of 2008. Then once Obama/Holder was in power, he tossed the guilty plea and going waaaaaaaay beyond what the S-C and Congress approved, attempted to try him in civilian court. Strangely, the guy next to KSM at Gitmo was the guy who bombed the USS Cole, yet HE will be tried by the Militrary Court at Gitmo.
Why?
Because in Holder’s eyes, the CIA was to be tried, not KSM.
Treason.
Holder and the Pardon of FALN Terrorists
Holder was also intimately involved in President Clinton’s August 11, 1999 pardon of 16 members of the FALN, acronym for the Armed Forces of National Liberation—a violent terrorist organization (as designated by the FBI) that was active in the U.S. from the mid-1970s through the early 1980s.
The FALN was a Marxist-Leninist group whose overriding mission was to secure Puerto Rico’s political independence from the United States. Toward that end, between 1974 and 1983 the group detonated nearly 130 bombs in such strategically selected places as military and government buildings, financial institutions, and corporate headquarters located mainly in Chicago, New York, and Washington DC. These bombings were carried out as acts of protest against America’s political, military, financial, and corporate presence in Puerto Rico. All told, FALN bombs killed six people—including the Chilean ambassador to the United States—and wounded at least 80 others.
On April 4, 1980, eleven FALN members were arrested in Evanston, Illinois. More of their comrades would also be apprehended in Chicago in the early 1980s. All were charged with seditious conspiracy, but they refused to participate in their own trial proceedings—claiming defiantly that the U.S. government was an illegitimate entity and thus had no moral authority by which to sit in judgment of them. All the defendants were found guilty and were sentenced to federal prison terms ranging from 35 to 105 years.
On November 9, 1993, a self-identified “human rights” organization named Ofensiva ’92 filed a petition for executive clemency on behalf of 18 members of the FALN and another violent organization seeking Puerto Rican independence, Los Macheteros (“The Machete-Wielders”). According to a December 12, 1999 report issued by the House Committee on Government Reform, the prisoners themselves “refused to take part in any process that would legitimize the government’s actions against them, therefore they refused to file their own petitions.”
This presented a problem because the Department of Justice (DOJ) traditionally stipulates that clemency will be considered only if a prisoner first files a petition on his or her own behalf, an act which the Department views as a sign of contrition. Nonetheless DOJ made an exception in this case and accepted Ofensiva ’92’s petition, a document which cast the FALN prisoners as blameless freedom fighters analogous to those Americans who had fought in the Revolutionary War against Britain.
Among the notables who joined Ofensiva ’92’s clemency crusade were Cardinal John O’Connor, Coretta Scott King, Jimmy Carter, and the National Lawyers Guild. Perhaps the most passionate support came from Democrat Representatives Luis Gutierrez (IL), Jose Serrano (NY), and Nydia Velazquez (NY), each of whom echoed Ofensiva ’92’s claim that the FALN members were “political prisoners” who deserved to be released.
The attorneys and advocates who were fighting for the freedom of the FALN prisoners first met with the Justice Department’s Pardon Attorney on July 19, 1994. In October 1996 they met with Jack Quinn, Counsel to the President. They were unsuccessful, however, in their efforts to convey the legitimacy of their cause to the Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA), which in 1996 contacted the Justice Department and recommended against clemency; that recommendation, in turn, was forwarded to the White House.
But the matter was not over; OPA continued to meet with groups and individuals lobbying for clemency on behalf of the FALN terrorists. Then in 1997, Eric Holder — who was President Clinton’s new Deputy Attorney General (in the Justice Department headed by Janet Reno) — became involved in the case.
In this role, Holder was responsible for overseeing clemency investigations and determining which of those requests were ultimately worthy of President Clinton’s attention. As evidenced by a September 1997 memorandum from the Pardon Attorney, the Justice Department was, at this point, receiving numerous inquiries about the FALN and Macheteros—from the White House and from supporters of the prisoners. The aforementioned House Committee on Government Reform report stated: “Throughout the closing months of 1997 it appears that Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder was active in the issue. The privilege log reflects at least two notes regarding his questions on the clemency or his thoughts on the matter.”
On November 5, 1997, Holder met with Representatives Gutierrez, Serrano, and Velazquez to discuss the clemency issue. He advised the legislators that they might greatly increase the likelihood of a presidential pardon if they could convince the prisoners to write letters testifying as to the personal remorse they felt for their past actions. But no such letters would be produced for five months, during which time the clemency issue remained on hold. Meanwhile, in a January 6, 1998 letter a senior Justice Department official expressly referred to the FALN members as “terrorists.”
Then on April 8, 1998, Holder again met with FALN supporters. This time, they finally delivered statements from the prisoners as Holder had advised in November. But all the statements were identical—indicating that not one of the prisoners had made an effort to craft his own personal expression of repentance.
