America’s Misguided Lawyers
[Guest post by DRJ]
Andrew McCarthy on lawyers who volunteer to represent jihadists:
“There is something wrong with a legal profession that insists we not only let American lawyers take up the enemy’s cause but that we admire them for doing so.”
Read the whole thing but here’s the part liberals never talk about:
“The Gitmo detainees, prisoners of war, are not like indigent defendants prosecuted in the criminal-justice system. The Constitution guarantees counsel to people accused of ordinary crimes. The lawyers who represent such defendants do fulfill a necessary constitutional function. The criminal-justice system, which undergirds the rule of law on which our society depends, could not function without them.
That’s not the case with the volunteer Gitmo Bar. If that enterprise were dissolved tomorrow, the rule of law would not be compromised in any way. Prisoners of war could still file habeas corpus petitions — they’d just have to do it themselves, like American prisoners do. If a military judge thought a particular legal claim was potentially meritorious but complex, the judge could appoint a military lawyer to help the detainee — just as the federal district courts, at their discretion, can appoint counsel in unusual cases to represent habeas claimants. And if detainees were charged with war crimes, they would be more than adequately represented by the military defense lawyers. The system would get along just fine — indeed, it would get along just as it was designed to get along. Sure, we’d no longer have hundreds of volunteer litigators making the military’s job far more difficult as it tried to fight the war we rely on it to fight. That would be bad for al-Qaeda, but it would be good for us.
America’s enemies are no more entitled to counsel in pursuing legal claims than, say, a pro-life group that chooses to file a lawsuit. If I went out of my way to contribute my services for free to a pro-life group, do you suppose the New York Times would have the slightest hesitation about drawing the inference that I was sympathetic to the pro-life cause? Of course not. The Gray Lady wouldn’t pretend that I was just, in the Gillers lexicon, promoting “the administration of justice.” After all, no one would have forced me to take that case. There are countless causes that a lawyer willing to donate his services can find. When you’re a volunteer, you’re doing what you want to do, not what you have to do.”
H/T SPQR.
— DRJ
Liberals also never talk about attorney Lynne Stewart going to jail for providing materal support to terrorism on behalf of her client, the blind sheikh.
Yeah, it would be absolutely beyond the pale for me to suspect an attorney of sympathizing with his/her client’s cause.
At least Lynne Stewart initially had valid cover. Abdel-Rahman was, after all, in the American civilian legal system.
But these guys going to GITMO to provide material support to terrorism have no such cover. They ought to be cuffed and returned to the US for trial just because they showed up.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Steve (1c9d9a) — 3/7/2010 @ 7:40 pmWhen you’re a volunteer, you’re doing what you want to do, not what you have to do.
Those un-Americans! How dare they do what they want to and not what they have to? Don’t they know the Volksgericht is there to tell them the limits of their duty? And, BTW, do they know when the Fuhrer’s Birthday is?
nk (db4a41) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:09 pm” “There is something wrong with a legal profession that insists we not only let American lawyers take up the enemy’s cause but that we admire them for doing so.””
Our detainee situation will be resolved in our adversarial court system. It involves very significant, and important questions about the power of our government and how its various branches interact. These matters are incredibly important to not just the freedoms of these detainnes, but many more people too. Reaching the best solution requires, not just the best judges, but that there be the best lawyers on each side. That’s how the adversarial system works.
imdw (017d51) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:23 pmAnd since we were talking earlier about civil rights firms — McCarthy (ha!) is on this kick about how you can’t serve a constitutional function if the constitution doesn’t guarantee a lawyer for you. So happy to see those civil rights lawyers, arguing against jim crow and winning Brown, weren’t really doing anything for ‘the rule of law.’ Why those parents, victims of segregation, could go and win their own cases if they wanted. Just like you and me and any other prisoner.
He really does earn his name.
imdw (50eb29) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:33 pmCitizens, including lawyers, can serve valuable moral or societal functions without rising to a Constitutional mandate.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:37 pmGood piece by McCarthy. I fail to see the connection between Jim Crow laws and military tribunals, however. Just another attempt to distract. Next we’ll see yammering about dixiecrats again.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:38 pmWeren’t most of the Irish on the side of the Nazis in WWII?
nk (db4a41) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:39 pmI think that’s enough nazi allusions, nk. Quite enough.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:42 pm“Citizens, including lawyers, can serve valuable moral or societal functions without rising to a Constitutional mandate.”
Not just important functions — but functions implementing the constitution.
It’s really this simple:
McCarthy: “We’re at war with savages.”
Everyone: “Uighur, please”
“I fail to see the connection between Jim Crow laws and military tribunals, however. ”
The constitution doesn’t give you a right to a lawyer to challenge your segregation. The fact that the constitution doesn’t mandate a lawyer for the detainees is of some import to McCarthy. It is a silly point, as shown by how many other very important things you do not have a lawyer constitutionally mandated for.
imdw (6b4e5c) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:44 pmimdw,
I don’t think you believe the Constitution requires that every soldier take along a lawyer, so at what point do you think the right to counsel attaches? And more important, why do military detainees get habeas counsel when U.S. inmates don’t?
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:49 pmFair enough, SPQR. How about this: I’ve been a lawyer for twenty-eight years and I don’t need some spud-f****r telling me what I can or cannot do.
nk (db4a41) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:49 pmIt is not un-American per se to do what you want to do.
It is un-American, however, if what you want to do is aid and abet your country’s enemies.
And it is fraudulent to claim, as these attorneys do, that by interfering with national security to provide support to terrorists that they are performing some sort of service to the Constitution and the law.
The Gitmo bar learned from Lynne Stewart that it isn’t wise to admit openly they sympathize with their clients goals and ideology, and for that reason volunteered to aid these clients.
Lynne Stewarts comments at her trial such as “institutions which perpetuate capitalism and institutions of government do have to be attacked” didn’t really help her out much, did they?
It is much wiser to claim that some vital Constitutional function is being served. But when that Constitutional function doesn’t exist, and in fact they are simply interfering with valid Constitutional functions, they are just as anti-American as Lynne Stewart. They are just less honest about it.
Which is certainly prudent of them. They realized long ago, that it really doesn’t matter how many adolescents impress themselves by throwing around words like “Volksgericht” on the internet. You may think it’s an effective form of argumentation. It isn’t. Everyone knows that. Everyone but you, apparently.
So in the end, they have to maintain an elaborate pretense. But Andy McCarthy just poked some holes you could drive a truck through in that pretense.
I take it, from your hysterical references to Nazism, you have no rational arguments against any of what Andy McCarthy has to say. So I expect you to follow up with juvenile comments about his last name.
By the way, I have no idea when your Fuhrer was born. When is Obama’s birthday, anyway.
Steve (1c9d9a) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:52 pm“And more important, why do military detainees get habeas counsel when U.S. inmates don’t?”
I’m not familiar with the military detention system. My guess is the military probably figures the system works better when the defense has a competent representative of the same capacity as the prosecutor.
But that’s a separate matter than the important questions that have taken detainee matters to the supreme court several times. McCarthy is being an ass by ignoring this aspect — that these are groundbreaking and important matters, and thus part of why lawyers are drawn to it. He’s an idiot if he thinks these lawyers sympathize with the goals of jihadists.
imdw (cf562d) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:54 pmYou’ve been a lawyer for 28 years?
You argue like a freshman in college.
I’d say you most certainly need somebody, even a spud-f****r, anybody, tell you what to do.
You’re obviously incompetent.
Steve (1c9d9a) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:55 pmI vill be a gut Cherman. Guten Nacht.
nk (db4a41) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:57 pm“But when that Constitutional function doesn’t exist, and in fact they are simply interfering with valid Constitutional functions, they are just as anti-American as Lynne Stewart.”
steve is on to something. Vital constitutional functions work best when they are done unopposed and we just listen to what one side claims the vital constitutional function is, and the court stays out the way, without the best arguments before it.
imdw (cf562d) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:00 pmnk, I appreciate the knowledge that 28 years of experience as a lawyer is what entitles you to call people nazis.
What a thing for me to look forward to.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:00 pmimdw:
Habeas proceedings are legal proceedings in which a federal court reviews the legality of an person’s incarceration. There isn’t a prosecutor, so there’s no “competent representative of the same capacity” to offset.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:04 pmBeing good at something will be a nice change for you, won’t it nk.
Steve (1c9d9a) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:04 pmGood night, nk.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:05 pm“It is a silly point”
imdw – The silly point is for you to argue in this thread when you admit you are not familiar with the military detention system, ignored that McCarthy did address the military tribunal issues and counsel representation issues for military detainees. Your patellar oppositional reflex just gets the better of you.
