An increasing number of conservatives are criticizing the group, Keep America Safe, for its shameful ad on the “Al Qaeda 7″ — political appointees in the Justice Department who represented detainees prior to their appointment. Benjamin Wittes has also drafted a statement decrying the attacks signed by several prominent conservative attorneys, including Peter Keisler, David Rivkin, and John Bellinger. Particularly notable is that some of the signatories have staunchly defended the detention of allegted enemy combatants at Guantanamo, but nonetheless think the attacks on the “Al Qaeda 7″ cross the line. This dispute is reminiscent of the furor over a Bush Administration official’s criticism of attorneys representing detainees during the Bush Administration.
The statement, as published by Politico, is below the jump.
The past several days have seen a shameful series of attacks on attorneys in
the Department of Justice who, in previous legal practice, either
represented Guantanamo detainees or advocated for changes to detention
policy. As attorneys, former officials, and policy specialists who have
worked on detention issues, we consider these attacks both unjust to the
individuals in question and destructive of any attempt to build lasting
mechanisms for counterterrorism adjudications.The American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at
least as old as John Adams’ representation of the British soldiers charged
in the Boston massacre. People come to serve in the Justice Department with
a diverse array of prior private clients; that is one of the department’s
strengths. The War on Terror raised any number of novel legal questions,
which collectively created a significant role in judicial, executive and
legislative forums alike for honorable advocacy on behalf of detainees. In
several key cases, detainee advocates prevailed before the Supreme Court. 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.Such attacks also undermine the Justice system more broadly. In terrorism
detentions and trials alike, defense lawyers are playing, and will continue
to play, a key role. Whether one believes in trial by military commission or
in federal court, detainees will have access to counsel. Guantanamo
detainees likewise have access to lawyers for purposes of habeas review, and
the reach of that habeas corpus could eventually extend beyond this
population. Good defense counsel is thus key to ensuring that military
commissions, federal juries, and federal judges have access to the best
arguments and most rigorous factual presentations before making crucial
decisions that affect both national security and paramount liberty
interests. To delegitimize the role detainee counsel play is to demand
adjudications and policymaking stripped of a full record. Whatever systems
America develops to handle difficult detention questions will rely, at least
some of the time, on an aggressive defense bar; those who take up that
function do a service to the system.* * *
UPDATE: The original signatories, as reported in Politco, were Benjamin Wittes, Robert Chesney, Matthew Waxman, David Rivkin, Philip Bobbitt, and Peter Keisler. A second Politico story, also includes the following signatories: Lee Casey, Bradford Berenson, Kenneth Anderson, John Bellinger III, Philip Zelikow, Kenneth W. Starr, Larry Thompson, Charles “Cully” D. Stimson, Chuck Rosenberg, Harvey Rishikoff, Orin Kerr, and Daniel Dell’Orto.
steve says:
Motivations matter, and I would have less of a problem with the Al Qaeda 7 if they had been pressed into service… but they volunteered their expensive time and not for the purpose of doing what they could to help keep America safe. Their sympathies were with their clients and viewed Bush as the greater evil. What they did was on par with a doctor who tends to a terrorists and lets the wounded American die. Spin it all they want, but they’ve made clear whose bed they’re lying down with. they don’t deserve praise, they deserve contempt… as do the firms that employ them and approved their efforts.
March 8, 2010, 8:27 amskyywise says:
Note the more in-depth Politico article: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34050.html
Also, note that Orin Kerr is a signatory according to the second article. I, for one, am proud to see his name there.
March 8, 2010, 8:34 amFredC says:
Thanks for signing, Orin Kerr.
March 8, 2010, 8:40 amKenneth Anderson says:
I’m also a signatory on Ben Wittes’ letter – KA.
March 8, 2010, 8:41 amJoseph Slater says:
Steve: There is no evidence that any of these attorneys viewed Bush as a greater evil than the folks they were representing. Zero.
JA: I’m glad you posted this, but I think the subject of the post is a bit confusing. At first I thought you meant some conservatives were defending the ad / term “Al Qaeda 7.” Using that term buys into the slanderous meme, I think.
