Monday, March 8, 2010

What Do You Think About This?

More Bush Lawyers Join Attacks on Liz Cheney Ad

In recent days the Justice Department has been getting angry phone calls about the "Qaeda" lawyers supposedly hired by Attorney General Eric Holder. The reason? An unusually ferocious Web ad by Liz Cheney's advocacy group, Keep America Safe, targeting Justice lawyers who previously did pro bono work for Guantánamo detainees. The ad—in one frame, a headline refers to the DOJ as the "Department of Jihad"—has been denounced as McCarthyism by liberal critics. It's also being condemned by a growing number of former George W. Bush administration lawyers. Ted Olson, who served as Bush's solicitor general, says he has the "greatest respect" for lawyers who represented Gitmo clients; they were acting "consistent with the finest traditions of the legal profession," he says. He calls the attacks on one of the targets, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, "outrageous." Four years ago, Katyal represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's former driver, in a landmark Supreme Court case that overturned the military tribunals that Bush created. (Katyal did a "marvelous job" on the case, says Olson.)



Source

What do you think about this? Is the job of a lawyer different in that they are employed to represent a client and it is irrelevant who it is? Is there a line they should not cross? If there is a line and they do cross it, should they be able to come back across the line and we ignore what they did? Can someone really represent a terrorist and still be trusted to look out for our safety against like minded terrorists?

12 comments:

Always On Watch said...

The lawyers did pro bono work for Guantánamo detainees.

Many lawyers do pro bono because they identify with a particular cause. Therefore, I don't trust these particular lawyers hired by Holder.

Can someone really represent a terrorist and still be trusted to look out for our safety against like minded terrorists?

Maybe, but not if those lawyers bonded with their clients.

Chuck said...

AOW, I agree. I still don't trust them if they defend a terrorist but I think a lot of them have the interest of the terrorist at heart and therefore cannot be trusted with national security

Anonymous said...

There is a huge difference between giving a citizen of the US his or her Constitutional right to representation when they are accused of violating laws on "their home soil", and giving a citizen of another country that we are at war with those same rights.

When our enemy comes on American soil and kills American citizens it is an an act of war, not a domestic crime. Not making this distinction emboldens our enemies. The Germans were not given this after WWII, and for good reason. Their actions were "War Crimes". The deliberate murder of civilians within any country during wartime is not a domestic issue, and never has been.

I certainly do not trust an attorney who does not make this distinction. They are nothing more than snake oil salesmen and assholes politicizing our system in my book. More reports come out about former GITMO detainees showing up in Afghanistan and Pakistan working to kill our troops. Some of these same so called lawyers have the blood of our troops on their filthy hands in my book. JMHO.

HAM

Anonymous said...

I think it is true that our attorneys are compelled to represent individuals regardless of who they are. Does this surprise anyone? A man who murders someone, who is caught red-handed, so to speak, has the right to consult with an attorney and to be represented in court by an attorney. Do we condemn defense lawyers for representing murders? And if not, why do we condemn them for representing religious zealots who are also murderers?

No, the issue here isn’t that attorneys often represent guilty persons … the issue is, should these same people now work in a setting that must address the process of handling and processing jihadists. Perhaps. Remember that some lawyers begin their careers as prosecutors and end up as defense lawyers. Others begin as defense lawyers and end up as sitting justices on state and federal courts.

In point of fact, working ‘both sides of the aisle’ is how good attorneys become better at what they do —which is either prosecute, defend, or judge. Some of the best defense lawyers in this country are former police officers. And as I said, everyone deserves qualified legal counsel and such is guaranteed by our Constitution.

No, what I think we should be hammering is the idea that jihadists captured in foreign countries are entitled to protection under the United States Constitution. I do not believe they are so entitled, as they are not living in the United States, nor are they citizens of our country. I think it is most appropriate to cause these people to appear in front of military tribunals.

Mustang sends

cube said...

Always On Watch: I'm of two minds about this issue because we knew a very good man, who as an attorney, had to defend a heinous individual. He didn't like it, but it was his job as a defense attoney. He later became a judge and he served as a fair and honest judge.

RE: the terrorist lawyers, I can't say because I don't know much about these men. They could be scumbags for all I know. Point is, I don't know.

LomaAlta said...

Never expect anything good from lawyers.

Chuck said...

HAM, there has also been an issue of these defense lawyers playing for the wrong side

Mustang, this is exactly what I was getting at. I am not saying they do not warrant representation, although I too would like to see it in military court. The problem is the people that defend them should not now be trying to protect us from them.

Cube, it is not an easy answer

LomaAlta, there is that. As a health care provider, they are a natural enemy of mine ;)

MK said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MK said...

"Is the job of a lawyer different in that they are employed to represent a client and it is irrelevant who it is?"

No it is not, they should only be representing Americans, not foreign enemies, foreign terrorists have no rights and if they like they can hire their own lawyers.

Now if the lawyers want to represent them, then we reserve the right to condemn them.

Chuck said...

MK, you'll find that libs are the only ones with rights in the US

Miss T.C. Shore said...

It's always the 98% of lawyers that give the other 2% a bad name.

Chuck said...

TC, it took me a minute, I'm tired - LMAO