It looks like we have a brouhaha (without the ha ha) raging in our midst. Liberals (and a few conservatives) are in a tizzy because Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice president, is questioning the “values” of American lawyers who while in private practice went out of their way to represent alleged terrorists held at Guantanamo. And not just any lawyers. This became a problem for Ms. Cheney, and others, after nine of those lawyers were hired by the U.S. Justice Department.
At first, Justice didn’t tell us who these lawyers were. They kept their names secret. So Ms. Cheney’s group – Keep America Safe — put out an on-line video that demanded to know, “Who Are the al Qaeda Seven?” and “Whose values do they share.”
This is when the firestorm began — fueled by an editorial in the New York Times that wanted to make sure we all understood the basics of junior high school civics. “In representing Guantanamo detainees,” the Times told us, “they [defense lawyers] were in no way advocating for terrorism. They were ensuring that deeply disliked individuals were able to make their case in court, even ones charged with heinous acts ….”
To question the loyalty of those lawyers, the Times argued, was nothing more than modern day McCarthyism. Whether it’s that or not, let’s acknowledge the obvious: lawyers are not un-American just because they represent people who hate America. Lawyers represent murderers all the time. That doesn’t make lawyers killers, or sympathetic to killers.
But let’s make sure we also understand that these nine lawyers, like all of us, have just so much free time. They could have used that time to represent all sorts of people in trouble – like U.S. soldiers accused of war crimes. They didn’t. And that is their right. But is it some kind of “smear” (as the New York Times editorial put it) to wonder “Whose values do they share”? Or if the phrase offends, how about this: Who gets up out of his comfy chair and nice office far, far away from Guantanamo Bay and decides to do pro bono work for people accused of conspiring to kill his fellow Americans? It may be noble to take on such a thankless job. Or it may not.
And let’s go a baby step further. Let’s turn the tables and see how we would react if we changed just a few tiny facts in the scenario. Let’s say it was a conservative Republican president and his right-wing attorney general who hired Justice Department lawyers, for its civil rights division – lawyers who voluntarily defended Ku Klux Klan members accused of heinous crimes against African-Americans? Wouldn’t that raise eyebrows – even though the lawyers were not defending KKK terror, only the racists who perpetrated it? All those lawyers would be doing, after all, is making sure that “deeply disliked individuals were able to make their case in court” – exactly what those real life lawyers were doing for the suspected terrorists? Still, wouldn’t decent Americans – not to mention the gods who write editorials at the New York Times — wonder: Why hire them of all people? And why keep their names secret? What are they trying to hide at Justice?
And is it really McCarthyism to wonder if lawyers who represent suspected terrorists have a judicial philosophy that might shape Justice Department policy? I would certainly wonder if lawyers who went out of their way to represent the Klan had a philosophy that might shape civil rights policy. I’d want to know whose values they shared. I’d want their names made public. And so would the New York Times.
Thanks , I have just been searching for info approximately this subject for ages and yours is the greatest I’ve found out so far. However, what in regards to the bottom line? Are you positive about the source?|What i do not understood is in fact how you’re not actually much more smartly-appreciated than you might be right now. You are very intelligent.
Wow, awesome blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you make running a blog look easy. The full look of your website is magnificent, as well as the content material!
Great info! Didn’nt think the post would be so entertaining!
Bernie,
Right on target tonight about “Disney” on O’Reilly. Walt , I’m sure has been turning over regularly with the deterioration of standards and avarice this company has promulgated over the last several years. They once were stewards of quality family entertainment , and their brand had the public trust, mine included. This paid ABC coverage for a child murderer (alleged) is at best moral turpitude. Yes, and so bitterly ironic in Mickey’s home town.
Mr. Joel…Please examine yourself FIRST. I can tell by your quibbling you are uneducated at the heart of the issues. Also I’m sick of your ” ” s! You “use” them “too often” and they are “pointless”.. I “swear” I’m speaking to “Matt Foley” (Chris Farley, SNL) the motivational speaker who: “LIVES IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER”!! “OY VEY” !
Just a few days ago you stood up to Bill O’Reilly when you told him to stop interrupting you. Good for you, O’Reilly only wants to hear himself. And when he says “I’ll give you the last word”, that’s a joke.