If your analogy to civil rights lawyers is that they were jihadi extremist sympathizers as well, good luck with that.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:09 pm“There isn’t a prosecutor, so there’s no “competent representative of the same capacity” to offset.”
Uhmm, you think there’s nobody on the other side? It’s just one party before the judge?
But you’re getting it backwards. I said that about the military system. In the civilian system, a federal prisoner has already been convicted. With at least the right to counsel.
imdw (8f8ead) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:09 pmimdw:
I don’t know if they sympathize or not, although I suspect some do and some don’t. But there is a big difference between volunteering to be on a specific detainee’s legal team and volunteering to be appointed by a federal judge to handle legal matters the judge thinks has merit or needs further scrutiny.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:10 pmActually, I am onto something. Valid constitutional functions work best when performed by the branches of government the Constitution assigns that function.
The Constitution assigns national defense to the political branches. The judiciary has no role.
Not until it invented one out of whole cloth.
Steve (1c9d9a) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:10 pm“If your analogy to civil rights lawyers is that they were jihadi extremist sympathizers as well, good luck with that.”
Say what? You’re still not getting what the civil rights issue is about right? That’s also something that the constitution doesn’t guarantee you a laweyer for. So McCarthy is silly for focusing on just that.
Oh well. Hurt locker won. So now I can bed. Leave your idiocy here and I’ll get ot it in the morning.
imdw (688568) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:13 pm28 years of experience entitled him to denegrate farmers, the middle class, and everyone else who is not a lawyer in his elitist vulgar terminology, and allowed him to do so without realizing what he had just done. Now, that’s a lawyer I don’t want on my team in a highly controversial court case. His elitism, coupled with his lack of logic skills and his lack of self-control are enough to disqualify him.
John Hitchcock (73e09a) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:14 pmNo kidding.
WTF does that even mean?
Do you have any idea what an imbecile you are? Don’t “guess” and attempt to pontificate on how you think the world should work according to imadumbass. Go learn something and come back later. In a decade or two after its sunk in.
Your stupidity is downright tedious.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:14 pmimdw:
Detainees have the right to counsel in the military system, too. We’re talking about the habeas proceeding in federal court used to contest a prior military determination that someone is an enemy combatant.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:16 pm“You’re still not getting what the civil rights issue is about right?”
imdw – You’re going to have to spell out your argument in English for a change, including how civilian courts have jurisdiction over military affairs and prisoners of war or people similarly designated. It will be fascinating.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:17 pmI suggest you show up in the morning sober and herb-free. Might be something new for you.
John Hitchcock (73e09a) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:18 pm#29 daleyrocks:
No fair hogging the acid. Stop bogartin’ and pass it along!
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:19 pmSPQR – There were greek nazi collaborators during WWII, so maybe the shame is still bugging nk. Who knows? He’s been very off lately.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:20 pmCan someone send imdw a clown nose?
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:24 pmi.e. not agreeing with the standard line. You guys can’t see why a defense attorney might take offense at the notion that representing a client in court is an automatic endorsement of that client’s actions or philosophy? I mean, a defense lawyer can choose not to represent a client, even if that client’s a citizen. Does that mean that every defense attorney who represents an accused murderer sympathizes with murderers? Of course not. I don’t see where the analogy fails, and why defense attorneys might not take offense accordingly.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:29 pmIs there a bar of volunteer lawyers to represent our soldiers and Marines? How about the SEAL who is currently charged?
Pat (366dd8) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:38 pm#34, Leviticus,
I am no lawyer but I think I tend to see the main issue largely as you do. NK’s attack was way over the line, though. In the same light I think Daleyrock’s comment was out of line. If NK was wrong then sinking to his level is not the answer. I don’t understand what NK’s problem is. The trolls here are predictable and their purpose is clear. They try to lead discussions off topic and and when they play their flute, many regulars fall in line behind them. They seem to think they are driving the troll out of town but the troll leads them down the path of his choosing. The topics under discussion are often left and forgotten so one can draw their own conclusion about who is leading or driving.
NK does not seem to have such a purpose but is making rather aggressive and personal attacks on people who have not picked a fight with him and would not normally have such conflicts with others. I don’t know if he is feeling senile agitation or is trying for a curmudgeon image but his attacks seem derived from a viewpoint of what people said or reality that bears little resemblance to what anyone else would see. It is rather sad to watch but sinking to his level is certainly not productive, I think.
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:47 pmLeviticus:
I can see that viewpoint. I can also see the viewpoint that representing a person taken prisoner in a foreign country and classified in a military proceeding as an enemy combatant is different than representing a client in civil or criminal court.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:48 pmIn the normal course of events, some pretty scummy characters have been entitled to competent counsel because it is Constitutionally mandated. Lovely folk like Dahmer, Gacy, Manson and so on.
No one would automatically assume that counsel choosing to represent these monsters did so out of a desire to further their criminal activities~there are a plethora of reasons why an attorney would even volunteer to represent them.
But there is a substantial difference in volunteering to defend a criminal in court, and volunteering to assist an enemy bent on the destruction of the our nation.
These are not individuals entitled to the protections of the judicial system that we have built to safeguard the civil rights according to the method of government we have in place~they are enemy combatants who, by their acts of warfare have forfeited that most fundamental of human rights in losing the battle: the right to live.
That we allow them to live, and even provide an avenue to determine whether or not to continue their incarceration is incredibly magnanimous in a historical context. And the only thing that allows us to do so is the surety that these individuals cannot by themselves destroy our nation. While our nation can withstand the physical attacks of barbarians, it will only be able to sustain itself as long as its citizens are not actively undermining the structure of that nation~and that’s what the lawyers who have volunteered to assist our nation’s enemies have done.
That they feel they should be free of disapprobation only rankles further, and certainly does nothing to relieve the stench of their ignominy.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:49 pmMachinist – I am merely sinking to nk’s level in response to his verbal diarrhea. If you don’t like it, you are probably an ignorant spud f***ker, as nk would put it.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:57 pmThat’s a powerful comment, EW1(SG).
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:58 pmBut that’s a separate matter than the important questions that have taken detainee matters to the supreme court several times. McCarthy is being an ass by ignoring this aspect — that these are groundbreaking and important matters, and thus part of why lawyers are drawn to it.
These issues are none of the courts business. What “draws” lawyers to it are (a) the chance to rewrite the Constitution and (b) the chance to stick it to Amerikkka.
Subotai (b7059f) — 3/7/2010 @ 10:05 pmdaleyrocks,
Maybe I am.
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/7/2010 @ 10:06 pmIn the normal course of events, some pretty scummy characters have been entitled to competent counsel because it is Constitutionally mandated. Lovely folk like Dahmer, Gacy, Manson and so on.
Yes, but we don’t take Manson’s lawyer and give him a job making government policy relating to psycho killers. Whereas for some reason which only the left can understand, it’s vital that the lawyers committed to freeing the 9/11 planners be given government jobs dealing with the handing of terrorists.
Subotai (b7059f) — 3/7/2010 @ 10:09 pmLeviticus, these attorneys went out of their way to invent a role for themselves in order to be able to defend these clients. Enemy combatants held outside the United States have never in our entire history had a right to counsel or access to the courts.
This was because prior to this past decade, the courts respected the Legislature’s Constitutionally derived powers to “To raise and support Armies,” “To provide and maintain a Navy,” “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces,” “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water,” “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations,” and “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
And the courts respected the Executive branch’s Constitutionally derived power to faithfully execute all laws passed by Congress, and his sole responsibility as Commander in Chief to wage wars authorized by Congress.
What these attorneys have done is to successfully argue that enemy combatants have a right to challenge their detention in Federal court.
And what the courts have done is ignore the Constitution and agree. Now the courts are weighing the evidence used to justify the enemy combatants detention.
They have no Constitutional authority to do so.
So what these attorneys have done is a far cry from what pro-bono criminal defense lawyers do. No matter how vile their clients may be, those clients do actually have rights under the Constitution.
These attorneys have to commit fraud to get away with it; to convince the public that what they are doing is no different from what other criminal defense attorneys have ever done.
So what if they put on a big show of taking offense?
Steve (7d8b00) — 3/7/2010 @ 10:12 pmYou guys can’t see why a defense attorney might take offense at the notion that representing a client in court is an automatic endorsement of that client’s actions or philosophy?
You guys can’t see why normal people might object to the defence attorney being given a government slot working on their “former” clients issues?