Undeterred, Holder then raised the question of whether the prisoners might at least agree to renounce future violence in exchange for clemency. One of the prisoners’ backers, Reverend Paul Sherry, made it clear that they surely “would not change their beliefs”—presumably about the issue of Puerto Rican independence—but was vague as to whether they were apt to eschew violence altogether.
Over the next few weeks, Holder and the Justice Department continued to meet with numerous advocates of clemency and to review pertinent materials which the latter brought forth on behalf of the prisoners. Holder clearly was the point man for these clemency negotiations. As Brian Brian Blomquist wrote in the New York Post, “A list of FALN documents withheld from Congress shows that many memos on the FALN clemency decision went directly to Holder, while [Janet] Reno’s role was minimal.” Similarly, New York Daily News reporter Edward Lewine wrote that Holder was “the Justice Department official most involved with this issue.”
Throughout the clemency review process, neither Holder nor anyone else in the Justice Department contacted any of the people who had been victimized (or whose loved ones had been victimized) by the FALN. Most were never aware that clemency for the terrorists was even being contemplated. And those few who were aware of the possibility were rebuffed in their efforts to participate in the review process.
On May 19, 1998, the Pardon Attorney sent Eric Holder a 48-page draft memorandum “concerning clemency for Puerto Rican Nationalist prisoners.” Seven weeks later, on July 8, Holder sent President Clinton a “memorandum regarding clemency matter.” Indeed the Deputy Attorney General was methodically spearheading the march toward clemency — despite the fact that the sentencing judges, the U.S. Attorneys, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the FBI were unanimous in their opposition to pardoning the individuals in question.
In late July 1999 an attorney from Holder’s office spoke to White House Counsel Charles Ruff regarding the clemency matter. On August 9, 1999, Holder’s office and OPA held one final meeting to hammer out the details, and two days later the President made his announcement: clemency was granted to sixteen terrorists, most of whom had served only a fraction of their prison terms. Of the sixteen, twelve accepted the offer and were freed, two refused it, and two others, who already were out of prison, never responded.
Congress, for its part, was not pleased—condemning the clemencies by votes of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House.
In the aftermath of August 11, 1999, a report by the Justice Department stated that the FALN posed an “ongoing threat” to national security. And in late October 1999 the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report from Attorney General Janet Reno stating that the FALN members’ “impending release from prison” would “increase the present threat” of terrorism.
In an October 20th Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and again with reporters the following day, Eric Holder denied that Reno was referring to the same FALN terrorists whose pardons he had worked so long and hard to secure. Yet when Holder was asked to identify whom Reno was in fact talking about, he responded as follows:
“I don’t know, no, I don’t know that. We might be able to get you some more information on that, but, I mean, you know, there were certain people who are due to be released, or who were at least eligible for parole, had a release date in the next, as I said, three, four years. I don’t know exactly who they were. Maybe—we might be able to get you that information.”
Neither Holder nor the Justice Department ever provided any additional names.
The December 1999 House Committee on Government Reform report stated:
“The 16 [FALN] terrorists appear to be most unlikely candidates. They did not personally request clemency. They did not admit to wrongdoing and they had not renounced violence before such a renunciation had been made a quid pro quo for their release. They expressed no contrition for their crimes, and were at times openly belligerent about their actions…. Notwithstanding the fact that the 16 did not express enough personal interest in the clemency process to file their own applications, the White House appeared eager to assist throughout the process. Meetings were held with supporters, and some senior staff [i.e., Holder] even suggested ways to improve the likelihood of the President granting the clemency. Overall, the White House appears to have exercised more initiative than the terrorists themselves.”
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2357
BRob
Not that Mike needs anyone to stand up for himself, since I’ve seen him handle his battles as well as anyone, but you are completely wrong in your affront of him, least of all your namecalling. I’ve always heard that once you start calling people names, your effectiveness in your argument drops to zero. No wonder that that is a common mode of communication for you.
As for Mike’s statement, he is spot on in rightly questioning the ability of those former defense attorneys now being in position where all manner of information, much of it detrimental to the government in their cases against the detainees at Gitmo, can be accessed and passes on, or “leaked”. Much of the information has a lot to do with how they were captured, including much confidential information on that particular subject. Are you of the mind that that would be okay, even if used by free terrorists to evade capture? That is why I previously posted about conflict of interest, especially in these particular cases. If you can’t understand that, which I somehow doubt you will, then you are truly lost. And as for Holder himself, Mike is right in stating that he is a highly politicized AG, being that he is on record with anti-american, anti-constitutional sentiments.
@BRob: I’m not interested in your question or your opinions. You have ZERO credibility here for anything other than proving what loons populate your side of the aisle. You are beneath contempt.
The only thing that interests me is why you aren’t working at DOJ. Surely your record can’t be any worse than the trash currently employed by Hate-America Holder.
@johngalt: P.S. thanks for your kind words. But let’s not feed the BLOB too much. You’ve seen what a mess he leaves in his cage. And unless Mata is here to clean up the cage it starts to smell.
Is Mata the cage cleaner? Are we above sexism or not? Mata deserves more recognition than cage cleaner!
Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale.
Her infinite variety. Other women cloy
The appetites they feed, but she makes hungry
Where most she satisfies
Anthony and Cleoptra: II-2 Shakespeare
All of us are blessed to be sharing the planet with the women of FA
Goddess of Strength
Smile of a woman adds light, to life of everyone
It’s the woman who takes the burden of the society
Even though mostly she is widely misunderstood by most.
Women are special, for the courage they show in facing this world
With a determined attitude, as it is courage which makes one succeed.
Succeeded has every woman because she manages so many things, with her strength..
Strength is in a woman to shake this world, which she surely does when she is angry.
A woman represents a goddess, goddess of strength is a woman
No comparison can be made about the strength of a woman, a woman is special
Special, is every woman.
ROHIT SAPRA
Blob can sit in his own filth, as he seems to be enjoying it.
@Skookum: It’s not so much sexist as the fact that Mata generally seems to enjoy taking out the trash.
Since I have that job here at home it’s nice to see someone else take an interest in that necessary task here online.
PV, I knew you had a way with words; but the poetic nature, oh what a surprise!
Please, we must have more
while yet we spend our time
We work at Freedom’s door
Quick we are, to join in line
Against those for whom Lady liberty is a whore
Oh wretched Socialists, who lie and deceive
Have not your strange pride here
There are few who yet can believe
Your honor is like gazing in a mirror
In time only you will listen to this make believe
Mike, I just realized, taking out the trash is reverse sexism. I am a victim! Can I get some “Obama Money”?
😉
So to keep with your style of prose…
We against the gale of deceit
Waves of hate o’er the prow
Ever forward our steady beat
The weary hands the furrowed brow
Brotherhood will stay defeat
We see the Dawn ahead we move
Some among us fear it’s glow
November comes it’s none too soon
The weakest leave it’s time to go
Our ship holds lightened less the fools
No, it would be like a lawyer who defended tax protesters that claim the income tax is unconsititutional. This lawyer would not be appropriate to then take over as General Counsel for the IRS.
@BRob #4:
Why?
What we have are a bunch of leftwing lawyers tying up our court systems and undermining our military and intelligence officials from protecting the country during a time of war. They regurgitate and promote enemy propaganda on torture and human rights abuses. The Center for Constitutional Rights lawyers have a history of representing communist front-groups, cop-killers, and other violent radicals.
BRob,
Has the Supreme Court, in your view, ever made bad decisions? These habeas corpus lawyers didn’t force the previous administration to “follow the law”, as you say.
You’re the one who’s fallen down the rabbit hole and smoking the CATERPILLAR’s hookah.
Arguments regarding the Supreme Court decisions aside for a moment, the issue the ad brings up is in regards to “Where’s the transparency”? If your interpretation of these lawyers as heroic, patriotic, defenders of the Constitution is the correct one to hold, why doesn’t Holder simply make the argument? Why drag his ass? Why hide from it? Why not be proud of his association to these law firms and lawyers who have represented terrorists? Why not be proud of “upholding the Constitution against its violations by the previous administration”?
@BRob #11:
The “overreach” is on extending Constitutional rights to “enemy combatants”. Creating them. When these lawyers began litigating their cases, there was no prior precedence for a right to representation for enemy combatants. Didn’t exist until CCR lawyers and the 2004 Rasul v Bush case, which granted Guantanamo detainees a statutory right to bring habeas corpus challenges to their detention. So in 2006, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act to rewrite the habeas corpus statute and take away the ability of GITMO detainees to file habeas corpus cases. That brought us to 2008’s Boumediene ruling that gave detainees their Constitutional right to habeas corpus. (Mata’s post here).
Having lawyers and courts interfere during a time of war the way and to the extent that they are doing now, is something unprecedented. During WWII, we detained more than 400,000 German and Italian POWs on U.S. soil with zero successful habeas corpus petitions. Today? Less than 300 unlawful enemy combatants and 246 ongoing habeas corpus cases. Basically, these terrorists are being given more protections and privileges than lawful enemy combatants…where’s the incentive to NOT engage in terrorist acts of warfare?
@Skookum: I have no doubt that if Obama Care passes there will be a “clinic” set up in your neck of the woods to provide you with the necessary services to get your mind right (or should that be left) on a whole range of issues.
Mike: Good Grief!
Boob — Por sua cabera entre seus e funda.
PV, I found the poem. You are a multi-faceted man. I am impressed with you abilities once again. I’m glad I get to hang out with you guys.
Thankyou, kind sir.