Mr, Joel, We are in uncharted waters. As a nation, society, race however you wish to define it, bottom line, my friend and fellow American,..we (Americans) have the right by our constitution, to defend our people. It is my belief with all due respect, you do not understand both sides of this sensitive subject. Oh,…btw…I will NOT stoop so low to categorize you as someone/thing I know nothing of. Your blatant writings you post of one’s experience tells me, M. Harp, your contempt with any societal problem solving. Like I said yesterday, Don’t blame Bernie for his opinion and the way he sees issues,..somethings ARE very black and white..no grey. No way around it. It’s people who make issues complicated by their opinion or personal gain. I wish you well. Regards, M.Harp~
we (Americans) have the right by our constitution, to defend our people.
I hope you don’t mind my pointing out that it’s much more than a right……it’s our duty.
Regards
RB
Hey Bernie, What is your opinion of Bret Baier’s interview with our president? Fox News anchor Bret Baier aired his 19-minute exclusive interview with President Obama, where he frequently interjected and interrupted the President. The right wing gave Baier kudos for the interview, saying he “showed us how a genuine professional TV journalist works.”
Baier’s tenacity, however, seems reserved only for Democratic presidents. His interviews with President Bush were far friendlier, with questions like, “What are you reading now?” and “Do you believe that there hasn’t been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in more than seven years because of the policies your administration has implemented?”
Watch it: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/18/baier-bush-obama/
I thought Bernie made it clear on Bill O’Reilly that he didn’t agree with the interruptions. And a think progress reference? You go right to one of the most left wing websites on earth for balance?
I shall address him as Mr. Joel: On behalf of Bernard Goldberg and his declarative, your rant (not to mention your grammatical errors) leave little to ponder. If racial profiling had been in place long ago, my opinion; we probably would not be facing such sensitive issues as this. Perhaps you support the tyrranical behavior of the ACLU. Your analysis of racial profiling is abysmal, at best. I was in Denver last year and my one carry-on was sniffed by a dog, ALL my bras and panties out on display on a metal table for ALL to see who shuffled through the feeder line for clearance. The humiliation I felt and the contempt I displayed made me.. an American..feel like an outsider. I might as well have worn a scarlet A on my lapel!! I am blonde and blue eyed..kinda like the broad aforementioned. I have NEVER BEEN ON A WATCH LIST AND NEVER WILL APPEAR ON A WATCH LIST. Surely someone knew of Jihad Jane. It’s our civic duty to keep all Americans safe. ~Respectfully, Michele Harp
ok, so you dont like being profiled. but its ok to single out one race just so long as your race is not troubled? you made my case when you told us of your experience at the feeder line….The humiliation I felt and the contempt I displayed made me.. an American..feel like an outsider”……so we should not do it to you…..got that part……but you didnt say why it was ok to do it to others?? I think i’ve smelled out an undercover clansmen. Maybe we should have seperate water fountains also. We could go a step further if you like and put them all in camps just so we will feel safe. Meanwhile, a white man flys a plane into an IRS building, a white man shoots up some people at the pentagon, white kids shoot up a whole school, white meth heads rob an old lady in oklahoma, white men continually abduct and rape and murder children across the entire nation….. But you are right, we have got to stop those Arab musslems!! what a joke! but i cant change you, tell yourself whatever you need to so you can feel safe at night. You got bigger problems living right next door to you. HA HA!! thats a fact!
p.s., im white….i dont like “white people.” I just like “people.” And im not ready to throw civil rights out the window because “people”are crazy. Its not racial, its not religious. Its just us, on all sides, in all cultures, its the human condition. So lets not move civil rights back 70 years just so you can create the illusion that you are safe. You are not. Not ever. Not from “people.”
you like that work “firestorm” hu berno? i noticed that. you use “firestorm” alot. I think thats the world you live in….everything is a “firestorm.” Anyway, i know you really want to racial profile arab musslims…..but yet another reason we should profile white people first…..have you heard of a blonde American woman who went under the online alias “Jihad Jane” has been accused of plotting to murder a Swedish cartoonist….she a blond from texas…..a “white” “blond” from texas. I just dont see how you can justify sewing the star of david on the front of the shirts of arab musslims and not whites?? Please tell me how?? It occured to me Mr. Gold”berg” that you are probably Jewish….then how could you support racial profileing or religious profiling of any kind??? HOW??? help me understand???
Joel, considering that there are no fewer than 42 mistakes in your post, it’s doubtful you could learn anything from what anyone might write in here until you learn proper spelling, usage and grammar.
nice one!! ya, honestly, spell check ruined me, i’m lost without it…..
You’re a loon like Wil Burns. As I always ask him: What day is it in your little world?
Hey Bernie, What is your opinion of Glenn Beck? Do you think he is screwing up America?
