Two days ago Wordsmith put up a post about the al-Qaeda 7. Seven lawyers brought on board the DOJ who had previously represented al-Qaeda.
It’s now 7+1…..and that +1 is a doozy:
The Justice Department has admitted that Eric Holder failed to tell Congress during his confirmation process that he had contributed to a legal brief which argued that the President lacks authority to hold Jose Padilla, a U.S citizen declared an “enemy combatant,” indefinitely without charge. The Justice Department has also acknowledged what is obvious — that “the brief should have been disclosed as part of the confirmation process.”
DOJ contends that the failure to disclose was not intentional. It says that “In preparing thousands of pages for submission, it was unfortunately and inadvertently missed.”
Some Senators will view this claim with skepticism. The Padilla case was, after all, an extremely high profile matter. Moreover, as Andy McCarthy notes, Holder wrote a letter to Senator McConnell a few months ago discussing the Padilla case at length and in a manner similar to the arguments in the brief he had worked on. This event should have reminded Holder of his involvement with that brief and should have prompted him to correct his erroneous statement during the confirmation process.
“Are we expected to believe that then-nominee Holder, with only a handful of Supreme Court briefs to his name, forgot about his role in one of this country’s most publicized terrorism cases?”
In that brief filed to the court Holder even acknowledged that his position may cause terrorists to stop providing intelligence but after the Christmas bomber his tune had changed:
I am equally confident that the decision to address Mr. Abdulmutallab’s actions through our criminal justice system has not, and will not, compromise our ability to obtain information needed to detect and prevent future attacks.
~~~Neither advising Abdulmutallab of his Miranda rights nor granting him access to counsel prevents us from obtaining intelligence from him.
Complete and utter nonsense, but here we are with an Attorney General who covered up the fact that he filed a brief for a very well known and public case.
After President Obama nominated Holder to be Attorney General, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Holder a 47-page questionnaire, including a request for any briefs he had filed with the Supreme Court “in connection with your practice.”
In response, Holder said he participated in a total of five such briefs, none of which dealt with terrorism-related issues. He did not include the Padilla brief, and he signed a statement saying the information he provided was accurate and complete “to the best of my knowledge.”
Jonah Goldberg on the al-Qaeda 7 and the hypocrisy of the left:
Then there’s the twofold issue of these lawyers working for DOJ and the administration keeping their identities a secret. How is this not a legitimate issue? I don’t get it. As USA Today concedes, lawyers who defended al-Qaeda suspects need to recuse themselves from these matters. Everyone concedes that there are conflict of interest issues here. Are we to suddenly believe that Congress has no right to inquire about such things? Tell that to environmentalists who want lawyers for “polluters” kept out of the EPA. Seriously, has no one listened to Henry Waxman for the last 30 years? Do Obama’s countless promises to be “transparent” have no validity when it comes to these lawyers? Why on earth would that be the case?
And yet, to listen to Holder’s defenders, the people who ask these questions are being denounced as demagogues and (Joe) McCarthyites. This is coming from the same crowd that wanted to criminally prosecute Bush’s lawyers? Spare me.
Is this really a standard the Left wants to establish? That policymaking lawyers inside the Justice Department will hence forth have a cloak of invisibility about their previous activities? That’s going to be tough news for any number of left-wing activist groups come the next Republican administration.
So, we have 8 lawyers in the DOJ who have represented the enemy of this country, and one of them is the highest ranking attorney in the land…..and on top of that he covered up this fact.
Outrage from the MSM commencing in 3…2…1
Yeaaaahhhh.
If we can’t get outrage on this can we get at least get some indignation about the DOJ shutting down legitimate investigations?
See author page
Pretty weak sauce, cons. If the man identified other Padilla briefs that he worked on, what, pray tell, would he have had to gain by not mentioning this one . . . which is, of course, a public record.
Oh, I get it! You need a distraction from the pending loss on Obamacare! Gotcha!
Don’t look now, but out of the 10 briefs he’s filed he only remembered three. I wonder who has to dress him every morning, “now honey you have to remember to wear two shoes, one for each foot.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34346.html
Thiessen once again:
Obviously, Holder feels that corruption by omission of briefs on behalf of a terrorist is justified, if you feel strongly enough in the cause of terrorism. After all, it was only a Supreme Court Brief, Holder’s career has been so illustrious, the omission of a few briefs here and there to the Supreme Court on behalf of Terrorists is perfectly excusable because of their insignificance; besides, including these would have compromised his appointment.