March 8, 2010, 8:42 amsteve says:
Let’s see, they had a choice, they could represent the terrorists or they could have take jobs in the Bush Justice Department to help defend the Bush policies. They chose the former, I’m comfortable reading into that what I want to see. And it’s not like they had an aversion to working for the Justice Department, is it?
And as a non-lawyer who hasn’t been exposed to the indoctrination that you all get in law school and so on, there is something seriously wrong with volunteering to help terrorists who are trying to kill family, friends and neighbors. Rationalize it all you want with whatever lofty principles you think apply, but there is nothing noble in doing something, that if successful, results in terrorists being set free to resume their attacks.
As for OK and KA signing, I have to assume they did so out of some momentarily lapse of reason.
March 8, 2010, 8:51 amRoger the Shrubber says:
What indoctrination HAVE you been exposed to? It certainly appears to have been a very successful educational regime.
March 8, 2010, 9:00 amTravis Ormsby says:
Hey Steve,
How exactly do you know that these guys actually did what you say they did? If people can be guilty just on the President’s say-so, well you should realize that’s messed up. Even if you aren’t a fancy law-talking guy.
March 8, 2010, 9:02 amSara says:
Let’s see, they had a choice, they could represent the innocent or the guilty. They chose the guilty. How could they know they were guilty? They could have just asked steve.
March 8, 2010, 9:08 amJoseph Slater says:
Steve: If by “indoctrination,” you mean, “belief that certain rights need to be defended, even if the individuals involved may be unsympathetic” than yeah, we do learn that in law school. I would also note that it was far from clear that these folks were guilty of what they were accused of.
Beyond that, I think they way you yourself put it sums up your position: I’m comfortable reading into that what I want to see.
March 8, 2010, 9:10 amRowerinVA says:
steve, when you write,
You’re overplaying your hand. Is it reasonable to question, and perhaps even assume, that the legal positions these attorneys took (trying to create detainee rights that, many believe, hinder military effectiveness and ironically lead to more killing of suspects in the field) are ones they actually, personally support, and may continue to support to the nation’s detriment while at DOJ? Yes. Is it reasonable to question whether such attorneys are well suited to represent the nation, via the Justice Department, when the nation overwhelmingly disagrees with such legal positions? Yes. Just as it would be reasonable to question anti-gay-marriage pro-bono attorneys if a future President Palin put them in charge of the Civil Rights Division. It shouldn’t be seen as crazy to acknowledge the reality that attorneys usually get involved in large-scale, politically-tinged pro bono projects only if they sympathize with the client or the legal principle involved. These aren’t your typical landlord tenant or death penalty appeals, where attorneys more commonly do a short representation merely out of a sense of duty.
But you’re equating this with a situation in which resource constraints mean that spending resources on one person means the death of another. That doesn’t come close to the situation here. There are plenty of resources on the government side (more, actually) and where bad law has been created, the buck has to stop with the judges. The mere fact that a number of respected judges have bought the attorneys’ arguments means that reasonable people can disagree.
What I find frustrating is that there seem to be two positions advanced in the media: “You can’t attribute anything to these attorneys based on their pro bono choices!” and “You can attribute total evil to them based on their pro bono choices!” Both are caricatures and distract from a real debate that is worth having.
March 8, 2010, 9:13 amsteve says:
I didn’t say they did what they’re accused of. I’m criticizing the lawyers who volunteered to defend them. There’s no shortage of American-hating foreign lawyers who could have defended them from whatever trumped up charges the evil Bush Administration was foisting on them, but no need for them, the ‘best’ of America was volunteering to defend them.
Even IF 9 out of ten of the alleged terrorists were innocent, their attempts to free the 1 out of 10 who was guilty could have had a negative impact on our national security. There’s nothing noble about that.