“Eric Holder’s Massive Ineptness”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/19/eric_holders_massive_ineptness_104832.html
The premise of Ms. Cheney’s complaint, & subsequently Your article, questions the “values” of lawyers defending “alleged” terrorists. Personally I question “values” of the Cheney/Bush regime declaring an unconsitutional war over alleged WMD, killing & displacing a million people in the process while padding their friend’s pockets.
The parallels with McCarthyism certainly exist: take an imagined threat, hype it up to the point of near hysteria, demonize the opposition, & most importantly, avoid real issues & honest debate at all costs. In this case, Islam is the imagined threat, Muslim Extremism is the hype, dissidents are demonized, & the real question: Should “alleged terrorists” be afforded the protections of the American justice system? avoided.
Yes, these Lawyers could have spent their time defending the alleged murderers from Blackwater, or justifying the alleged use of chemical weapons in Fallujah, or, Yes, defending US soldiers who allegedly killed unarmed Iraqi citizens. However these issues aren’t in the vein of Civil Rights & have little to do with setting future precedent. The issues surrounding Stare Decisis make this a unique issue to deal with.
The KKK analogy didn’t work for me. The primary reasoning is that the KKK would probably have been tried in US Criminal Court whereas “alleged terrorists” were generally considered enemy combatants & typically fall into the jurisdiction of military courts. There is a difference between voluntarily defending domestic racists accused of “heinous crimes” & doing pro-bono work for foreign prisoners of war, who’s exact rights are yet to be determined.
No, it’s not McCarthyist to speculate on the ramifications of an electee’s judicial philosphy. If I were to speculate that Alberto Gonzalez was hired for political purposes & His firings of court justices were politically motivated, it’s probably an accurate guess. It is, however, McCarthyist to demand a list of names (which, of course, have been released at this point anyway.)
“Keep America Safe will make the case for an unapologetic approach to fighting terrorism around the world.” It even hosts a letter in support of torture, written by several in the CIA, recommending that “..the criminal investigation of these interrogations that Attorney General Holder has re-opened is now re-closed.”
They are even hosting a poll, bragging that says “60% of Americans want Gitmo Kept Open.” Wow, does anyone remember taking THAT poll? This is just the kind of nefarious organization that KAS is.
Geezo. At least Wil can be silly sometimes.
1. Hopefully for the last time…every intelligence agency in the whole world said Saddam had WMD’s. Bush would have been negligent to have dismissed all of those reports. I’m happy we stopped the man who put 300,000 in mass graves in Iraq.
2. Our soldiers from Missouri, Virginia, New Mexico, etc. don’t murder. Do civilians get caught in the crossfire? Yes. But war is war and Iraq isn’t Dresden.
3. McCarthy may have been over the top in ways but Communists have been trying to take over everywhere in the world and Van Jones, Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayres, and others show that inroads have been made here. And most of us don’t like that.
4. The KKK has been toothless since the late 50′s and people are throwing around the accusation ‘racist’ far to indiscriminately these days. Millions are being wrongly painted by that bad broad brush.
5. It’s better to throw water in somebody’s face than drone-bomb suspects and their families. Stop the torture talk baloney.
6. Just ask yourself why you ever hid anything. Like your name right now up on top.
Ron Kean says: “Hopefully for the last time…every intelligence agency in the whole world said Saddam had WMD’s.”>>
No, not every intelligence agency in the whole world said Saddam had WMD’s and even if they had, said it, they all were wrong, Bush had no right to invade a sovereign nation and kill thousands of innocent Iraqi’s!
Yup, Bush hopped in a tank, by himself without congress’ approval, and killed thousands of people. Never mind that Saddam killed ten’s of thousands of his own people with Mustard Gas. Just so we clear that up.
“In December 2002, Jack Straw, then foreign minister, released a dossier of Saddam’s crimes. It was drawn almost entirely from the period of firm US-UK support, a fact overlooked with the usual display of moral integrity.”
“…Bush, Powell, and the rest — had declared forthrightly that they intended to carry out their war whether or not the United Nations (UN) or anyone else “catches up” and “becomes relevant.”
-Noam Chomsky
Chomsky is a more eloquent version of Michael Moore. There are always little twists to his “facts.” By the way, I’m well aware of Rush, Hannity, Beck, O’Reilly, Fax news, talk radio and all of their similarities with “facts.” That’s why I like Bernie, he throws everyone under the bus.
I rather enjoy Chomsky’s work mostly for the barrage of facts that He presents, whereas Moore’s work is far less thoughtful. Being thoroughly familiar with Chomsky’s catalogue, I do find myself in disagreement with His assessments from time to time.
