About the DOJ hiring former terrorist lawyers to be DOJ Lawyers

I have read with disgust the last few days about President Obama’s Justice Department  having hired quite a few attorneys that had represented Gitmo detainees directly or had submitted friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the detainees.

The justification of this seems to be well that is what defense attorneys do, they defend bad guys, so this is no big deal….move along…nothing to see here.

That’s crap though.

How many former attorney who had clients involved with organized crime have been hired by the DOJ or appointed as US Attorneys over the years? I would assume 0.

This is because once an attorney becomes an attorney for Organized Crime practitioners they become fundamentally corrupted and can no longer be trusted to represent the interest of the US public. These OC Lawyers can still practice law, they just can not be prosecutors EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE COMMITTED NO CRIMES THEMSELVES.

It is the same thing with lawyers for terrorists.

By having volunteered to become advocates for the interest of terrorists – the interests of enemies of the American Nation – those attorneys can no longer be trusted to represent the interest of the US public.

It is pretty simple. Those lawyers are tainted. I am not saying their law licenses should be pulled, but they should not be DOJ lawyers.

Advertisements

20 Responses

  1. Actually don’t prosecutors and defense attorneys switch back and forth over the course of their careers? I would be surprised if it didn’t happen with mob lawyers.

    • They don’t need many intelligence operatives when one operativve is highly placed and able to access all information protecting Americans and non-Leftist aligned factions.

  2. Did you know John Adams defended the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre?

  3. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704131404575117613313731980.html

    Advocating for the enemy is a modern anomaly, not a proud tradition. Defense lawyers representing accused criminals perform a constitutionally required function. Not so the Department of Justice’s Gitmo volunteers. They represented al Qaeda operatives because they wanted to, not because they had to. The suggestion that they served a vital constitutional function is self-adulating myth. Their motive was to move the law in a particular direction.

    It emerged this week that Heller was not Mr. Holder’s only amicus brief. He also filed one on behalf of al Qaeda terrorist Jose Padilla, an enemy combatant detained for plotting a post-9/11 “second-wave” of mass-murder attacks. Mr. Holder failed to disclose the brief at the time of his confirmation hearing. It is easy to see why he may have preferred to forget it. The brief advocated a return to the pre-9/11 approach of regarding al Qaeda as a cabal of criminals to be prosecuted, not enemies to be vanquished militarily. Unsurprisingly, this is exactly the policy he has since implemented as attorney general, in conjunction with the Department of Justice’s other former detainee lawyers.

    ,,,

    The American people are obviously entitled to know what lawyers are making national security policy, what positions they have previously taken, and whether those positions conflict with their current duties. As it was with the Second Amendment, so it is with terrorism. Critics from the left and right will draw competing inferences, but it is specious to suggest that the information is irrelevant.

  4. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704131404575117611125872740.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

    An investigation by JTF-GTMO personnel revealed that Julia Tarver Mason, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, had sent it to Al Joudi and eight of the firm’s other detainee clients through “legal mail”—a designation for privileged lawyer-client communications that are exempt from screening by security personnel. Worse, the investigation showed that Ms. Mason’s clients passed it to other detainees not represented by Paul, Weiss lawyers. In all, more than a dozen detainees received a copy.

    At Guantanamo, “legal mail” is strictly limited to correspondence between counsel and a detainee that is related to representation of the detainee, privileged documents and publicly filed legal documents. But even “legal mail,” according to the rules mandated by Judge Joyce Hens Green in a 2004 protective order, prohibits lawyers from giving detainees information relating to military operations, intelligence, arrests, political news and current events, and the names of U.S. government personnel. Lawyers are forbidden from discussing other detainee cases not directly related to the representation of their own client.

    The Amnesty International brochure, handed out at a human rights conference in London, was a political advocacy screed in clear violation of that order, which was formulated to protect force security. Maj. Gen. Hood made a command decision. He banned the Paul, Weiss lawyers from access to Guantanamo. The DOJ notified the firm.

    Paul, Weiss immediately went on the offensive, backed by what one former Defense Department official, who requested anonymity, called “an armada of habeas attorneys.” They sued the government, demanding that it defend the decision to eject lawyers from Gitmo, making the straight-faced claim that the Amnesty International brochure was a legitimate “report” that was “directly related” to their clients’ defense. But their bottom line argument amounted to this: A military commander at a secure overseas military facility in a time of war couldn’t remove disruptive lawyers who were inciting captured enemy detainees and endangering the safety and security of military personnel unless he first got permission from a federal judge.

    In a sworn affidavit submitted to the D.C. District Court and obtained by the writers of this article in a Freedom of Information Act request, Maj. Gen. Hood did not equivocate when it came to the Amnesty International pamphlet. “The very nature of this document gives tremendous moral support to those who would strike out against our country,” he stated. “It is not a factual report. Instead it is filled with second and third hand accounts, photos of protests that were staged, inflammatory photos from Iraq and provocative story captions.”

    Maj. Gen. Hood noted that many of the captured al Qaeda terrorists held at the camp had been “specifically trained on the Manchester Manual [an al Qaeda training manual discovered at a safe house in Britain],” which “encourages detainees to claim torture and abuse.” He warned that “[e]xamples and vignettes of alleged abuse of other detainees” could be used “to fabricate their own claims of abuse and torture.”
    […]
    Other incidents listed in the FOIA material included: a lawyer who was caught in the act of making a hand-drawn map of a detention camp’s layout, including guard towers; a lawyer who sent a letter to his detainee client telling him that “we cannot depend on the military to do the right thing” and conveying his message of support to other detainees who were not his clients; lawyers who posted photos of Guantanamo security badges on the Internet; lawyers who provided news outlets with “interviews” of their clients using questions provided in advance by the news organization; and a lawyer who gave his client a list of all the detainees.