And I believe their efforts on behalf of their ‘clients’ had a part to play in the Bush Administration releasing ‘suspects’ who later killed American soldiers. Had these wonderful attorneys not ginned up such negative press, perhaps Bush wouldn’t have made the stupid mistake of trying to curry favor by releasing terrorists… and a number of American soldiers would still be alive.
you guys can try and rationalize and defend it all you want, but in the end, their efforts helped kill Americans. And deep down, you know it.
March 8, 2010, 9:16 amscattergood says:
As long as liberals support the suit to release every name of every person who donated money to support Prop 8 in California it seems perfectly reasonable for conservatives to support the release of every name of every person who did legal work in defense of folks down at Gitmo.
Otherwise their position is that transparency in elections is good, but transparency in legal proceedings isn’t. If sunlight of the public is good in one case, it is good in all cases.
March 8, 2010, 9:21 amSara says:
FYI. There are virtually no such foreign lawyers, who could represent them, since it is not legal for foreign lawyers to do so. So, that’s a shortage.
March 8, 2010, 9:28 amd says:
I have a feeling Steve is trolling us.
March 8, 2010, 9:38 amDavid Schwartz says:
steve: They helped America get some very important laws right.
March 8, 2010, 9:46 amTim McDonald says:
It is of course correct to vilify Yoo for doing his job, but out of bounds to vilify these fine lawyers for doing theirs.
March 8, 2010, 9:47 amHouston Lawyer says:
I believe that the primary fight was over getting the names of the attorneys released.
Now that their names have been released, this tempest in a teapot will quickly disappear.
Like it or not, both the Left and Right often vilify the attorneys representing clients that are unpopular. No one seems to mind though when the Lefties are at it.
March 8, 2010, 9:54 amBobC says:
Probably. But I am pretty sure I ran into a steve in real life. His posting rate is troll behavior but the belief system does exist in the US.
March 8, 2010, 9:56 amSarcastro says:
Watch out Orin, the Freepers want you deported!
March 8, 2010, 10:06 amhttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2466328/posts?page=8#8
Mark Field says:
German soldiers in WWII were morally equivalent to US soldiers? Just doing their jobs?
March 8, 2010, 10:18 amAnon21 says:
Did I read that right? Cully Stimson signed this letter? Has the man no shame? (To be clear, I think his current position is correct, but whose bright idea was it to ask him to sign in the first place?)
March 8, 2010, 10:24 ambyomtov says:
Good. Very good.
I do notice that Bill Kristol, who is Cheney’s partner in the matter, continues to defend the ad.
Can we finally quit treating him and his magazine as respectable?
March 8, 2010, 10:27 amRoger the Shrubber says:
And I can’t believe I fell for it. Well played, “Steve,” well played.
March 8, 2010, 10:27 amskyywise says:
I apologize for the oversight on my part KA; I’m heartened to see your name there too.
As for John Yoo, I choose to vilify him for doing his job poorly, seemingly with legal blinders on. The AQ7 lawyers made the unpopular decision and took the hard road of ensuring due process to those who wish to destroy the Great Experiment we have nurtured for the past 244 years. For that the lawyers should be thanked, not vilified.
March 8, 2010, 10:30 amLolo says:
Tim,
In fairness, no one vilified Yoo for *doing* his job. He was vilified for *not* doing his job — he deliberately misrepresented the law.
March 8, 2010, 10:35 amyankee says:
I hate to feed the trolls, but
That’s why Sir William Blackstone said it is better to punish ten innocents than to let one guilty person go free.
March 8, 2010, 10:50 amBob from Ohio says:
Its just a “circle the wagons” letter from establishment lawyers defending their peer group.
Stimson is just trying to put himself back into the club after his fall from grace.
It is highly doubtful that the broader conservative movement shares the views expressed in the letter.
I daresay that most conservatives believe that is a feature, not a bug.
BTW, how is Benjamin Wittes a “conservative”?
March 8, 2010, 10:54 amBob from Ohio says:
One more comment, I see from this thread already that comparing certain lawyers to Nazis is ok, comparing others to terrorists is bad.
Where are Professors Adler, Kerr and Anderson on that issue?
March 8, 2010, 10:55 amLolo says:
Steve,
You state that even if 9 out of 10 alleged terrorists are innocent, the attempt to free the 1 guilty one could have a negative impact on our national security. That implies that you also believe that continuing to detain without trial 9 detainees who we know to be innocent does not itself have a negative impact on our national security. Do you believe that? You don’t think it bothers Yemen that we continue to detain Yemeni nationals who have been declared completely innocent (i.e., not just not guilty, but actually innocent)?
March 8, 2010, 10:58 amyankee says:
This is very true. Which makes it all the more important for the pro-liberty conservatives to speak out against the authoritarian conservatives.
March 8, 2010, 10:59 amRicardo says:
The difference between Yoo and these seven lawyers is that Yoo was providing ex ante legal advice while the detainee lawyers were providing ex post (that is, after capture and detention) legal representation and defense. This is an essential difference. If any of these lawyers had provided advice beforehand on how, say, to wire transfer large sums of money without being detected by the government or what cover story to use when traveling to a European or Western country, we wouldn’t be having this debate at all. We would instead be discussing whether to indict them for treason or not.
Thankfully, that isn’t at all the controversy. They simply advanced legal arguments that wound up for the most part being accepted by the nation’s highest courts. Don’t like that fact? Take it up with the judges.
There is something extraordinarily cowardly about this attack and similar attacks from Andrew McCarthy that focus on the detainees’ lawyers rather than the judges who ruled in favor of rights for detainees. I think the reason for this is that some of the judges who accepted these legal arguments (like Scalia in the Hamdi decision, even though he was dissenting) are members in good standing of the conservative movement. Bill Kristol is going to find himself in some very awkward social moments at the next conservative banquet if he personally attacks a conservative judge with lots of credibility. Hopefully, Kristol and Cheney will still wind up paying a bit of a price in terms of status and reputation for this ridiculous advertisement, though. Even Bill O’Reilly thought it was a little over the top for goodness sake.
March 8, 2010, 11:02 amMr. Ballgame says:
There is an important distinction that I think many are missing: It is permissible for private practitioners to offer their pro bono defense efforts, and that in itself is not disputable. But the real issue in the latest controversy goes further to ask, Should those who have committed to the defense of al Qaeda detainees, now so easily take positions in the Government (DOJ) where they now influence the opposite side of the same legal matters? That is what raises ethical concerns of conflict of interest. No one in the administration is discussing recusals or firewalls or simply appointing these lawyers to other positions where they might serve the Adminstration (in DOJ or other agencies) yet not be put in the conflicting position. This is no different than lawyers who represented parties adverse to the US in other subject areas, e.g., criminal defense, antitrust, immigration, securities class actions.. etc. Why cant we discuss that?
March 8, 2010, 11:03 amyankee says:
Mr. Ballgame: there are standard procedures for dealing with government lawyers’ conflicts of interest regarding government actions against their former clients. Do you have any evidence that those procedures were not followed in this case?
March 8, 2010, 11:23 amSarcastro says:
You’d think the DoJ might have standing procedures for stuff like that! Proof they are all in on this plan to weaken America through the straitjacket of Due Process!
March 8, 2010, 11:24 amMahan Atma says:
You know… As a criminal defense attorney, I’ve represented murders and rapists (both pro bono at times). And while I get the typical “Why do you defend those people?” kinds of questions, I’ve NEVER had someone be so moronic as to accuse me of being sympathetic to murder or rape.
What’s your excuse?
March 8, 2010, 11:31 amRandy says:
Mahan: ” I’ve NEVER had someone be so moronic as to accuse me of being sympathetic to murder or rape.”
Wait ten minutes.
March 8, 2010, 11:41 amorca says:
I doubt it. It’s now very lucrative to pander exclusivity to the extreme right-wing of the Republican party. This attack probably fattened their wallets.
March 8, 2010, 11:50 amRoger says:
Why is it so important to you that some conservatives have criticized some others. Are you trying to prove that no all conservatives have the same opinions? Or that a conservative must be wrong if he has been criticized by another conservative?
March 8, 2010, 12:10 pmzuch says:
You’re presuming in this that they are in fact “terrorists”. In fact, many Guantánamo detainees were/are in fact totally innocent, and have been released (most by the Dubya administration). And even if for those who are terrorists, shouldn’t they be tried in the fashion prescribed by our Bill of Rights? If you have the evidence to convict them, allowing them competent legal representation just ensures that the outcome will be less subject to question (and appeal).
Cheers,
March 8, 2010, 12:34 pmAnton says:
Oh boy, good ‘ol Adler’s on a tear today. He really puts the “C” in Volokh Conspiracy!
March 8, 2010, 12:49 pmBored Lawyer says:
The issue here, as I see it, is not that these lawyers provided pro bono representation to these people per se, but they went out of their way to provide pro bono representation to this particular group out of political motivations. How many other pro bono cases have they handled? What other civil rights cases have they stood up for? The answer, in many cases, is little or none.
This is what differentiates them from organizations like the ACLU and from criminal defense lawyers. The latter two are doing noble work, even if some of their clients are ignoble. The ACLU has a consistent position — defend civil rights everywhere, at least civil rights as they see it. They are willing to defend the rights of persons on all sides of the political spectrum.
Criminal defense attorneys chose a particular legal specialty which is important to make our legal system work. If there were no criminal defense lawyers, then we would not be able to fairly prosecute criminals.
These lawyers, in contrast, worked for the toniest, most well-heeled corporate firms in the country. Most of their work involves helping the wealthiest agglomerations of wealth keep it — and they are highly paid in the process. Have they ever done anything to, say, help an old lady from being evicted? Or stood up for other civil rights? Fat chance.
In this case, for these lawyers, opposing the Bush administration was a political act, and it is subject to political scrutiny. Notwithstanding that others like the ACLU may have taken the same position with more noble intentions.
March 8, 2010, 12:54 pmProud of the honest Right says:
The integrity of much of the Right is on display here. Say what you will about Bill Kristol, but Ted Olson and all these signers are standing up for their ideals agains their political allies.
When the Left demonized lawyers for representing something worse that Al Qaeda — like REPUBLICAN causes! — where were the honest Left lawyers condemning that demonizations?
Olson himself was a victim, when his nomination to be Solicitor General was mostly party-line, because he had the gall to represent Bush in Bush v. Gore and to fight the Clintons in the scandal wars. But he still does the right thing today.
I would like to see even a belated mea culpa from those who tarred him, and tarred every judicial nominee who took a “conservative” stand for a corporate client, or a government client, and so on.
I’m not holding my breath.
March 8, 2010, 1:10 pmSarcastro says:
Proud of the honest Right makes a great point! Whenever prominent folks on the left accuse Conservatives of being traitors, no one talks about it! That must be why I’ve never heard of such occurring!
Though it is totally true that saying someone’s views aren’t mainstream is exactly like saying they love terrorists more than their country.
March 8, 2010, 1:53 pmSL says:
Boared Lawyer: Since you offer only your conclusion and no facts, then your opinion of these lawyers is worse than useless. Lawyers who do pro bono work in large lawfirms typically work on a variety of such matters over thier career, including the cases you mentioned and more.
March 8, 2010, 2:00 pmyankee says:
What SL said. I’d also be curious to know your mind-reading techniques, since you’ve somehow figured out that these lawyers were interested in opposing the Bush administration rather than, for example, upholding the rule of law. Or, for that matter, a more venal motive like a desire to get their name in the papers or market themselves to clients who approve of that kind of work. Noble or base, any of these motives are a far cry from Cheney et al’s accusations of treason.
March 8, 2010, 2:10 pmProud of the honest Right says:
Look at Sarcastro! He can waive aside any real point with a sly crack! If only we could all do it!
Sarcastro, buddy, your line about “saying someone’s views aren’t mainstream” misses the point. I am not AT ALL arguing the separate debate over whether nominee X was “too conservative.” If someone said Alito was too far Right based on his 3rd Circuit record, fine; debate that. Or what Professor X advocated in an article, fine.
But many of the candidates were pilloried for “advocating” as “extreme views” the views they were required to take as counsel. Roberts was lambasted for “his views” as based on briefs he wrote as a Deputy SG, and others were blasted for views they took as state government lawyers, and so on.
It’s not about the CONTENT of those “views,” it’s about holding their client-driven positions against them. And that, my friend, is structurally identical to the BS against the detainees’ reps, and both are equally wrong. But those whining today, when they did it yesterday, don’t have the honesty to look in the mirror.
Snark away at that if you’d like, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Left DID demonize lawyers solely for their representations, not for their “own views,” and yes, it was talked about it, and yes, it was criticized, but not so much by other lefties.
March 8, 2010, 2:12 pmSarcastro says:
[If you think there's a parallel between a nomination fight and Liz Cheney basically implying these guys are terrorists, your moral relativism is showing.
In one, you say they are not good for this job, in another you say they are in league with the enemy.
To put it another way:
"Bork advocates some awful laws that would make you less free"
March 8, 2010, 2:25 pmDOES NOT EQUAL
"Holder wants to help foreigners kill you and your family."]
Proud of the honest Right says:
I don’t disagree with your point, Sarcastro — I fully agree that calling someone “too conservative to be a judge” is NOT, NOT, NOT, the same as calling them a terrorist.
But, as I tried to say the last time, you are responding to a point I did not make. How did we know Bork advocated that position as the law? Because he wrote a book or article saying, “I think this should be the law.”
But many of the attacks on many nominees were based on the formula “you represented evil client X (Bush campaign, state government fighting lawsuit by civil rights plaintiff, federal government defending some abortion law passed by Congress) — and in doing so, you took position Y, and therefore, you must believe that. That is WHY we believe you are too conservative/corporate/evil/”
Your response merely repeats the point about the content of the views, and does not in any way respond to the point about tarring people for the views or parties they represented, as opposed to their personal views.
If Eric Holder or Neil Katyal wrote a book saying “these guys are fighting a righteous cause,” then yes, that would be fair game. But Katyal’s legal representation does not bind him to those views, and that’s why Kristol is wrong.
But Judge Sutton, now on the 6th Circuit, was pilloried as “anti-disabled” because he represented state government agencies in claims against them.
It may not be the same degree of accusation as “terrorist!,” but the core problem is the same one regarding client representation, and if you have a response that actually takes on THAT issue, let me know.
March 8, 2010, 2:38 pmSarcastro says:
[The left's guilt by association on Bork and Sutton are news to me (I'm a young one), and do seem pretty awful. Perhaps there was more quiet because judges are political nominees, not civil ones?
Still, I gotta agree with you that, taking the facts as you present them, the liberals did fall down on the job. But that doesn't excuse the fear-mongering of far too many Conservatives are as well.]
March 8, 2010, 2:48 pmSarcastro says:
[FWIW, I do recall some libs dismissing attacks on Roberts' advocacy record, though that was mostly on this blog...]
March 8, 2010, 2:49 pmJmaie says:
If by “indoctrination,” you mean, “belief that certain rights need to be defended, even if the individuals involved may be unsympathetic” than yeah, we do learn that in law school.
They teach this outside of law school as well…
March 8, 2010, 4:04 pmJB says:
I am always amused when conservatives mount a defense of their actions that goes “Group x (who we despise for this very reason) does it too/worse!” If, when liberals do it to your guys, that is evidence of the despicable/stupid nature of liberals (and it is), then when your guys do it back it makes them as stupid and despicable. If China/Cambodia/North Vietnam/Iraqi insurgents did it to our soldiers, that’s no excuse to do slightly less to Al Qaeda operatives, that’s a chance to show that we can win while being better than them.
To be fair, liberals have their own forms of idiocy, but this particular type of hypocritical ass-covering is largely a conservative tactic.
March 8, 2010, 4:41 pmJoseph Slater says:
Bob From Ohio:
Re this:
“delegitimizing” any system in which accused terrorists have lawyers, whether civilian courts of military tribunals.
I daresay that most conservatives believe that is a feature, not a bug.
So if the government accuses you of being a terrorist, then denies you a lawyer, that’s a “feature,” according to most conservatives?
March 8, 2010, 5:29 pmMichael B says:
“… but nonetheless think the attacks on the “Al Qaeda 7″ cross the line.”
Excepting the primary if not the only concern voiced, the only truly valid concern, is not the so-called “attacks” on the “Al Qaeda 7,” it’s the concern as articulated by Bill Kristol:
“… the main issues in the debate have been whether Congress and the public are simply entitled to know who these lawyers are, and the question of whether former pro bono lawyers for terrorists should be working on detainee policy for the Justice Department. …”
The brief piece by Kristol also notes:
“The American Civil Liberties Union has an amusing full-page ad in the New York Times today …. It morphs a photo of their onetime favorite, Barack Obama into…George W. Bush! What has President Obama done to deserve this comparison, the greatest insult the left has its disposal? ‘Many of us are shocked and concerned that right now, President Obama is considering reversing his attorney general’s decision to try the 9/11 defendants in criminal court.’
“Well, get ready for more shock and concern, ACLUers — it’s going to happen. President Obama (aided by his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel), is coming to realize how foolish he’s been to delegate so much authority on war on terror matters to his hapless attorney general and the left-wingers working for him at the Justice Department. He is going to reverse course on the KSM trial — as he has on preventive detention and on the release of photos of alleged abuse by U.S. servicemen, and as I suspect he ultimately will on closing Guantanamo.”
Misdirections aside and pro or con or even indifferent, the primary concern has always been public access, transparency, and the right to ensuing public debates on the entirety of the subject matter.
March 8, 2010, 6:07 pmbyomtov says:
Micahel B.,
What a load of BS.
If Kristol just wanted to know who these lawyers are it was easy to find out. It took Fox about ten seconds to find the names on public documents. What’s wrong with Mr. Big Shot Serious Thinker Magazine Editor? He doesn’t know how to look up documents? Doesn’t give his writing a lot of credibility.
And “Department of Jihad?” Give me a break. This was a smear and Kristol ought to beg forgiveness, not play the innocent.
March 8, 2010, 7:17 pmArbalest says:
To paraphrase and rearrange my post at Ace Of Spades, and maybe troll a bit, let us speak plainly:
Q1. What are the prior positions and affinities of the “al Qaeda Seven” (AQ7)?
Q2. Shouldn’t we know if the AQ7 will prosecute the enemy combatants just as zealously as they have defended them?
Q3. What is the probability that the AQ7 will do the minimum necessary to prosecute the enemy combatants, or, as we’ve seen many lawyers and political appointees do, simply pay lipservice or even ignore points and things they don’t like?
.
.
At the risk of stirring up a hornet’s nest (and partly to do so, I suppose), I note that :
N1. The balance of preceding comments are in favor of the AQ7 (Personal politics? No problem)
N2. The arguments for protecting the AQ7 identities are much more strident than those arguing that Holder should’ve made the identities public up front (so no necessity for Keep America Safe’s “shameful” video), yet not clearly more meritorious.
N3. From #N2, either someone’s arguing too hard, someone’s not arguing hard enough, or both. These possibilities bother me, since I’ve seen this sort of occurance before; it seems that Hamdi is a recent result.
N4. Following MY idea of “do the minimum necessary”, I think only one post mentions the lack of recusals. But the AQ7 represented many enemy combatants, and implicitly had access to privileged information. I suppose that the AQ7, to avoid being disbarred, are likely to self-regulate their case prep and motions … wait …
I have reservations about the AQ7′s positions and affinities, and expect to have to fight tooth and nail to get even minimum necessary” results from them.
.
.
How about a vote:
V1. Who, among the posters here, believes that all of Lynne Stewarts’ actions were correct and justified, given US laws?
V2. Who, among the posters here, would have neither hesitations, qualms or any other concern about hiring Lynne Stewart to fill any one of the “al Qaeda Seven’s” DOJ positions today?