In any case, the lawyers in question do endorse their clients actions.
Subotai (b7059f) — 3/7/2010 @ 10:13 pmEnemy combatants held outside the United States have never in our entire history had a right to counsel or access to the courts.
Or inside, for that matter.
Subotai (b7059f) — 3/7/2010 @ 10:14 pmunder accepted international law and practices, unlawful/illegal combatants are only entitled to summary battlefield execution. ANY consideration less drastic than that is a grace they likely do not deserve.
furthermore, they are still eligible for execution at any time during the period of hostilities, should they not be killed at the time of capture.
any lawyer who attempts to secure them any rights above and beyond mercy in the face of their legal punishment is, as far as i’m concerned, giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. that they not be arrested and tried for such acts is also a generous, and foolish, act of mercy on our part.
to put scum such as them in charge of deciding how our enemies are to be dealt with is a folly in general, and, quite likely, treason on the part of the person who came up with the idea.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/7/2010 @ 10:56 pm“I can also see the viewpoint that representing a person taken prisoner in a foreign country and classified in a military proceeding as an enemy combatant is different than representing a client in civil or criminal court.”
– DRJ
I understand, but I think it’s rather unrealistic to expect a group so convinced of and vested in the value of due process (i.e. defense attorneys) to discard the inclination altogether due to an arbitrary distinction between one type of alleged wrongdoer and another. Is it so surprising that it is the first instinct of some defense attorneys to wonder “are those guys really guilty?” when the hear the stories coming out of our military detention facilities? Particularly insofar as they’ve been trained to presume innocence until guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
I just don’t think it’s realistic to expect those attorneys to push a button and turn off legal instincts fostered by years of work in the context of our criminal or civil justice systems, just because a defendant has been classified (by the government) as an enemy combatant.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 3/7/2010 @ 10:57 pm“In any case, the lawyers in question do endorse their clients actions.”
– Subotai
Oh, good. The graceful demolition of troubling ambiguity. Color me soothed.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 3/7/2010 @ 10:59 pmLeviticus:
I submit that’s why the Obama Administration shouldn’t pick defense counsel to make military policy, and why AG Mukasey’s judicial background made him a good choice to evaluate the legal issues presented.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/7/2010 @ 11:11 pmOh, good. The graceful demolition of troubling ambiguity.
You’d impress the hell out of me if you bothered to find out something about the topic before commenting on it.
Here’s Andy McCarthy.
Holder has a freer hand with posts that do not require Senate consent. That explains his hiring of Jennifer Daskal, a lawyer with no prosecutorial experience, to work in Justice’s National Security Division. Her qualification? Daskal is a left-wing activist who advocated on behalf of al Qaeda prisoners while serving as the “counterterrorism counsel” (yes, counterterrorism) at Human Rights Watch. She has, for example, claimed that KSM may not be guilty of the unspeakable acts he can’t stop bragging about because, after all, Bush may have tortured him into confessing. She lamented that another detainee, “a self-styled poet,” suffered abuse in U.S. custody when he “found it was nearly impossible to write poetry anymore because the prison guards would only allow him to keep a pen or pencil in his cell for short periods of time.” And she has been a staunch supporter of the terrorist detainee Omar Khadr, who was 15 when he allegedly launched the grenade that killed U.S. Army Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer. Daskal frets that a prosecution would violate Khadr’s “rights as a child.” Khadr recently turned 23.
Holder has assigned Daskal to help shape detainee policy.
Subotai (b7059f) — 3/7/2010 @ 11:32 pm“You’d impress the hell out of me if you bothered to find out something about the topic before commenting on it.”
– Subotai
Because that’s what I really care about: impressing you.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 3/7/2010 @ 11:36 pmSorry, Leviticus, you are no longer in the aphrael class of liberals. As far as I’m concerned, you are in the imdw class of liberals, and there you are likely to stay, judging by your recent diatribes and lack of logic.
John Hitchcock (73e09a) — 3/7/2010 @ 11:54 pm#53 John Hancock,
I do not think that is fair or accurate.
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/8/2010 @ 12:38 amI’m loathe to invite Godwin back, but if the nazis could have representation at Nuremberg – apparently military tribunals, then it’s not an enormous leap for jihadis to have the same in contemporary military trials.
McCarthy’s Pro-Life lawsuit argument isn’t quite right either, because that’s a civil matter that his client would have a choice in pursuing. Imagine instead something like Scott Roeder’s defense, performed pro-bono. Would that lawyer’s abortion beliefs make him unsuitable as a defense lawyer in that case? Absolutely not. Would it make him unsuitable as a DoJ employee? Possibly, depending on how Jack Thompson they’ll get over it.
Unfortunately Lynne Stewart confirmed the worst suspicions of many people WRT the motivations of jihadi defence lawyers. I don’t doubt many share her beliefs, but how can you tell unless they say it out loud? In any case wouldn’t people prefer a system that polices behaviour instead of beliefs?
That’s quite a separate issue from the left-wing idiocy that Daskal represents, or whether such clowns belong on the government’s prosecution payroll.
Craig Mc (7a924b) — 3/8/2010 @ 3:55 am“imdw – You’re going to have to spell out your argument in English for a change, including how civilian courts have jurisdiction over military affairs and prisoners of war or people similarly designated”
The judicial power is spelled out in article III.
“You guys can’t see why normal people might object to the defence attorney being given a government slot working on their “former” clients issues?”
They’re not working on the matters of their former clients. That would violate their duties to their former as well as current clients.
“I can see that viewpoint. I can also see the viewpoint that representing a person taken prisoner in a foreign country and classified in a military proceeding as an enemy combatant is different than representing a client in civil or criminal court.”
Professionally, the differences are quite significant. In the latter place, the issues are more complicated, and more interesting, and judicial decisions here are likely to impact significant questions about separation of powers and civil liberties.
imdw (2c1194) — 3/8/2010 @ 4:56 am“it will only be able to sustain itself as long as its citizens are not actively undermining the structure of that nation~and that’s what the lawyers who have volunteered to assist our nation’s enemies have done.”
You and I live in quite different “nations” if arguing in court is ‘undermining the structure’ of that nation.
imdw (017d51) — 3/8/2010 @ 5:02 am“Holder has assigned Daskal to help shape detainee policy.”
I think you guys are seeing this the wrong way — Obama and Holder took Human rights lawyers and turned them into enablers of detainee policy!
imdw (017d51) — 3/8/2010 @ 5:08 amimsw – Still waiting for an actual argument. Your incoherence is fascinating.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/8/2010 @ 5:29 am“imsw – Still waiting for an actual argument. Your incoherence is fascinating.”
On what? Here’s the jurisdiction: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,”
“All cases.” I suppose I could go and add in the definition of “all.” But seems like the conclusion is there.
imdw (017d51) — 3/8/2010 @ 5:37 amI have yet to anyone make the point that a civilian trial would contribute to the detainees ability to continue their jihad by obstructing the process and using the opportunity to disrupt and make propaganda statements. Obama has already poisoned the process by stating that KSM will be executed after the “fair trial.” What if a leftist activist judge, like some he has been nominating, throws out all the evidence against KSM because of the “torture” allegation? Nobody in Holder’s department has thought this through although some may be quietly hoping for the process to be disrupted.
Fair enough, SPQR. How about this: I’ve been a lawyer for twenty-eight years and I don’t need some spud-f****r telling me what I can or cannot do.
Comment by nk
Brilliant comment by someone who seems ready for retirement. Involuntary if necessary.
MIke K (2cf494) — 3/8/2010 @ 5:59 amSorry, that was supposed to read “yet to see anyone.”
MIke K (2cf494) — 3/8/2010 @ 6:00 am“What if a leftist activist judge, like some he has been nominating, throws out all the evidence against KSM because of the “torture” allegation?”
Do you really think all the evidence against him is because of torture?
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
imdw (223a39) — 3/8/2010 @ 6:39 amHitchcock, you will not find your opinion of Leviticus widely shared.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/8/2010 @ 6:43 amLiz Cheney has succeeded in splitting the right wing like no one else:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34050.html
McCarthy’s wrong. Don’t just take my word for it.
imdw (52eae3) — 3/8/2010 @ 6:54 amJH – You are on your own on that one. I do not always agree with him, rarely recently, but he is exponentially better of a person than the likes is imdw, timmy, Idiotology, etal
JD (8b8f03) — 3/8/2010 @ 6:54 amReally, Ken Starr hasn’t learned anything in a dozen years, the ones who sought to declare him
ian cormac (9575ac) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:08 aman ‘enemy of the state,’ because he had represented tobacco companies
so iamadimwit and AJB are pushing the same politico story. Why don’t these people try their own blog where they can write about whatever they would like?
JD (8b8f03) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:08 amMcCarthy becomes more of an embarrassment to lawyers, the NRO, and America itself with each of his poisonous rhetorical flourishes. After all, the 6th Amendment begins with “All criminal prosecutions…” How hard is that to understand? The UCMJ and the disgusting Military Commissions Act of 2006 explicitly authorize defendants have counsel. The Supreme Court itself has commented how these prisoners have the rights afforded to them under the Geneva Conventions. Andy knows by now that civilian courts in the last 9 years have sent over 300 terrorist suspects to jail, whereas military commissions have tried three and convicted one. He’s either a bed-wetting lunatic or a hack.
This jackass, apparently writing his posts from under his bed now so the evil terrorists don’t blow up, is just convinced that Afghan dirt farmers, Chinese Uighers, and various Pakistanis all know enough about English AND the American legal system to write their own habeus petitions!?
Is he stupid as well as a dishonest Liz Cheney-esque hack? People like Andy should just advocate the summary execution of everyone in Gitmo. They favor no fair trials (closing in a decade of imprisonment with no judicial proceedings scheduled), no release, no trial in the United States, no right to counsel, and ignore the Hamdan and Boumedine decisions from a right wing Supreme Court.
More likely, Andy should maybe just apologize for using them as a cudgel in his ongoing fight with reality and evil libruls.
God, he’s a pitiful little man
timb (449046) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:27 am“so iamadimwit and AJB are pushing the same politico story. ”
You know, it’s based on a letter. It’s not just a “politico story.” You can find the text of the letter at the last page of the politico link. Maybe try some other way to be dismissive of this?
imdw (a82328) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:29 amAlleged torture, doctor? It was torture.
And, even if some left wing judge who respected the rule of law and all (how left wing!) were to throw that evidence out, perhaps the prosecution could use public statements KSM made where he confessed? Maybe they could use all the proof they used to track him down in the first place (his role in the 9/11 plot is not exactly a secret).
Your faith in our legal system and it’s liberal ways (more Americans locked up than any other country per capita! Damn liberals!) is touching.
timb (449046) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:33 amDon’t try to reason with it, imdw. You know it doesn’t listen or click links or make sense. It’s sole function in life is to be an ass. It’s like a daily affirmation for it.
All it practices is “kill the messenger.” Actual facts and policies make no difference in its mendacious, douchnozzle of a life.
******Seriously, that was so easy. No wonder jdizzle does that. It requires no thought or understand or even reading of the post! Waht a freaking simpleton that little boy is. I wonder if he knows who Andrew McCarty is? Or Liz Cheney? Or Politico?
timb (449046) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:40 amThe predictable Monday morning hate-fest.
JD (8b8f03) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:42 amWhat is with this “jdizzle”? Is that some kind of language taught at ambulance chasing law firms that advertise on TV and bus stop benches? Or are you trying to pass yourself off as some hip urban fellow when you are not?
JD (8b8f03) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:45 amWhat is with this “jdizzle”? Is that some kind of language taught at ambulance chasing law firms that advertise on TV and bus stop benches? Or are you trying to pass yourself off as some hip urban fellow when you are not? Do they teach Snopp Doggy-Dogg during your third year?
JD (8b8f03) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:46 amThe ‘elephant in the room’ is the Levick Group’s public relations campaign, underwritten by the same nations from which these jihadis come from, that painted the jihadis as innocent, despite nearly
ian cormac (9575ac) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:47 amevery day, there are examples that debunk that impression, Abdul Quyum being the most obvious example
I am not a laywer, nor do I play one on TV. So I am asking this out of ignorance; not trying to poke a hole on this argument. The statement:
“After all, the 6th Amendment begins with “All criminal prosecutions…” ”
Is it a criminal prosecution when you capture the enemy during war? Is that how we treated each POW during WWII? Perhaps we want to move our judicial system to a point where we do treat POWs like criminals. (I don’t like that, but it may be the direction some would want to follow)
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:50 amCorwin – Common sense questions like that just show the depths of your bed-wetting racisms.
JD (8b8f03) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:52 am“Is it a criminal prosecution when you capture the enemy during war? Is that how we treated each POW during WWII? Perhaps we want to move our judicial system to a point where we do treat POWs like criminals. (I don’t like that, but it may be the direction some would want to follow)”
That’s the wrong way to look at this. It’s similar to what McCarthy is saying — that in criminal law there’s a requirement that someone have a lawyer but not elsewhere. It focuses on the wrong reason for the constitutional role that is played by having both sides to an important issue get talented lawyers and present their arguments.
imdw (2705a2) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:55 amThe statement cited John Adams’s defense of British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre to argue that “zealous representation of unpopular clients” is an important American tradition.
Do any of these people know any history ? Quick, without consulting Wikipedia, what was the legal government of Boston at the time of the “massacre” ?
The British soldiers panicked during a perfectly legal activity when they were pelted with snowballs, some with rocks in them.
Now tell us what the similarity is between that case and the war crimes of KSM.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:56 am“But there is a substantial difference in volunteering to defend a criminal in court, and volunteering to assist an enemy bent on the destruction of the our nation.”
That line is a bunch of shit. There’s no difference.
And the law, passed by your beloved Republican congress, mandates defense counsel.
These people volunteered because these court cases involve Constitutional issues, you know, little nagging details like the Bill of Rights you’re so fond of quoting here.
I’ve been reading nonsense about conservatives being locked up in concentration camps since Obama’s inauguration.
When the govt can declare any damn person they like an ‘enemy combatant’ and lock them up forever with no rights whatsoever, why do conservatives approve of that? Isn’t that what you people fear most of all?
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
JEA (0ccd61) — 3/8/2010 @ 8:02 amGiving AID and COMFORT to the enemy.
Sounds like treason to me.
J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3) — 3/8/2010 @ 8:07 amtimb writes: “Andy knows by now that civilian courts in the last 9 years have sent over 300 terrorist suspects to jail”
This silly claim copied from the Obama administration has already been shown to be utterly made up. Typical of the bilge we get from timb.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/8/2010 @ 8:10 am“That’s the wrong way to look at this. It’s similar to what McCarthy is saying — that in criminal law there’s a requirement that someone have a lawyer but not elsewhere.”
I was not the one that brought up the 6th amendment.
My question still stands: How do we and did we treat POWs? And secondarily, Are we wanting to move to a system that treats POWs as criminals (if we weren’t doing that in the past)?
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/8/2010 @ 8:14 amDon’t try to reason with it, imdw. You know it doesn’t listen or click links or make sense. It’s sole function in life is to be an ass. It’s like a daily affirmation for it.
“…now let us make haste to the nearest Hampton’s Inn and make torrid, dissident Monkey – Love. E – mail me ASAP at timmahsworld.douche”
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/8/2010 @ 8:35 amSo, Leviticus, you don’t think it’s reasonable for these attorneys to abide by the Constitution?
You don’t think it’s reasonable for these attorneys to get it through their thick heads that the determination of who is and who is not an enemy combatant is an entirely Executive branch function due to the President’s sole authority to conduct war’s authorized by Congress (including the necessary power to detain enemy personnel)?
You don’t think it is reasonable that these attorneys read the Constitution and see that Congress has sole authority to regulate the armed forces and the conduct of war?
That is precisely the problem. These people hoped the general populace is so dumbed down they won’t know the difference between the conduct of war and a criminal case.
You’ve been duped by the fraud I’ve outlined earlier, Leviticus.
Steve (d92bbe) — 3/8/2010 @ 11:41 am“People like Andy should just advocate the summary execution of everyone in Gitmo.”
Nah. First you have a trial in front of a military court where you demonstrate the only things that need to be demonstrated: that they’re enemies and that they were captured out of uniform; then you execute them. The whole process: capture, trial, execution should only take a few weeks.
That’s what Roosevelt and his crew did in WWII. Worked great.
Dave Surls (8e84ea) — 3/8/2010 @ 11:46 amDmac, your cleverness knows no bounds.
As for the guy who pretends smoking doesn’t cause cancer and worships Steve Milloy, care to provide a link to your “debunking”? I trust it’s from Free Republic or Stormfront.
As for jdizzle,
dude, get over your bad self. The nickname is just as clever as “timmy” and has some street cred you haven’t had since you were picking up Kendall Gill’s used towels.
