AG Holder Protects His DOJ Kids
[Guest post by DRJ]
Attorney General Eric Holder answered questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee today but he courageously refused to tattle on his DOJ kids:
“During his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder became noticeably angry when asked about the controversy over Justice Department employees who represented Guantanamo Bay detainees before joining the Obama administration. Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, who last year asked Holder for the names of those lawyers and the detainees whom they represented, said he still has not received a complete answer from Holder. Grassley seemed irritated that the Justice Department had confirmed to Fox News the names of some of those lawyers while not responding fully to the Judiciary Committee. “My inquiry seeks to understand who is advising you on these decisions, given the serious impact these issues have on our national security,” Grassley said. So he asked a “very simple yes or no question” — would Holder supply the information?
No, said the attorney general. “With all due respect, senator, and I know that your request comes from what I would call a good place, yours was an honorable request,” Holder began. “There has been has been an attempt to take the names of people who represented Guantanamo detainees and to drag their reputations through the mud. There were reprehensible ads used to question their patriotism.”
“I’m not going to allow these kids — I’m not going to be part of that effort,” Holder continued. “And so, with all due respect, their names are out there now. The positions that they hold are out there. That’s all been placed in the public record. I am simply not going to be a part of that effort … I will not allow their reputations to be besmirched. I will not be a part of that.”
Two of the DOJ lawyers have already been identified. One is 40-year-old Neal Katyal and another is Jennifer Daskal, described as “a couple of years younger.” Democratic Senator Richard Durbin praised Holder for his “courageous position” in refusing to name the remaining kids.
— DRJ
So where’s his contempt citation? I didn’t hear him claim the fifth? I’m the AG. I don’t have to answer is SO wrong on SO many levels. More of that transparency.
Bill M (eea4b1) — 4/14/2010 @ 8:16 pmWe’ve come a long way from ‘no man is above the law’. Now, if you defend terrorists, you’re just a kid who needs to be hidden?
I think everyone’s entitled to a zealous defender in court. I also think it’s fair to look at conflicts of interest. It’s a political issue worth discussing if people who defended terrorists are now prosecuting them. Whether you think that’s cool or not, the Senate is entitled to the truth.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/14/2010 @ 8:31 pmTransparency apparently means different things to different people.
JD (18e145) — 4/14/2010 @ 8:37 pmI’m sure the NYT or the LAT is planning on doing some investigative journalism and revealing their names…
Right?
Patricia (fa8e06) — 4/14/2010 @ 8:45 pmPatricia – The LAT is still busy hiding videotapes of Barcky with Khalidi.
JD (18e145) — 4/14/2010 @ 8:54 pmI don’t know when looking out for prisoners became immoral, illegal and fattening.
Seriously. They are prisoners. They are in your power. The only power I have over you on their behalf is the appeal to your conscience and humanity. Sigh.
nk (db4a41) — 4/14/2010 @ 8:55 pmThey volunteered to represent avowed enemies of our country. And now they are at Justice. Nope, it is just silly to want to know anything about that. Silly, I tell you.
JD (18e145) — 4/14/2010 @ 9:09 pmIt was not the terrorists who made us like them. It was our own fear and cowardice.
nk (db4a41) — 4/14/2010 @ 9:14 pmnk:
I understand the point you’re trying to make, so I want to try to explain why I disagree.
Holder said:
“I’m not going to allow these kids — I’m not going to be part of that effort,” Holder continued. “And so, with all due respect, their names are out there now. The positions that they hold are out there. That’s all been placed in the public record. I am simply not going to be a part of that effort … I will not allow their reputations to be besmirched. I will not be a part of that.”
Lawyers often have to defend clients who do bad things. That’s their job.
But when you accept a political appointment in the Department of Justice, you have to be prepared for the consequences of your prior associations. That doesn’t change in regards to which party is in power.
The furor over the Bush Department of Justice wasn’t that long ago. I know you haven’t forgotten.
Holder himself said the names are public. He could have made the whole issue moot by simply saying: “Here are the names” and adding exactly what you said.
He doesn’t make the matter better by condescending — not to Congress — but by condescending to them.
Believe it or not, most Americans have a strong sense of justice, even those of us on the right.
If Holder, and the lawyers said, they were acting in good faith according to the laws of the land, they would be better off.
But, I think they are acting more on a projection of how they believe the political opposition will react. Sometimes, you have to separate the political from the people. It usually works out for the better.
Ag80 (f67beb) — 4/14/2010 @ 9:20 pmthe terrorists should be processed under the accepted standards of the Laws of Land Warfare, which no one has challenged.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/14/2010 @ 9:20 pmthey are entitled to a field tribunal, and, upon judgment that they meet the criteria of “unlawful combatant” they can be executed.
the treasonous scum that represented the illegal combatants, at the expense of their own country and the fellow citizens they endangered with their acts, should simply be dropped off wherever the terrorists in question were captured, so they can live in the society that they have been defending.
Care to expand on this statement?
JD (18e145) — 4/14/2010 @ 9:25 pmOh well, I was trying to be nice.
Ag80 (f67beb) — 4/14/2010 @ 9:25 pmthe terrorists should be processed under the accepted standards of the Laws of Land Warfare, which no one has challenged.
they are entitled to a field tribunal, and, upon judgment that they meet the criteria of “unlawful combatant” they can be executed.
the treasonous scum that represented the illegal combatants, at the expense of their own country and the fellow citizens they endangered with their acts, should simply be dropped off wherever the terrorists in question were captured, so they can live in the society that they have been defending.
Comment by redc1c4 — 4/14/2010 @ 9:20 pm :
There’s a difference between what you can do and what you should do. And the should is what makes America unique.
nk (db4a41) — 4/14/2010 @ 9:26 pmI am told that we have 5,500 nuclear warheads. Why don’t we blanket the Earth with them and then we will be totally safe.
nk (db4a41) — 4/14/2010 @ 9:32 pmnk:
Not from Godzilla.
Ag80 (f67beb) — 4/14/2010 @ 9:36 pmnk,
Where do you draw the line? Should we send defense counsel to forward bases or even to the front lines of the battlefield?
DRJ (daa62a) — 4/14/2010 @ 9:38 pm“Should we send defense counsel to forward bases or even to the front lines of the battlefield?”
DRJ – Only after we Mirandize the prisoners on the battlefield.
daleyrocks (1feed5) — 4/14/2010 @ 10:01 pmwhat we should do is wage unrelenting war against those who would destroy our society, legal system and all, so that we may continue to have esoteric discussions regarding arcane matters of law, semantics, intent, etc…..all in a society that protects and defends the different, the unusual, and the arcane.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/14/2010 @ 10:11 pmthe scum Holder is defending went out of their way to protect those that would destroy all of that and who would just as soon cut your head (your personal head, not some vague amorphous generic “they” head), off as look at you simply for the crime of being kaffir. they would cut my head off too, given the chance, but my personal lawyers are Dan Wesson and John Browning and, as such, there would be an immediate filing in objection, should they offer that motion. 😀
nk-
We’ve set free many who were deemed “safe” to let go, only to have a significant number take up arms again. I assume those remaining are judged to be guilty and the most dangerous. I think nearly everyone here wants the individuals at Gitmo to have adequate representation, and there is no faulting those who did it out of a sense of obligation to uphold basic standards of justice.
That said, we know that some counsel were not only representing their clients but assisting them in continuing activities that were harmful to the US cause, be it by relaying communications or whatever.
Those who served out of a sense of justice deserve our gratitude; those who think the US got what it had coming and are trying to assist our enemies have no business being in the DOJ.
And unless Holder claims some type of executive privilege, who is he to not comply with a request from the Senate?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/14/2010 @ 10:24 pmDemocrat age logic:
If you are a 14-year-old pregnant girl, you are old enough to get an abortion without your parents’ consent.
JVW (c1f2b8) — 4/14/2010 @ 11:11 pmIf you are a 16-year-old Californian, you ought to be allowed to vote in elections (provided of course you can be swayed by the Democrat’s message).
If you are a 19-year-old who courageously volunteered to serve our country, you were young and stupid and only did so because you lacked career opportunities.
If you are a 20-year-old with a smoking habit, you ought to be prevented from purchasing cigarettes until you are 21.
If you are a 25-year-old without health insurance, you ought to qualify for your parent’s program as a “child.”
If you are a 40-year-old DOJ lawyer, you a just a “kid” and shouldn’t be accountable for making a choice to defend a terrorist located at Guantanamo Bay.
Should have written: If you are a 14-year-old pregnant girl, you are old enough to get an abortion without your parents’ consent or even their knowledge.
JVW (c1f2b8) — 4/14/2010 @ 11:13 pmThat should be a post, JVW.
DRJ (daa62a) — 4/14/2010 @ 11:25 pmCardinal Rule of Government:
What you tax you get less of; and,
What you subsidize, you get more of.
So far, we seem to be doing a poor job of “taxing” terrorism, and a bang-up job of “subsidizing” it.
Then, there’s that pit of vipers known as the CIA.
AD - RtR/OS! (4a0d27) — 4/14/2010 @ 11:49 pmAnother childish assertation from a “kid”. Sounds like you should join the Obama administration.
fgmorley (324ca0) — 4/15/2010 @ 1:32 amOr the NYTimes.
fgmorley (324ca0) — 4/15/2010 @ 1:34 amIt was not the terrorists who made us like them.
Care to expand on this statement?
Comment by JD — 4/14/2010 @ 9:25 pm
I think we have become mean and hateful, JD. Scared, too.
nk (db4a41) — 4/15/2010 @ 4:22 amfgmorley, I assume you know that it is the CIA’s war with DoD that is providing the information to the NY Times on the covert DoD people in Afghanistan. It began when Rumsfeld could not get good intelligence from CIA in Iraq and started a DoD intelligence shop. Obama has allowed Gates to continue this and CIA is fighting them by revealing the names of their personnel who are covert in Afghanistan. CIA got its head of station and six senior agents blown up by stupid lack of fieldcraft. Now, they will do the same to DoD.
And you support that ?
nk, I suppose you assign mob lawyers to the organized crime division in your DA’s office ?
Mike K (2cf494) — 4/15/2010 @ 5:30 am#26 nk:
Would you describe me that way?
Simply because I think it inappropriate that attorneys that volunteered to represent unlawful combatants should now be appointed to positions where they are expected to pursue with all due diligence the prosecution of those unlawful combatants?
While there may not be any impropriety or conflict of interest, there is certainly the appearance of such. Such that it strains my credulity to believe that AG Holder is pursuing an agenda consonant with the best interests of the country.
And I don’t understand how the above portrays me as fearful? Sure, I’m not real crazy about heights, but I spent a significant portion of my life preparing for war, and as such, don’t have any real fear of combatants, lawful or not.
I do not understand what you are trying to convey.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 4/15/2010 @ 6:10 amWe know where Holder’s sympathies lie, a decade ago, he ‘rendered’ a six year old boy back to Cuba,
ian cormac (022264) — 4/15/2010 @ 6:23 amso he could become a drone of the regime, he commuted FALN terrorists who bombed Frances Tavern,
expedited the pardon of Mark Rich
nk, I suppose you assign mob lawyers to the organized crime division in your DA’s office ?
Comment by Mike K — 4/15/2010 @ 5:30 am
Some people might call me a mob lawyer, Mike K. 😉 I don’t know personally any defense lawyers who became prosecutors. I do know prosecutors who became defense lawyers.
We had this conversation before and I was intemperate and did not make my point the way I wanted to. If I could try again?
We are America, a superpower. We can fight this war our way, according to our values and traditions, and not the way of some camel-molesting sand-desert denizens. There are also some hints I get that we think we are losing and looking for scapegoats. That bothers me a lot. We are not losing. We will win. And keep America not just safe but the America she has always been.
nk (db4a41) — 4/15/2010 @ 6:50 am#26 nk
I’m only that way to people trying to kill me. I’m irritated with the ones defending them.
Bill M (dc386c) — 4/15/2010 @ 6:53 amnk, you didn’t answer my question, maybe because you know that you wouldn’t. I have no problem with Holder hiring those lawyers (I have a problem with Holder being there but elections have consequences, as a few people should have realized.) but I do have a problem with him indulging a clear conflict of interest. You know, I assume, that some of these lawyers have broken US law in photographing US officers and CIA officers and giving the photos to the prisoners. They just haven’t been identified. I suspect they are now in the DoJ.
Mike K (2cf494) — 4/15/2010 @ 8:53 amMike K,
I would assign any experienced lawyers, including former mob lawyers, to the organized crime division of the prosecutor’s office.
What you guys don’t seem to get is that we lawyers are Americans too. And people with a conscience. And a sense of loyalty. And a Code of Professional Conduct.
Mike K, I more than respect you but … just to turn it around … would you refuse to remove a precancerous tumor from a Gitmo inmate?
nk (db4a41) — 4/15/2010 @ 9:21 amNK, not Liberal lawyers. They believe the ends justify the means, which include disclosing evidence and names they were barred from doing. Holder’s kids should be tried for treason after Obama’s administration is consigned to the ash heap of history.
PCD (c3ffc1) — 4/15/2010 @ 9:30 amComment by fgmorley — 4/15/2010 @ 1:32 am
And where in Hell did this Old Phart come from?
But, Hey, I’m a kid again…feels pretty good to lose 50+ years.
AD - RtR/OS! (7055a4) — 4/15/2010 @ 9:43 am“What you guys don’t seem to get is that we lawyers are Americans too. And people with a conscience. And a sense of loyalty. And a Code of Professional Conduct.”
nk – These people are now public servants. We, at least those of us paying taxes, are paying their salaries. Are we not entitled to know something about their backgrounds since they are political appointees rather than career civil servants? You seem to say no. I would argue yes.
daleyrocks (1feed5) — 4/15/2010 @ 3:50 pmsure you are… and some of you may actually live up to some or all of the above. there are many who i would question either the “conscience” and/or the “loyalty” claim for, but the big problem is both the definitions and interpretations y’all choose in defining these terms, the priorities you assign to the values, and the members of your tribe that go completely off the reservation with regards to them, and yet are defended by the rest of group.
it would be a better world if you were Americans first, that happened to be lawyers, rather than the other way around.
if you want to give evidence to support your claim, organize a public pro bono campaign to gather evidence on, locate, arrest and try for war crimes those responsible for executing American military personnel that have been captured and summarily executed in blatant violation of the Geneva Convention and the Laws of Land Warfare by the same opponents you are so worried about extending non-existent rights to. deeds, not words carry much more weight in the real world.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/15/2010 @ 4:38 pmUmmm … is it not distinctly possible that the lawyers who represented the Al Qaeda folk may well have learned things, privileged lawyer/client things during that resperesentation ?
In the interests of fairly dealing with the prosecution of the Al Qaeda folk, such lawyers should recuse themselves or be recused so that there is not even an apprearance of potential impropriety … (or whatever the technical term is for lawyers keeping from participating in something) …
Alasdair (c74809) — 4/15/2010 @ 5:14 pm“resperesentation” ???
mea culpa !
Alasdair (c74809) — 4/15/2010 @ 5:34 pmnk:
I think lawyers made a mistake in changing the code of professional conduct to requiring zealous advocacy. I realize it’s much easier to decide whether a lawyer has acted zealously than to decide whether a lawyer offered wise advice. However, the end result of a system based on zealous advocacy is we often end up applauding lawyers who act boldly but recklessly, while we question the cautious counselors who may offer wiser advice.
DRJ (09fa6c) — 4/15/2010 @ 5:43 pmIs it possible to sealously represent both the prosecution and execution of a terrorist, and the defense and freedom of a terrorist?
I don’t think it is. Maybe a truly schizophrenic or sophist lawyer could attempt it, but really, the kind of person truly qualified for one job is not qualified for the other.
I want to know exactly what these critical public servants have done in their professional past.
And those who tell me I don’t need to know might actually be sabotaging the ability to have truly effective counsel. Why not just admit it: the guys who want to help these terrorists, even out of pure John Adam patriotism like nk posits, are not the best people to prosecute them. Lawyers aren’t really robots.
It’s better to be out with it, and let people find their true calling, rather than cover up the truth and refuse to give the people information.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/15/2010 @ 5:54 pmEvery American has to stand for a search before they get on an airplane nowadays…but, lawyers who actually did work for Al Qaida MUST have their identies concealed out of respect for their privacy and unquestionable loyalty!
Only in America.
Dave Surls (9f3554) — 4/15/2010 @ 6:25 pm