He is a part of the Obama Administration, it is difficult enough to appoint Communists, Socialists, and Radicals without including the damning evidence that can prevent confirmation: therefore, forgetting such incriminating evidence by omission is not only feasible, it is expedient, may procedures and honesty be damned, this is what the country needs- corruption and malfeasance at the highest level. How else can the Obama Administration set an example to the country and the rest of the world. We need more women who can faint on cue! Damn this ambiguous, procedural BS!
What difference doest make, if Holder gave them all the information, those same stupid Republicans in the Senate would still have voted for him. The real problem is with the GOP and it’s support of all these RINO’s. After that look at who the NRCC supports, more RINO’s. Until we clean up the Republican Party we can expect larger government, higher taxes, and less individual freedom.
This is the same guy who watched the tape in the Elian Gonzalez matter and declared there was no danger to the child when guns were pointed at him. “Some guys just don;t get it!”(Cool Hand Luke)
Thiessen is an idiot. First, as some one who has never been to law school and never practiced law, where doe she get his theory that “pro bono hours are scarce”? It is a nonsensical statement. Some firms do a ton of pro bono, others do none. For all we know, Holder’s firm is like a big Chicago firm that had a MANDATORY pro bono requirement.
Second, in law, there is no such concept as “scarce” hours. It is simply meaningless. If a firm commits to representing someone, whatever is needed to represent the person effectively is supplied, no matter how many hours it takes. That is your professional and ethical responsibility . . . something Thiessen doesn’t grasp because he is not a lawyer. Late nights, weekends, missing vacations, it is all part of the deal. That is the difference between being in a profession and having a job: you are never off the clock.
Finally, there is the problem I have pointed out before that de-nuts Thiessen and Liz Cheney. At root, the attorneys were taking the position that “the US government cannot arrest someone and hold them indefinately without charges and without legal representation.”
They took the cases to the Supreme Court and the Court agreed with them: it is unconstitutional for the US government to arrest someone and hold them indefinately without charges and without legal representation.
Holder and Company forced the US government to follow the Constitution. The Court agreed that they were right and the government was wrong. Only in Con-land are the defenders of the Constitution the bad guys and the violaters are the good guys. Only in Con-land are the people who vindicated the Constitution deemed “disloyal” to the country. But it seems to me that, if the Constitution is on their side, and not on the side of the government, we know that Holder and Companies “values” are the right ones and the values of their critics are the wrong ones. Because they critics, in essence, do not believe in the law and they do not respect the Constitution because it kept their beloved Bush administration from doing whatever the hell it wanted to to whomever it wanted to.
Come on, billy bob… surely you don’t think you can rewrite SCOTUS decisions from your Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole, do you?
The habeaus corpus Rumsfeld v Padilla SCOTUS decision never addressed the AUMF, nor Bush’s authority to hold a US citizen declared as an enemy combatant indefinitely. SCOTUS dismissed, citing improper filing in the wrong jurisdiction, and incorrect naming of Rumsfeld instead of the brig’s CO. By heavens, you’re an embarrassment to the legal field, dude. If you’re going to wander in here and claim the High Court agrees with you, it’d be nice if you know what the f*#k you were talking about, right?
As far as you presenting this as some sort of clear cut ruling through the appellate process, you couldn’t be more incorrect there either. Let’s go thru history for you… slowly…. again
1: NY District says Bush had the authority.
2: 2nd Circuit disagreed, and that’s when it ended up in front of SCOTUS, who booted it to the curb on the technical grounds.
3: Refiled in SC’s US District, who found in Padilla’s favor.
4: Then the 4th Circuit came into play, and sided with the govt’s right to hold him, citing not only the AUMF, but SCOTUS decision on Hamdi. SCOTUS declined to hear that case directly, and before it went thru the 4th
After then, he was indicted and moved to civilian courts to stand trial with two others in a support cell… granted by SCOTUS themselves after a federal court denied the Bush admins request to do so. Gee… wonder why since so many court decisions above actually agreed with the ability to hold Padilla as an enemy combatant.