Oh, and jdizzle, I don’t practice personal injury law, so you’ll have to spew your hatred for Plaintiff’s attorneys in another direction.
timb (449046) — 3/8/2010 @ 11:57 amDemonstrating, yet again, your lack of knowledge in this direction. In Quirin members of another state’s armed service were captured on America soil out of uniform…thus, legally, they were outside of the Geneva Conventions and could be shot. It’s similar to what US troops did to SS soldiers during the battle of the Bulge.
Unfortunately for your desire to shoot people without due process, the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan that Gitmo detainees were protected by Article 3 (you can read it in Kennedy’s opinion).
You can’t shoot them without trials, Dave, which is one reason Andy can’t claim they can. The real reason he never would advocate that is because he NEEDS those people to use to scare Americans and to attack the evil libruls.
The last thing Andy wants is an end to Gitmo. He’s made a career impressing people like Dave.
Lastly, the Supreme Court and the MCA guarantee them the right to counsel, just like the UCMJ and the Constitution mandate. Don’t be fooled by bad precedent, Dave or someday you’ll discover Korematsu and write a book about interning A-rabs. Then, Michelle Malkin will sue you and you’ll be sad.
PS Your desire to shoot people who have been convicted of nothing and, in many cases, released for want of evidence does tell us something about you though, Dave. I’m sure I wouldn’t want to go on record with advocating the excutiuon of the innocent, but hey….that’s me.
timb (449046) — 3/8/2010 @ 12:15 pmJesus, you know less about this process than anyone on this board and, since that includes jd, that is saying something!
Steve, read Marbury v madison. Then read Hamdan and Boumedine and get back to us. Your contention about what the “Constitution” says is reminiscent of this guy
timb (449046) — 3/8/2010 @ 12:18 pmIf you’re a simpleton, yes. And if you can’t quite grasp the concept of seperate but equal branches of government. Let me ‘splain.
The Court’s Constitutionally derived authority to review a detainee’s status is limited to a review the actions of the other two branchs.
If Congress has acted within it’s Constitutional authority to “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and
,” “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations,” and “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
And if the President has faithfully executed those laws while acting in his capacity as Commander in Chief, then the courts have no role. The detention is valid.
The Constitution does not provide for the Court to usurp the Executive branch’s authority to determine if the evidence used to determine an individual detainee’s status was sufficient or insufficient.
The Executive branch’s authority and procedures for determining who is and who is not an enemy combatant can only be defined and/or restricted by Congress. Not the Courts.
The Constitution lays that out clearly. What part of “all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” don’t you understand?
Subsequently, only the Executive may execute those laws and regulations pertaining to the detention of enemy personnel.
Those laws and regulations are codified for the Armed forces in AR 190–8/OPNAVINST 3461.6/AFJI 31–304/MCO 3461.1.
Determining who may or may not be detained, and the status of detained personnel, is a necessary and fundamentatl component of the Commander in Chief’s sole responsibility to conduct war.
So, this is how inventing rights for combatants undermines the Constitution.
Because in order to invent these rights and usurp the powers of the other branches, the courts have shredded the Constitution. But then, they’ve been shredding the Constitution for years acting upon the principle of “judicial supremancy” rather than Constitutional supremacy.
Steve (d92bbe) — 3/8/2010 @ 12:19 pmGITMO detainees are protected by Article III re Hamdan…
The Court was wrong – shoot them first!
AD - RtR/OS! (3a472f) — 3/8/2010 @ 12:22 pm“But then, they’ve been shredding the Constitution for years acting upon the principle of “judicial supremancy” rather than Constitutional supremacy.”
It’s all gone downhill since Marbury v. Madison eh?
imdw (2b5cca) — 3/8/2010 @ 12:28 pmI’ve read Marbury v Madison. Marbury v Madison established that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that the Judiciary can not be bound by an unconstitutional law because Congress has no authority to pass such a law.
No branch of government has any powers not derived from the Constitution.
Marbury v Madison has been misused, along with subsequent precedent, to fabricate a legal theory called “judicial supremacy.” Marshall argued no such thing.
The courts also have no authority or powers not derived from the Constitution. But that hasn’t stopped them from saying it they do.
Hence, they have usurped Legislative authority to say “what the law is.” And now Executive authority to see that those laws are faithfully executed.
This is why the judiciary is so dangerous. Read Liu’s book “Fidelity to the Constitution.” It is like reading a book of instructions about sleeping around while married called “Fidelity to your wife.” This is why justices like Sotomayor are so dangerous. Among friends they say that the bench is where policy is made.
Not according to the Constitution. But nobody is reading that anymore. Hence your advice to read Marbury v Madison. As if I haven’t.
To quote Marshall, “what part of the Constitution can I not read?” The precedents of the courts have spun further and further from the Constitution. This is a widely acknowledged joke.
Steve (d92bbe) — 3/8/2010 @ 12:29 pmYeah, actually it has. Steadily. To the point where the idea of limited government is a “quant 19th century notion.”
Steve (d92bbe) — 3/8/2010 @ 12:32 pmCorrection. Goodwin Liu’s book is “Keeping Faith with the Constitution.”
Steve (d92bbe) — 3/8/2010 @ 12:33 pmWell, first of all I don’t think the Gitmo guys deserve a lawyer or constitutional protections. I think they deserve a long, hard interrogation followed by a quick bullet and a shallow grave.
That said, if the powers that be say they get a lawyer, fine. But I have a real problem with those lawyers afterward being put in charge of the home team at Justice. That’s just dumb.
mojo (8096f2) — 3/8/2010 @ 12:43 pm“PS Your desire to shoot people who have been convicted of nothing”
Something about this…
“First you have a trial in front of a military court where you demonstrate the only things that need to be demonstrated: that they’re enemies and that they were captured out of uniform; then you execute them.”
…you don’t understand? I just said that you try them in front of a military court and THEN execute them (hopefully after they’ve been found guilty), you blithering idiot.
Dave Surls (8e84ea) — 3/8/2010 @ 12:49 pmYeah, the Court was wrong. Because article III of the Geneva Convention states:
Tell me, were the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan civil wars? Because that’s what Article III refers to.
Steve (d92bbe) — 3/8/2010 @ 12:55 pm98, Dave, Don’t get steamed. timb hates America and anyone who defends it. timb celebrates each and every attack upon America as he thinks we deserve it.
I think timb ought to be shipped to Osama C.O.D.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/8/2010 @ 1:01 pmSorry Steve, I was quoting our ConLaw expert, timb:
“…Unfortunately for your desire to shoot people without due process, the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan that Gitmo detainees were protected by Article 3 (you can read it in Kennedy’s opinion)…”
But, my comment re SCOTUS stands.
AD - RtR/OS! (3a472f) — 3/8/2010 @ 1:21 pm“Unfortunately for your desire to shoot people without due process, the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan that Gitmo detainees were protected by Article 3 (you can read it in Kennedy’s opinion).”
1. You’re correct about one thing. I do have a desire to see Taliban and Al Qaida terrorists shot down like dogs on the battlefield, with no due process other than lock, load and open fire. That being said, if they get captured then they’re entitled to due process per the laws and customs of war.
2. Common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions doesn’t apply. Common article 3 only applies to armed conflicts that aren’t international. It’s common article 2 that applies in this case…and that’s true no matter how many times the SCOTUS lies about it.
3. Even if common article 3 did apply, there is nothing in common article 3 that precludes trying captured spies, saboteurs, terrorists or guerrillas in front of a court martial and thenm executing their sorry asses for being caught fighting out of uniform, therefore what the idiots on the SCOTUS said about article 3 is irrelevant to the subject under discussion.
Dave Surls (8e84ea) — 3/8/2010 @ 1:27 pmSometimes a Supreme Court Justice (in the case of Kennedy, more than sometimes) is Dumberer Than a Sack of Andrews.
You have to remember he was confirmed by a Democrat Majority Senate.
AD - RtR/OS! (3a472f) — 3/8/2010 @ 1:32 pmSorry, Leviticus, you are no longer in the aphrael class of liberals. As far as I’m concerned, you are in the imdw class of liberals, and there you are likely to stay, judging by your recent diatribes and lack of logic.
Yes, I’m afraid Levi was just putting on an act in pretending to be an intelligent liberal. Now he’s asking questions and refusing to hear any answers to them.
Subotai (589715) — 3/8/2010 @ 1:55 pmThey’re not working on the matters of their former clients. That would violate their duties to their former as well as current clients.
They are working on the matters of their (not-so)former clients, you illiterate half-wit.
Subotai (589715) — 3/8/2010 @ 2:00 pmThe ruling in Hamdan was complete crap, by the way. The court simply decided that the Geneva convention must apply, apparently beforehand.
Since they couldn’t argure it was one thing, a war between signatories (article II) then by default it must be the other (article III).
That was the only way they could invent a role for themselves.
Article III, (D) prohibits: The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Admitting this was not a conflict envisioned or covered by the Geneva convention was not an option.
Hence the court rationalized that since al Qaeda was not a nation, the conflict with that particular organization made the conflict with them a “conflict not of an international nature.”
This, frankly, amounts to saying “Article III applies just because we say so.”
So here we are. Wherever we fight terrorists, as long as the terrorists are within the borders of a country that is a signatory to the Geneva convention, the court has assigned to them
than uniformed, lawful combatants.
Or unlawful combatants, associated with the armed forces of a signatory, in a conflict between two signatories.
Again, this is how the legal profession and the courts undermine national security.
Steve (d92bbe) — 3/8/2010 @ 2:02 pm“They are working on the matters of their (not-so)former clients, you illiterate half-wit.”
If they attempted to work on the matters of their former clients, the counsel to their former clients would have them disqualified. I think you’re not realizing that someone can go to teh government, and work in an area of regulation related to the one in which they had clients, and not work on the same exact cases that they had clients in. Thus, say, a utility company lawyer can go to the EPA and work on clean air act issues, but they can’t work on cases that their former client was a party to.
“You have to remember he was confirmed by a Democrat Majority Senate.”
So was Thomas.
imdw (872aa2) — 3/8/2010 @ 2:16 pmNot now. Not that we have Cook County corruption writ large in Caracas-on-the-Potomac.
It’s the Chicago way. Or, better, the Philadelphia way. If you have a former counsel ot your client on the inside you can get a case taken care of in your favor quicker than you can say “Black Panthers voter intimidation.”
In addition to military detention, I take it you’re also unfamiliar with how the world works these days, imdw.
Steve (d92bbe) — 3/8/2010 @ 2:23 pm“In addition to military detention, I take it you’re also unfamiliar with how the world works these days, imdw.”
Yes. What’s the latest on Obama detainee policy? How bush-like is it?
imdw (e6c812) — 3/8/2010 @ 2:27 pmI take it, then, you want to change the subject from your completely naive statement about how, if an gov. attorney were to “work on the matters of their former clients, the counsel to their former clients would have them disqualified.”
As Chicago Mayor Richard Daley put it, what’s the point of going into politics if you can’t help out family and friends.
On the matter of military detention, I’m afraid there’s not enough time in the day to bring you up to speed on that.
Steve (7d8b00) — 3/8/2010 @ 2:47 pmIf they attempted to work on the matters of their former clients, the counsel to their former clients would have them disqualified.
Only if “the counsel to their former clients” were as stupid as you seem to be. if somebody sympathetic to your case has an influential government position which can impact on your case, are you really going to try to get them disqualified?
Subotai (589715) — 3/8/2010 @ 2:56 pmYeah, DRJ. Liberals like Ken Starr and Ted Olson need to quit complaining. Worse yet, Politico reports there are even more outraged liberals, who signed a statement against the McCarthyesque attacks:
The signers include former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, John Ashcroft’s No. 2, and Peter Keisler, who served as acting attorney general during President Bush’s second term. They also include several lawyers who dealt directly with detainee policy: Matthew Waxman and Charles “Cully” Stimson, who each served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs; Daniel Dell’Orto, who was acting general counsel for the Department of Defense; and Bradford Berenson, a prominent Washington lawyer who worked on the issues as an associate White House counsel during President Bush’s first term.
Damn liberals. Who are they to defend the American system of jurisprudence?
Myron (6a93dd) — 3/8/2010 @ 3:00 pmHence the court rationalized that since al Qaeda was not a nation, the conflict with that particular organization made the conflict with them a “conflict not of an international nature.”
Yes, that was one of the more demented parts of that ruling. We have troops on the ground fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places, but the conflict is not international? Even by the standards of SCOTUS, that’s blatant sophistry.
Subotai (589715) — 3/8/2010 @ 3:01 pm“I take it, then, you want to change the subject from your completely naive statement about how, if an gov. attorney were to “work on the matters of their former clients, the counsel to their former clients would have them disqualified.””
No not at all. I want to talk about how Obama is getting former human rights lawyers to now be enablers of his detainee policy. You’d think this would be a victory for the national security crowd.
But you imagine that they are in there to do favors for their former clients? Dear god have you any idea how DOJ operates?
imdw (490521) — 3/8/2010 @ 4:05 pmYou should not use God’s name in such a manner. Lightning, and all ….
JD (8b8f03) — 3/8/2010 @ 4:13 pm“No not at all. I want to talk about how Obama is getting former human rights lawyers to now be enablers of his detainee policy.”
imdw – The detainee policy through which he tried to get (read bribe) other countries to take the detainees and with all but a few exceptions, everybody said no dice, why don’t you keep them? Is that the detainee policy of which you are speaking?
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/8/2010 @ 4:31 pmO am impressed that timb and imdw completely ignored or were too stupid to understand the points that McCarthy made in his article – that the detainees are entitled to and will be provided with counsel as any individual coming under the jurisdiction of our criminal justice system. For some reason they believe he has said something different. With respect to the habeas process, he contends they have no rights to be treated any differently than anyone else in our criminal justice system.
I think what gets the hackles of people like timb and imdw up is that by pointing out lawyers voluntarily helping alleged terrorists and enemy combatants, you are exposing core beliefs of Democrats and progressives to public scrutiny – they don’t like that.
There was only a minor deluge of crap examining the background of Bush Justice Department appointees, so the hypocrisy is not totally deafening.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/8/2010 @ 4:39 pmAgain, this is how the legal profession and the courts undermine national security.
Exactly.
Too many people don’t know that courts were invented by liberals to undermine America.
jeffgsucks (90bd00) — 3/8/2010 @ 4:42 pm“Politico reports there are even more outraged liberals, who signed a statement against the McCarthyesque attacks:”
Myron – Where were those damned concerned legal statesmen defending a lawyer’s ability to practice as he saw fit when Yoo and Bybee were being scape goated and CIA officers were being threatened with prosecution for following their advice? Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/8/2010 @ 4:42 pm“Dear god have you any idea how DOJ operates?”
imdw – If anyone here doesn’t, it’s clear that they won’t learn from you.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/8/2010 @ 4:45 pmI want to talk about how Obama is getting former human rights lawyers to now be enablers of his detainee policy. You’d think this would be a victory for the national security crowd.
You might think that. But then, you’re a gibbering lunatic with a head full of snakes.
Subotai (589715) — 3/8/2010 @ 4:51 pmdaley: I don’t know. Ask the GOP. I don’t know why they didn’t defend their own in that case, but defended their own in this case.
All I know is that I’m not thrilled about lawyers, but I do like our system of laws, and this Cheney/McCarthy crap is a direct attack on the system. It’s not a left or right thing, as illustrated by the criticism Liz Cheney’s group has received from both sides.
Our legal system is imperfect but still the best. We shouldn’t let fear cripple it. Now THAT would be handing bin Laden a big victory. THAT would be aiding the terrorists in accomplishing their goal of destroying freedom.
Myron (6a93dd) — 3/8/2010 @ 4:57 pmMyron – Criticism is fine. I’m all for it. I don’t think Liz Cheney is out of bounds at all. We’d want to know about mob defense lawyers in the Justice Department, drug cartel lawyers in the Justice Department, why not Al Qaeda defense lawyers.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/8/2010 @ 5:04 pmMyron – how is criticizing the role of lawyers who advocated for the immediate release of AQ enemy combatants by private citizens a direct attack on our system of jurisprudence? Hyperbole often?
JD (1910a1) — 3/8/2010 @ 5:07 pmDissent used to be the highest form of patriotism.
JD (1910a1) — 3/8/2010 @ 5:08 pmJD @124 – I didn’t focus on Myron’s direct attack BS. Total crap. He says it’s not a right/left thing, but when the right does it, it’s a direct attack. When the left did it during the Bush Admin. I suppose it was defending the Constitution or something. What a two faced git.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/8/2010 @ 5:12 pm“You should not use God’s name in such a manner. Lightning, and all ….”
Oh yes I’ll be waiting.