    If the stated intent was to show that the government had singled out Paul, Weiss attorneys, the unstated purpose was to demonstrate something even more significant to the government’s lawyers. They were outnumbered and outgunned. The Gitmo bar had grown to include some 400 lawyers from as many as 50 law firms that were subsidized by the millions of dollars earned from their paying corporate clients. They had the legal talent, the support of the international press and the judicial wind at their backs. They could bury the DOJ in paper. If one lawyer was taken out, she could be replaced by another.

    “They were beaten down by the litigation,” said the former Defense Department official who asked to remain anonymous. “If I’d gotten caught passing war news to detainees, my security clearance would have been pulled.”

    But why would American lawyers, after 9/11 and the brutal slaughter of 3,000 fellow citizens, hand members of al Qaeda information about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? The records indicate that attorneys were printing news off the Internet and passing it to detainees at the same time that U.S. forces in Iraq were sustaining devastating casualties from IED attacks.

    “They would bring contraband in their briefcases, in manila envelopes,” an active-duty officer familiar with Defense Department records on attorney access violations told us.

  5. A little bit of temporary evil is perfectly satisfactory when the Left accomplishes the permanent good of Utopia and a warless world. You know that, purple.

  6. According to Bush’s Solicitor General (and probably the foremost conservative legal mind of the past 20 years in court), Ted Olson, many law firms were asked by Bush and AG Ashcroft/Gonzales to represent pro bono Gitmo detainees. They were told America needed them and they responded.

    Now, some of these lawyers representing Gitmo detainees are among the far left who fetishize anti-Americanism and terrorism in their worldviews. However, very few criminal or civil complaints have been made about their behavior aside from the idiot woman you linked about earlier.

    Most of these lawyers as well were representing what the Pentagon itself admitted were the at least 75% of total detainees who were innocent and rounded up and sent to Gitmo by accident or mistaken identity.

    I will agree with your criticism and that of Cheney, Kristol, etc. in one area. AG Holder should have been open and forefront about this from the get-go and been wary of appointing all but the most experienced of the lawyers with Gitmo experience to senior posts. Instead, he glossed over their participation and tried to treat it as something not open for debate. That opened the gates for the misrepresentation of the work of most of the lawyers by Kristol, Cheney, etc.

    (1) The list of conservative legal minds with real-world experience on the issue in the past 5-10 years (unlike Cheney, Kristol or McCarthy) dismantling her claims about these lawyers is damning.

    http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3D4B057C-18FE-70B2-A850FB3CCCAF32D8

    (2) Former Bush AG Mukasey ties this criticism together with that of the Left during the Bush Admin and says both are equally destructive of the integrity of the justice system, especially pertaining to national security.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703915204575104120092492594.html

  7. People had experience voting for Presidents for the last 20 years, yet they still voted in a megalomaniac and were happy about it.

    Experience does not equal wisdom.

  8. Basically, a technocracy of “scientists”, lawyers, and widget makers is promoted by those dissatisfied with the two party system of America. Either because they can’t buy into or ally with Democrats or Republicans or simply because their interests are too foreign and special to be included in mainstream American politics.

    This technocracy is about as workable as the theocracy of Iran.

  9. More:

    http://article.nationalreview.com/437992/holder-aiding-al-qaeda/andrew-c-mccarthy

    Eric Holder is chief among the many Obama Justice Department lawyers who, during the Bush years, donated their services as private attorneys for the benefit of al-Qaeda terrorists. His motive was to frustrate efforts to treat our wartime enemies as just that: wartime enemies. He preferred the failed law-enforcement model that regards our enemies as garden-variety criminals — the counterterrorism approach he had overseen as deputy attorney general while America was serially attacked during the Clinton years.
    […]
    I am saying that Holder is in the thrall of an ideology, the inevitable effect of which is to aid our enemies. This progressive ideology, shared by many legal elites, holds that the use of military legal processes during military conflicts — processes to which the United States has resorted throughout our history — is somehow a greater danger to us than international terrorism itself.
    […]
    Furthermore, Holder is now the attorney general. He is no longer at liberty to freelance for terrorists — his client is the United States, which is at war with terrorists pursuant to a congressional authorization approved with overwhelming bipartisan support. His client is not the foreign terrorists: KSM already has plenty of lawyers. Holder’s client is the American public (i.e., the people KSM wants to kill). Thus, while Holder may not like military commissions, he is obliged to make them work, just as any attorney general who disagrees, as a private citizen, with the policy behind a given law is duty-bound to resist undermining that law in his official capacity.
    […]
    When critics contended that Americans had a right to know whether lawyers who chose to donate their services to al-Qaeda were now in charge of counterterrorism policy, Holder wailed that the patriotism of Justice Department lawyers was being attacked. The legal profession’s heroic self-image notwithstanding, there is nothing patriotic about volunteering to represent terrorists; that something is legal doesn’t make doing it patriotic.
    […]
    When you do something you don’t have to do — as Holder did as a private lawyer in 2004, filing an amicus brief on behalf of al-Qaeda terrorist Jose Padilla — that is a free choice. We are entitled to weigh what that choice tells us about where you’re coming from.

    In taking up Padilla’s cause, Holder was not acting out of obligation. He was acting out of passion, out of ideology. More forthright then than he is now, Holder conceded that using the civilian-justice system would limit the nation’s ability to conduct interrogations, to obtain timely intelligence, and to detain dangerous terrorists. Yet, he argued, these costs were a price worth paying to forestall what he saw as the real danger to America: not jihadist terror but unchecked presidential and military power over the prosecution of war. Better to put the judges in charge.

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

%d bloggers like this: