Holder’s “Al-Qaeda 7″ Attorneys another reason to hate President Obama?

The man gives us on the right so many good reasons to hate him, is this another? From what I’ve seen, no, it isn’t.  So he appointed nine attorneys who previously represented terrorists, big deal.  And yes, the Obama Administration should have released their names without being forced to do so.  Trying to hide their identities was a dumb stunt to pull, because it made it appear as though they had something to hide.  But now we know their names.  So get over it.

As President Obamster says, “Let me be perfectly clear” on this point:  The fact that lawyers previously represented terrorists is no more reason to disqualify them for public service than if they previously represented evil Big Corporations, such as Philip Morris or Walmart.  [No, wait, in the eyes of progressives and librulz, that would disqualify them.  But we on the right are better than that, aren’t we?]

The lawyers who represent criminals do not represent them because they support crime, they represent them because they support our system of justice.  So too those who represented alleged members of al-Qaeda do not support their beliefs but our beliefs in the right to a fair trial and the right to a lawyer.  Our system of justice depends on lawyers vigorously advocating for the rights of criminals to receive a fair trial.  I couldn’t do it–I’m more of a “try ‘em and fry ‘em” kind of lawyer–but somebody has to do it.  And to seek to disqualify lawyers for simply doing their jobs because we don’t like who they represented is plain stupid.  Oppose the Obama Administration and Attorney General Holder when they are wrong, not merely for the sake of opposing them.

12 responses to “Holder’s “Al-Qaeda 7″ Attorneys another reason to hate President Obama?

  1. Pingback: Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol, And The Shameful NeoCon Attack On America’s Legal System

  2. Pingback: The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol, And The Shameful NeoCon Attack On America’s Legal System

  3. John Doe – If it is not a big deal, then why post anything about it? You know better.

    I would say it is a big deal for several reasons. The Obama administration :
    1. Tried to hide the fact these attorneys had been hired.
    2. Wants to put foreign terrorists at war with America on trial in civilian courts. That is stupidly self-destructive. It is like rubbing gangrene into an open wound until it reeks. Any attorney involved in so perverting our judicial system should be kept as far away from it as possible.
    3. Has a propensity for hiring folks that look like communists, walk like communists, and quack like communists. What should we say about the ideological notions of anyone who would go out of their way to defend al-Qaeda terrorists? We want such people to represent us.? Why?

    When our military puts enemy noncombatants on trial for war crimes, they will get court appointed attorneys. While we should support an organization such as the Red Cross when it monitors the condition of our terrorist prison, we have no reason to support any lawyer who wants to get those terrorists into our judicial system. That idea is so stupid it is almost traitorous.

    To sum it up, I seriously doubt those al-Qaeda lawyers have the best interests of our country at heart. Unfortunately, we can also say the same about a bunch of Liberal Democrats. Some of those people have such perverse ideological beliefs they really don’t know what they are doing. How do we know that? They are too busy trying to defend this nation’s enemies.

  4. Well, as I secretly predicted, the leftists are over-playing their hand. Yes, it is a political cheap shot to attack lawyers just based upon whom they have represented in the past. Totally irrelevant? No, as Citizen Tom points out, it further illustrates that Obama is a leftist who appoints leftists. If he wasn’t, why not appoint a few of the prosecutors of the alleged terrorists? Why just appoint all the defenders?

    I hate agreeing with Doug Mataconis and disagreeing with Citizen Tom, but just the fact that these lawyers represented the terrorists is nothing in and of itself to squawk about. Many good lawyers did it just on principle because they support the rule of law. And the fact that they did a good job while representing the terrorists is not a negative, it is a positive. They are good lawyers. Good lawyers do whatever they can for their clients. Sorry, Tom, you will never convince me in this case that the lawyers did anything wrong just by representing the terrorists.

    Now, if it could be shown that they agreed with the terrorists’ goals and/or helped them illegally, that is something else. And I agree with you that terrorists should not be given trials in civilian courts–but that decision is the job of judges and politicians to prevent that–it is the job of lawyers to advocate for it because that would be in their clients’ best interest. You have to separate the lawyer making an argument from the lawyer himself.

    Just representing a client vigorously is not a big deal.

  5. John Doe – When we look at a system, to accurately understand that system, we must look at the entire system. Why? It is not an individual event that produces the final result; it is the chain of events.

    What is the result we are concerned about? Well, my concern is that somebody wants to try al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists in our civilian courts. What led to that result? What have been the roles of Obama, Holder, and their appointees? Is it appropriate to just look at the fact Holder and the Al-Qaeda 7 defended al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorist and ignore everything else? Will that give us the right answer? No. On the other hand, is that fact irrevelent? Can we get the right answer without that piece of the puzzle? You tell me and explain why.

  6. irrevelent = irrelevant

    It is beginning to get to the point where I am helpless without a grammar and spelling checker.

  7. I believe that you are looking at this backwards. Liberal and progressive lawyers in general flock to the criminal defense and personal injury sides, while conservatives tend to flock towards the prosecution and insurance defense sides (gross generalization, I know, but quite true). You don’t see many flaming liberals become prosecutors, but you see many of them in the ACLU and Southern Poverty Center. And those latter types tend to support trying the terrorists in criminal courts, shutting down Gitmo, and actively defending terrorists. They see it as their civic duty, the same as you and I see voting and standing for the National Anthem as ours.

    Obama is one of the latter, as is Holder. Obama campaigned by saying that we should close Gitmo and give the terrorists speedy trials in civilian courts (not positive about the second issue but I am about the first). Elections have consequences. He is doing what he said he would do.

    I see the big picture with Obama. I saw it before he was elected. He is a radical leftist. I oppose him because of his policies. And I also oppose creating a false scandal because he appointed lawyers who share his views and who happened to have represented terrorists. Just because they represented terrorists does not make them bad and unworthy of public appointment.

    If you stigmatize lawyers just for representing unpopular defendants, lawyers will avoid representing them, and the defendants will not get fair trials, and the entire system will break down. In short, we need such lawyers. Imagine if we made it such that any lawyer who represented Citizen Tom could not thereafter be eligible for a government appointment of any kind. Suddenly C.T. would have a tough time finding a lawyer should the need arise, God forbid.

  8. John Doe – I do not advocate stigmatizing lawyers for representing unpopular defendants. I advocate shaming anyone who would break our system of justice just for the sake of winning a case. I see no excuse for that; it is unethical.

    Consider what you said earlier.

    And I agree with you that terrorists should not be given trials in civilian courts–but that decision is the job of judges and politicians to prevent that–it is the job of lawyers to advocate for it because that would be in their clients’ best interest. You have to separate the lawyer making an argument from the lawyer himself

    I don’t care who your client happens to be; it unethical to argue for something you know is wrong. It just another excuse for winning at any cost. Even the alternative is wrong. If you argue for something you think is right, but is actually wrong, you are exercising bad judgement. So either way, Holder and the Al-Qaeda 7 don’t belong in our Justice Department.

    Am I arguing for perfection. No. With human beings there is no such thing. For example, most of the electorate voted for Obama; the voters put the Democrats in power. Nonetheless, we are suppose to learn from our mistakes, and by now it should be obvious that trying to put Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists into our legal system is just plain stupid. We even have public officials such as Obama promising we will either convict these people or keep them locked up anyway. With that kind of nonsense, I want the people who started this nonsense stigmatized and thoroughly so.

  9. Pingback: A DISAGREEMENT WITH JOHN DOE « Citizen Tom

  10. I don’t think giving terrorists a civilian trial is a right or wrong issue. I believe that I am correct, but it is more like an opinion whether you prefer the color blue over red. Or whether you support or oppose ObamaCare. I wish I did but I just don’t. I don’t consider Obama and Holder or the lawyers who represented the terrorists as trying to “break the system.”

    Remember, I am a lawyer. I consider doing everything within my power that is ethical to help my client to be just doing my job. If the rules are “wrong” it is somebody else’s job to fix them–it is my job to zealously represent my clients. It’s similar to the old “4 corners” that North Carolina basketball used to employ when ahead. They didn’t make the rules, they just invented a way to win within the rules. They didn’t hold back because some thought that was “wrong” to do that.

    Giving the terrorists civilian trials is not “wrong” per se, the way that stealing or murder is, but it is stupid, and bad policy. It grants them needless rights that they don’t deserve. But it comes from a good heart, in many instances. The people who advocate such rights don’t hate America. They see nothing different between Charles Manson and terrorists. They think that our justice system is equally equipped to handle both cases. What they naively forget is that we are at war with people who will do anything to kill us and disrupt our society. And they will use the civilian justice system to force the government to divulge critical information and pass it along to their cohorts.

    Frankly, I believe that trying terrorists in our civilian courts is absolutely idiotic. But I think most positions adopted by liberals are absolutely idiotic. Many liberals mean well, they just lack common sense. But right now liberals are in charge, and they are the ones making policy. I agree with trying to shame them into doing what I believe is in the best interest of the country. I just don’t agree that attacking the lawyers is the way to do it. The spotlight of shame should be focused on Holder and Obama for their own policy, not the second or third-hand issue of whom did certain of their appointees represent while in private practice.

    What you may or may not see is that the liberals are using this in my opinion stupid false issue against us. They are accusing Liz Cheney of McCarthyism, etc. ad nauseum. Yes, the libs are overplaying their hand, but she needlessly gave them this opening by attacking the lawyers instead of the policy makers. Liz is a great spokesperson for the conservative cause, but she made a slight misstep here and I would prefer to see her get back on the right track.

  11. Here is a good article about this topic at Powerline with which I agree.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/03/025746.php

  12. “the Obama Administration should have released their names without being forced to do so. Trying to hide their identities was a dumb stunt to pull”

    I’m not so sure about that. Holder is asked to hand over a list of names based on certain criteria.

    But the criteria is irrelevant, as you have pointed out, so why bother compiling the list?

    The very fact that the Congressman asked for a list based on that criteria meant the Congressman was implying that the criteria was relevant.

    But is wasn’t.

    So why cooperate until your forced to do so?

    Politically it helped the White House since the Congressman was making a jackass out himself.

    Republicans need to start distancing the party from Cheney. He is of no electoral help whatsoever.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s