“O am impressed that timb and imdw completely ignored or were too stupid to understand the points that McCarthy made in his article – that the detainees are entitled to and will be provided with counsel as any individual coming under the jurisdiction of our criminal justice system”
No I don’t ignore that point — I said how McCarthy’s focus on what is constitutionally required — what is provided to criminal defendants, is a silly point.
imdw (2b5cca) — 3/8/2010 @ 5:15 pmI do like our system of laws, and this Cheney/McCarthy crap is a direct attack on the system.
Bullshit. In no way, shape or form are Cheney and McCarthy “attacking our system of laws”.
There is nothing in our system of laws which says that its a good thing to hate your own country, as these defence lawyers do.
There is also nothing in our system of laws which says that the defence lawyers for terrorists should be given government jobs dealing with terrorist related matters.
Subotai (69b89a) — 3/8/2010 @ 5:36 pmWith Eric “No controlling legal authority/Rich Pardon” Holder in charge? Like a whorehouse.
Let’s see; Kirsten Clarke of the NAACP legal defense fund is demanding the DoJ drop charges of against the NBPP party.
At key points in the case (per the White House visitor log) White House Deputy Counsel Cassandra Butts, a former attorney for the NAACP legal defense fund, meets with senior DoJ political appointees Thomas Perelli and Loretta King.
After several of these meetings, King asked for the Voting section to review the case. Three times she made this request.
About a case in which the defendants were in default as of 2 April 2009, after the DoJ notified the court the defendants hadn’t responded.
Such as at least twice on 1 May 2009, the day the DoJ was to file its request for a default judgement. After the final meeting, the DoJ trial team in PHilly asked for an extention instead of the the request for a default judgement.
The court gave them until 15 May.
The final meeting at the White House with Butts was May 13. The day Perelli and King overruled the Voting section attorneys and ordered them to dismiss the case.
Sure looks shady. Coincidence? We’d know if the Holder DoJ wasn’t stonewalling Congress (no suprise there) and the Civil Rights commission investigations.
It’s the Chicago way, baby. Obama learned it from Daley. And as Daley said, what’s the point of being in government if you can’t help out your family and friends.
Steve (0f440e) — 3/8/2010 @ 5:37 pmI said how McCarthy’s focus on what is constitutionally required — what is provided to criminal defendants, is a silly point.
Of course you think that it is a “silly point” because you think that the Constitution is silly and that the important thing is for the lawyers bringing cases to help shape the silly Constitution into something better.
Subotai (69b89a) — 3/8/2010 @ 5:40 pm“Of course you think that it is a “silly point” because you think that the Constitution is silly and that the important thing is for the lawyers bringing cases to help shape the silly Constitution into something better.”
Uh. Or the constitution gets interpreted in adversarial cases — to which two sides having good lawyers is important.
imdw (842182) — 3/8/2010 @ 6:30 pmCan you imagine an idiot so blinkered that he wants to argue an almost 250 year old precedent! Steve is such an expert on Con law, he knows Marbury was wrongly decided and Hamdan was wrongly decided. You know, John Yoo, errr, Steve, since the President is a damn dictator during wartime (according to you), why do you speak ill of Obama. Your interpretation made him King, so bow.
PS Could you give us a list of Supreme Court decision that were rightly decided, since you know, you’re the authority and all
timb (8f04c0) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:04 pm“Or the constitution gets interpreted in adversarial cases — to which two sides having good lawyers is important.”
imdw – This is more like it. Not a silly point after all. You’re just dissing military lawyers.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:19 pmYou’re the blinkered idiot. I never said Marbury v Madison was wrongly decided.
Marshall got it right. We have a system of Constitutional supremacy.
It is the subsequent misuse of Marbury v Madison to fabricate a judicial theory of judicial supremacy that has gutted the Constitution.
Learn to read, idiot.
Steve (7d8b00) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:20 pmtimb – Have you passed the Bar yet?
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:28 pmNotice that in timb’s special math, 207 years equals “almost” 250 years. Glad timb is the constitutional law expert that Steve isn’t …
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:35 pmIt’s always interesting when trolls run amok, but not very. The simple facts are, for simple non-lawyers like me, that these people are not American citizens and were not captured in the US. Military tribunals, like those at Nuremberg, will serve to provide as close an approximation as our Constitutional system could ask for. Bringing them to the US would complicate the matter by raising the issue of rights of US citizens and we don’t need that. Obama, for political reasons, promised to close Gitmo. He didn’t know anything about what he was doing but that is not unique. Fortunately, adults seem to have advised him to stop and consider if he really wants to go down this road to foolishness.
The issue of the DoJ lawyers is significant because there seems to have been some unholy haste to represent these terrorists by leftist radicals who know nothing about military law and don’t want to know. That is OK but they are now deeply burrowed into the DoJ. I am uncomfortable with this sort of thing. The leftist radicals among us seem to have a strong attraction to education. If they now get into law enforcement, we will have lost another bulwark of civilization.
I saw an essay on this the other day. It had a point about how the radicals seem to like their comforts and the rule of law that keeps them same as they undermine it.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:53 pmOr the constitution gets interpreted in adversarial cases — to which two sides having good lawyers is important.
If only the Nazis had trained some good lawyers, they could have won WWII. An odd argument for a Jew to make.
Subotai (69b89a) — 3/8/2010 @ 8:14 pmLet me spell it out for that poor dumb bastard, timb.
Earlier, someone mentioned the Hamdan decision. I stated earlier that the Hamdan decision was a load of crap, because the USSC basically presumed that armed conflict with al Qaeda is covered by the Geneva convention. It specifically rejected the notion that there are conflicts the Geneva convention did not envision.
Ergo, if the conflict is not an international conflict between signatories (covered under article II of the convention) then it must be a covered by article III.
The court rationalized (you can not dignify what they did with the term “reasoned”) that since al Qaeda is not a nation, and we were fighting them within the border of a signatory to the treaty (actually within the borders of several signatories simultaneously [which makes the characterization of the conflict with al-Qaeda “not of an international nature” ridiculous]) then al Qaeda combatants must be protected by article III of the convention.
The problem is, nobody ever understood article III to mean that at all. Not the people who wrote it, not the President who signed it, not the Senate who ratified it. Nobody.
Article III is intended to pertain to, and is universally held to pertain to, civil war.
What the court did was to alter the Geneva convention. By redefining what is meant by “conflict not of an international nature occuring within the territory of one of the High Contracting powers” to mean something quite different than a civil war (the universally understood meaning, the meaning the Senate had when it ratified it) we are now bound by a treaty that no one ratified.
I’d like someone to point out where, in the Constitution, the USSC gets the authority to redefine treaties.
It doesn’t give them any such authority. But that no longer matters. We no longer live in Justice Marshall’s world. We live in a world where the Constitution is irrelevant.
The courts have granted themselves the power to “say what the law means.” And the other branches acquiesce. That is judicial supremacy.
Which is a far cry from what the Constitution actually provides.
The Bush admin issued this mealy mouthed statement:
Well, Marshall’s objection to an unconstitutional act of Congress applies to this unconstitutional ruling by the court.
If the court wants to redefine treaties, then the President should not have enforced it unless the Senate was willing to vote to ratify a treaty with this new, unprecedented understanding of article III.
That’s what would have happened if we still had 3 equal branches of government.
But we don’t. Our entire system has been bastardized.
Steve (7d8b00) — 3/8/2010 @ 8:16 pmSteve – I think that explanation is going to melt timb’s brain circuitry. Thank you.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/8/2010 @ 8:35 pm“The issue of the DoJ lawyers is significant because there seems to have been some unholy haste to represent these terrorists by leftist radicals who know nothing about military law and don’t want to know.”
The people representing detainees went to the supreme court and won. I think more than once. This is not really about them ‘knowing nothing.’
“If only the Nazis had trained some good lawyers, they could have won WWII. An odd argument for a Jew to make.”
Say what?
imdw (017d51) — 3/8/2010 @ 8:42 pmSay what?
Huh? Did you say something?
Subotai (69b89a) — 3/8/2010 @ 8:55 pmYeah. What? Nazis? Jews? Lawyers? What?
imdw (017d51) — 3/8/2010 @ 9:03 pm“The people representing detainees went to the supreme court and won.”
imdw – Their military lawyers?
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/8/2010 @ 9:24 pmThey had won nothing that could not, and should not have been undone by the other two branches of government. Quite easily.
Take the Hamdan decision in which the court said the defendants were protected by article III of the Geneva convention.
Treaties don’t exist so courts can play scrabble with them. They create rights and obligations among nations. Note: they do not exist so the USSC can create rights for individuals.
A simple sense of the Senate resolution, stating that in ratifying the treaty it intended only to obligate the US to observe article III within our own borders, article II in all cases outside our borders, and to expect the same from all of the other signatories, would have put everything back in its rightful place.