And in case you’ve forgotten this little tidbit, all were convicted in their trial as well.
Let’s see… two courts for the ability to hold indefinitely, and two against. 4th Circuit’s the top banana, since SCOTUS never addressed the issue. I’d say that makes Holder WRONG… just like you.
@MataHarley ,
you are one of the big reasons why I love this blog!! Whack! Take that B(a)R(ack) ob(ama)!!!
LOL, PatriotGirl. I guess you add the beauty to FA, and I carry the cannon, along with a few others here.
Haha, that’s funny MataH… I too love my firearms. My local community college offers a 2 year Firearms Instructor course, I was in the first class. And we have a fabulous local indoor shooting range with an ongoing pistol league. I call it “bowling with guns”. I shot on league for 10 years until I got burned out. So I too carry some fire power!! One more reason to feel right at home here on FA!
Another thing, Mata. You wrote “And in case you’ve forgotten this little tidbit, all were convicted in their trial as well.”
No, doofus, I did not “forget” that. It is one of the very reasons why the decision to try all the terrorists in civil court make sense! Civilian courts have a higher conviction rate and tougher sentences handed down than military tribunals. Cons said nothing about civilian courts being inappropriate when the Bush administration was trying terrorism suspects in federal court. The about face under Obama, of course, shows the lack of seriousness on the part of cons.
First of all, I have no idea what “another thing” you’re discussing, billy bob. Is there some phantom message I should be receiving via telepathy?
Your comment #7 doesn’t address civilian courts vs military tribunals. That was never your argument.
What you said was that the High Court backed Holder’s Padilla brief opinion… which it did not. Now I know you are reading challenged, and probably missed that the original post topic is about Holder’s “forgotten” Padilla opinion.
You have been duly corrected.
Nor do the other relevant cases… Rasul, Hamdi (which I repeat was used by the 4th to substantiate their opinion that the Bush admin was fully within their rights to hold Padilla… and is the highest court decision on record for that case), Hamdan or Boumediene state that enemy combatants cannot be held indefinitely. Boumediene.. perhaps the most erroneous decision, IMHO… states that the Gitmo detainees specifically have the right to *question* their enemy combatant status in the courts. And they accomplished this by redefining Gitmo’s sovereign territory status.
In fact, if you bother to read the Hamdi opinion, you’ll find that the court most certainly recognizes that detentions of enemy combatants is not without precedent in ex parte Quirin. But as in everything SCOTUS, they rule on the specifics before them, and related to that case and circumstance alone.
Nor can you offer any parallel universe proof that a civilian court carries more stringent penalties. This is impossible unless you have two side by side trials, convictions and sentencing.
You really need to lay off Alice’s pills in that rabbit hole.
Mata, Mata, Mata . . . it’s OK. I noticed that you totally skipped over the most salient point of everything, which is . . . the U.S. Constitution.
See, you cons like to try to ignore the obvious, but what the Court ruled was that the Bushies were acting in an unlawful and unconstitutional manner. Repeat after me:
Unconstitutional. Unlawful.
Holder and Co. acted to force the government to abide by the U.S. Constitution . . . and for that, you think they should have their “values” questioned. But the question of their values was clearly addressed by the Supreme Court. They were right and the Bushies were engaging in unlawful, unconstitutional overreach. ‘Nuff said.
Excuse me, billy bob… but what court rules that “the Bushies were acting in an unlawful and unconstitutional manner”? Funny, I’m familiar with Rasul, Hamdi, Hamdan, Padilla and Boumediene. All opinion briefs live in my files and in my bookmarks.
And as I pointed out, the highest court opinion in Padilla is the 4th who ruled in favor of the government.
It is far above your paygrade as a second rate paralegal to rewrite SCOTUS decisions. The vague “court ruled” comments without citations don’t fly here. You’ll have to find a less informed blog community, bubba.
Ho- Hum. I usually have to pay a lawyer to listen to so much jibber jabber legalese.
While we are in our regular mode of symbolically running Blob over with trains, here’s a high-speed Amtrack…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704131404575117611125872740.html
Treason requires hanging, and I have good rope, wood, and a General Contractors license.