As usual, Counselors, acceptable responses are either “Yes” (as in “Yes, me”), or “No” (as in “No, not me”). All other responses will most likely resolve, after debate, to “Yes”, so let us stick with clear “Yes” or “No” responses.
.
.
The points of these 2 questions (V1 & V2)should be clear:
P1. As with any group of humanoids, there is a non-zero probability that politics will be the primary motivator. Politicians and lobbyists, very many of whom are lawyers, come to mind, as do top politically-appointed bureaucrats, very many of whom seem to have been politicians and lobbyists.
P2. Because of P1, we, the American people have a reasonable expectation to have the identities and histories, and politics, of appointed bureaucrats, made public before appointment.
March 8, 2010, 8:53 pmjukeboxgrad says:
byomtov:
What were you expecting? This is Michael B. Fool me once, etc.
March 8, 2010, 9:08 pmspitball1999 says:
The letter is overall sensible, and the drafters should receive kudos for defending lawyers who are taking legal and political positions that are likely diametrically opposed to theirs. But I feel compelled to quibble over the analogy to John Adams’ representation of British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. (A lot of commentators cite Adams’ pro bono efforts).
I don’t think it’s an apt analogy for two reasons. First, the Boston Massacre occurred six years before the Revolutionary War. John Adams, like other colonists at the time, was a British subject. Adams was not representing suspected foreign enemies during wartime. He was representing fellow Brits during peacetime, though it was a highly controversial and unpopular cause for Adams to take. And that leads me to my second point: Representing Gitmo detainees is “unpopular” among the general public, but let’s not kid ourselves in hailing these attorneys as a latter day John Adams. Challenging Bush administration policy is highly popular at large white shoe law firms. So these attorneys were not risking their own livelihood like Adams did; they were doing something that was widely supported by their firms and their peers.
These attorneys shouldn’t be pilloried for their pro bono work, but on the other hand, they shouldn’t be hailed as heroes who risked all to represent them. They were taking on politically popular causes (in their milieu). It’s not a bad thing to do that, but it’s not a selfless profile in courage, either.
March 8, 2010, 9:19 pmMichael B says:
“What a load of BS. If Kristol just wanted to know who these lawyers are it was easy to find out.” Byomtov
It’s your own BS you’re dishing out. I don’t care for the hyperbole used and in fact said so regarding the subject in one or two of the earlier threads. Nonetheless, the purpose was to criticize Holder as A.G. and the administration. Once again:
1) The seven (***) attorneys in question volunteered to do pro bono work for the detainees, they weren’t assigned or in any way forced to do the work.
2) The public has a right to know, for purposes of open discussion and debate. I.e. transparency in govt. is good.
3) One can put paid to all the harrumphs and all the umbrage in all the recent threads relevant to this subject by conjecturing what the attitude would be if it were a Republican A.G. and president who had hired more than nine attorneys who had done pro bono work in, for example, the area of defending domestic terrorists who had bombed abortion clinics. If a Republican A.G. had done this and a similar ad, mutatis mutandis, had been produced by a Left/Dem org, very little or nothing would have been said.
4) Further, if so much of this is easily accessible public information, show me where any of the attorney’s in question have done pro bono work for U.S. military detainees, such as the three Navy SEALs who are being tried for being accused of a minor offense, accused by one of the terrorists who helped mastermind the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. Or any other military detainee. If you cannot do so, that is a reflection of their priorities and interests, much as #3 above also reflects their priorities and interests.
*** There aren’t simply seven or even nine attorneys Eric Holder has hired in the justice department who fit this description. According to Andrew McCarthy, who presumably has inside information, the number is decidedly more than nine.
The public, in the spirit of transparency and open (and more honest) debate has a perfectly legitimate right to know, and that is in fact the primary issue, the only issue imo.
March 9, 2010, 5:22 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Starting a sentence that way is helpful, because it lets everyone know there’s no need to waste any time reading the rest of it. McCarthy is a joke, just like you.
March 9, 2010, 6:22 pm