It would have once again made the Geneva convention an incentive for observing the Hague convention. And a deterrent against violating it.
Those clients of those traitorous attorneys not only spit on the Constitution, they absolutely shredded the Hague convention.
What the USSC didn’t consider in its vacuous decision was the incredible step backward it was taking in the centuries long effort to reduce the danger to and suffering of non-combatants during war.
Historically, those showing respect for the laws of warfare were entitled to more priveliges and protection when captured than those showing contempt for the rules of war. The USSC, by gratuitously and with no foundation whatsoever in international law, treaty, or custom extending to terrorists the protections of article III and the US Constitution have perverted the meaning of the Geneva convention. It was designed not only to protect, but to punish.
It they had not issued the insane Hamdan decision, then these prisoners would have simply been persons not entitled to the protection of the Geneva convention. As was the original intent of the convention; i.e. not to protect those who will not abide by the laws of armed conflict.
But since these traitorous lawyers and the over-reaching courts care nothing about undermining the Constitution, perverting the Geneva convention, rendering the Hague convention meaningless, I doubt very much they care about some Afghan women and children being used as human shields by unlawful combatants.
Steve (7d8b00) — 3/9/2010 @ 12:52 am“imdw – Their military lawyers?”
Definately not the fired ones. But I looked at boumedine and hamdan. In both of those cases the attorney of record of the party was a private attorney.
imdw (19cd35) — 3/9/2010 @ 5:05 amThe Court starting with Hamdi, ignored or misappliedprecedent, ignored the factual record, (It was Thomas’s dissent that included the details of Saleh al Ajmi, the most recent innocent detainee,who blew himself up in Mosul, that very spring, a client of Covington and Burling, Holder’s firm. So the question is there anyone at Main Justice that is on our side, doesn’t look like it
ian cormac (9575ac) — 3/9/2010 @ 5:25 amSteve #139, #145 – quite in depth. Thanks. As I have stated, I’m no lawyer; but I do grasp the significance of how over-reaching the USSC has taken things. In many ways, the other two branches have also stepped beyond the bounds set by the Constitution. We seem to just sit back and take it. Since none of the three arms are trying to curb each other, how will balance and control be returned?
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/9/2010 @ 5:35 amLawyers write the law, argue the law, rule on the law, establish who can and cannot be a lawyer, determine what is deemed necessary to be a lawyer; the list goes on. With unlimited power and control, where are the checks on this profession?
Most assuredly, it only took a very few number of lawyers to bastardized our system.
The title of this blog is all too real – and applies to the entire profession as far as I’m concerned.
Another tactical victory for imdw and his heroes.
They need to be called to account for the fact that they have essentially destroyed the Geneva convention.
The convention is widely misrepresented (no surpise) as a quid pro quo. “We need to treat their captured fighters well so they’ll treat ours well.”
WRONG!
The purpose of the Geneva convention is to provide privileges, benefits, and protections to captured personnel that adhere to the Hague convention, which are unavailable to those who do not.
What these dirtbags representing clients at Gitmo did, with a compliant and shortsided court did, was to blur the distinction. Worse, they inverted the relationship. Lawful combatants will now have fewer privileges, etc., than unlawful combatants.
Al Qaeda isn’t the first enemy we’ve faced in the field that thought tactics, techniques, and weapons banned by the laws of war must have been banned because they particularly effective. And they aren’t the first to use those tactics, techniques, and weapons against us thinking that would give them a unique advantage.
But they are the first we have rewarded for doing so.
And they were correct. In that aspect they did outsmart us. Violating the laws of war does give them a unique advantage. Elevated status under the Geneva convention, Consititutional rights, and access to US courts.
Given the incentives provided by our legal system, you’d have to be an absolute fool to fight us in accordance with the Hague convention. Better, cheaper, and smarter to use un-uniformed proxies.
They can thank people like our AG for that. And their cheerleaders imdw.
I’d be ashamed to be part of the crowd they can thank for that.
Steve (3ea876) — 3/9/2010 @ 9:38 amwe all have a right to good defence and we also have the right to represent are self but what i dont get that the judge looks at you crazy if yo dont hire a lawyer whos the won to watch not the lawyers its the one lookin at your attorney
john a plaza (756e2c) — 3/9/2010 @ 6:54 pmGlenn Reynolds commented, “But imagine that John Ashcroft had stocked the Civil Rights Division with appointees who had done extensive pro bono work for white supremacists. Would people’s positions be the same?”
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/9/2010 @ 9:45 pmAt what point is it clear that the Gitmo Bar is on the other side.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/14/2010 @ 6:08 pmThat’s disgusting, SPQR. May they reap what they’ve sown.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/14/2010 @ 6:41 pmDRJ, disgusting isn’t the word that came to my mind.
But it will do as a first approximation.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/14/2010 @ 6:48 pmI hope they put the docs they obtained through their FOIA requests up on their website.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/14/2010 @ 7:00 pmSo a girl beat Antonio Gonzalez and his Justice Department and Donald Rumsfeld and his Defense Department? I would not call it disgusting, either.
nk (db4a41) — 3/14/2010 @ 7:03 pmHis name is Alberto Gonzales and you’re right. Disgusting isn’t the right word. It’s more like treason.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/14/2010 @ 7:06 pmThat’s what you take from that piece, nk?
I thought more of you than that. I’ll not repeat that mistake.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/14/2010 @ 7:09 pm“So a girl beat Antonio Gonzalez and his Justice Department and Donald Rumsfeld and his Defense Department?”
nk – I thought it was 400+ lawyers against the DOD according to the article, but read it as you wish.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/14/2010 @ 7:12 pmIs there anything that can be done to the likes of those discussed in SPQR’s link in 152?
It is very frustrating and sad that those who are aiding in the killing of innocent people will not be called to account, and are so blind that they are probably beyond the reach of their own consciences.
And people like this are welcomed into service in the DOJ…
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/14/2010 @ 7:14 pmI don’t know how telling prisoners what tortures to be prepared for, and that they do not have to endure feeding tubes, is treason.
nk (db4a41) — 3/14/2010 @ 7:16 pmIf you tell me that there is any group of lawyers out there with more money and more lawyers than the DOD and the DOJ ….
nk (db4a41) — 3/14/2010 @ 7:19 pmI believe nk has a high level of concern over what governmental officials run amok can do. I think he is concerned that many are as trustworthy as the DA in the Duke LaCrosse case.
I could be wrong, and would be happy to have nk explain for himself.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/14/2010 @ 7:22 pmThank you, MD in Philly, but no. I simply refuse to blame “traitors and profiteers” for the incompetence of the Bush administration which abandoned tested and proven principles of law when dealing with prisoners of war and unlawful combatants, made things up as it went along for the sake of some chimerical expediency, and lost or surrendered every time it was challenged in an American court.
nk (db4a41) — 3/14/2010 @ 7:27 pm“the Bush administration which abandoned tested and proven principles of law when dealing with prisoners of war and unlawful combatants”
nk – You mean tried and tested principles such as just holding them until hostilities are over, which became impossible due to the actions of the Gitmo bar and defective SC decisions leading to habeas petitions and appeals and the like.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/14/2010 @ 7:34 pmThat’s simply fatuous, nk. The “tested and proven principles” were extraordinary rendition.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/14/2010 @ 7:42 pmI (started to write) my post at #163 before 161 and 162 appeared.
From my point of view as a non-lawyer, there were a lot of things the Bush admin did not due to further their own cause in my opinion
but
I still hold up to scorn those who think the average soldier at Gitmo is a bigger threat to the world than the typical terrorist guarded there.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/14/2010 @ 7:43 pm“If you tell me that there is any group of lawyers out there with more money and more lawyers than the DOD and the DOJ ….”
nk – Do happen to know the JAG budget for Gitmo or are you gracefully including the entire DOD?
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/14/2010 @ 7:50 pmnk:
I don’t know how outing covert CIA agents to an admitted enemy of the United States isn’t treason:
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/14/2010 @ 9:02 pmHas Lynne Stewart weighed in on this yet?
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/14/2010 @ 9:12 pmi agree: they should have been shot out of hand upon capture, as authorized under the Laws of Land Warfare. perfectly legal, and no room for any legitimate complaint from any quarter.
no muss, no fuss, and no whining after the fact by the overly sensitive who’d rather die then defend themselves. the loss of intel would have been worth it, propaganda-wise.
the “strong horse” and all that.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/14/2010 @ 9:22 pm