Fuckit. I’ll personally volunteer to shoot them in the head. Bullets are cheap.
I saw that earlier this morning, Patvann. These habeas lawyers are more leftwing activists than mere professionals doing a “patriotic duty” in “upholding the Constitution”.
Thiessen’s book mentions the John Adams Project along with some other instances where these activist lawyers have passed along intell information to their Gitmo clients. They undermine the very process of interrogations themselves, hampering our ability to gather intell that could save lives.
@BRob:
BRob,
Why doesn’t Holder make that case himself, if that line of narrative holds soup? Why hide? Why obfuscate? The way you play it, he should be parading the al Qaeda 7+ as a badge of honor for this administration.
BRob go back to the Huffington post and stick to convincing them that everything Bush is evil and everything PEBO is good.
We arent buying what you are selling, at an over inflated prices at that.
Patvann
My sentiments exactly.
I love the back and forth between the esteemed Mata and the neanderthal leftist BRob. Most of us here who think like she does fall far short of her abilities when having a “discussion” with the lefties who visit us. We know we are right, and we know what to talk about, but we cannot hone our comments into razor-sharped instruments like she does when she dissects their arguments and then feeds it back to them.
Kind words, johngalt. And for those, thank you. Always happy to entertain. LOL
About billy bob’s attempted defense of Holder’s 2004 brief, signing on to an opinion INRE the authority to hold Padilla….
billy bob suffers from not only from the arrogant attempt to rewrite SCOTUS opinions, which never have stated that holding one deemed an enemy combatant indefinitely is beyond the scope of a President…. but a timeline problem. Holder did his Padilla brief in 2004, prior to the 4th’s opinion that upheld Bush’s right to detail Padilla. Oddly enough, the 4th was royally po’d that – after that decision – the Bush admin decided to transfer Padilla over to the federal court system when thefeds indicted him, with cell members, in 2006.
But going to the heart of billy bob’s attempt at a cogent argument… the ability to hold a detainee indefinitely and that legitimacy. ex parte Quirin was a unanimous SCOTUS decision saying otherwise and has been evoked – and cited – throughout this debate. Even the most damaging of decisions in Boumediene did not state… as the 2nd rate paralegal implies… that Bush was acting illegally. What they stated was that Gitmo was deemed to be US sovereign territory in their eyes, and therefore a detainee had the right to contest his enemy combatant status in the federal courts.
If he lost that status battle, there was no written and stated objection by the courts to overrule a prior SCOTUS decision that enabled any POTUS to detain an enemy combatant indefinitely.
Therefore any attempt to prove Bush was knowingly and willing acting outside Constitutional law really boils down to the question of the specific detainee, and his status. That is not a blanket “he was wrong”, but down to an individual and the specific circumstance.
billy bob, for political purposes and suffering from eternal BDS, decides to rewrite the opinions for the unknowing or uninterested.
Devil in the details.
Prozac induced, mentally challenged and O’faithful devotee billy bob isn’t focused enough to concentrate on details. He prefers to give a “nuff said” parting shot – hoping someone would bite on his spoiled bait – and bolt to take a dump on another thread. Do note he hasn’t show up here, nor on the (paraphrased) “you lyin’ cons are making it up about the student loans in the reconciliation bill” thread. When he’s overwhelmed, he simply moves on to make another attempt.
uh… can anyone say ARCHIVES! LOL
Like I said, were I in a court room, nothing would make me happier than to see billy bob at the other table. Slam dunk. An idiot that even a lay person can out think.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. forgot about a brief he wrote on a well known case protecting a terrorist. In the words of the “Church Lady,” How convenient! Holder has called protecting the civil rights of Muslims a “top priority.” Recently, he filed a suit on behalf of a Muslim teacher for not doing her job when she took off school to go to the Middle East for an Islamic function. What about the STUDENTS? Do they have rights? According to the article this Muslim teacher resigned, so what is the suit about? His department has filed other legal actions on behalf of Muslims. Unfortunately, Holder also has filed actions against the American people for wanting to protect themselves such as with the Arizona suit. Then again, what else would you expect coming from this RACIST Eric Holder, who failed/refused to prosecute the members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation in Philadelphia. Holder is a RACIST and puts his beliefs ahead of the law. Holder needs to be FIRED.