In fact, watching Chomsky debate William F. Buckley is one of my favorite videos on YouTube & is actually quite relevant to this day: “just cause” & “relative disinterest” in matters of war, et cetera. It was brilliant sophistry on both of Their parts.
Yes that’s why I like Bernie as well.
Can’t wait for the next article.
Chomsky does a good job of using facts to support his hypothesis. Very rarely does he research or discuss the opposition. That’s where I was going with that. I prefer starting with the opposition and then looking into my pre conceived notions. I find I get the real truth between the two using that formula. I’m reading “Founding Brother’s” currently. As soon as I’m done with that I’m going to start Henry Paulson’s memoir, “On the Brink.” Thats a nice 550+ pager that should keep me occupied this summer.
Yes, He casually throws aside opponents & critics with complete disdain & never, by my count, has acknowledged that other conclusions could be reached. Even Buckley threatened to “smash him in the G**D*** face” on TV.
Sounds good. I need to stock up for the summer as well.
O, and a sovereign nation is not run by a dictator. Iraq was a dictatorship, just so we clear that up as well.
The cherrypicking of intelligence in this case was undeniable- add that to NO WMDs being found (at least certainly not to the degree we were expecting) AND an unconstitutional war leaving perhaps a million dead. Again, as long as we are discussing values, I have more of a problem with this than “lawyers”.
Agree with the word racist being thrown around, but the very premise of their organization, not to mention entire history, implies deep-seeded hatred & discrimination based on just that.
Water in the face wasn’t the worst of it, Ron, but no need to expound any more on that subject. I was simply articulating the positions of Keep America Safe as I understand the messages they present.
The Iraqi War couldn’t have happened without bipartisan support, so while the Bush Administration was wrong about the WMDs, both parties believed Saddam was a real threat. So you’re calling Bush Administration, “witch-hunting” terrorists is in accurate, and additionally, what a terrible thing to known for, attempting to stop religious fanatics. I’m sure you’re only beef with that is the fact that they were muslims (and we need to try to understand them), and they weren’t crazy right-wing bible-thumbing catholics who talk about jesus and turning the other cheek and all that noise.
And “The issues surrounding Stare Decisis [and civil rights] make this a unique issue to deal with?” Stare Decisis was actually quite clear on the rights of war criminals. In fact, that is probably the longest Stare Decisis in the history of humanity. Boumedine v. Bush was one of the worst liberal decisions in the history of America which disrupted the Stare Decisis. Both Scalia’s Dissent and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decisions clearly articulated the long history of Stare Decisis related to the Habeas Corpus and non-citizen military combatants. But 4 liberal ideologues and Justice Kennedy ignored all that Stare Decisis. But when you’re a liberal, ideology is king, the ends justify the means, and Liz Cheney is unamerican for exercising her freedom of speech to question the values of lawyers who sought out to defend individuals who want nothing more than to kill “infidels” in the name of religion, and then have our Attorney General withhold the names of these individuals.
Lastly, water-boarding is not torture, we waterboard some of our own troops when we train navy seals and you don’t see them filing 1983 actions challenging the military practice. And people want Gitmo open because nobody wants terrorists being housed in the continental U.S., so yea, 60% is accurate, the other 40% are rich liberals who wouldn’t have to worry about the problem because we wouldn’t house terrorists in Manhattan or the upscale areas of New England or UC Berkeley.
Nope, the terrorists will be put in the prison that the state of Illinois never should have built in Thomson. Good thing President Obama is from here. Now he and Sen. Dick Durbin have a brilliant scheme for the Federal Government to buy it from the state of Illinois regardless of if it will house terror suspects. If it becomes a federal penitentiary, without housing terror suspects, it will be the only time I can ever remember that either President Obama or Dick Durbin have done something that actually benefited the state of Illinois. I mean Springfield really needed that new million dollar bike path extension. Unfortunately Chicago politics that run Illinois are now running the United States of America.
First, I never said “witch-hunt.”
True, both parties agreed that Saddam was a brutal dictator who should be de-throned, however, he was incapable of launching a military campaign against the USA & I don’t believe people saw him as a viable threat in this sense.
Sure or not, Your last assertion is incorrect- so if Iraq was a Catholic nation my opinion would be drastically different? Great reference to BvB; I am in agreement with Scalia’s dissent.
Lastly, water-boarding is not torture, we waterboard some of our own troops when we train navy seals and you don’t see them filing 1983 actions challenging the military practice.>>
Brian, You seem to be confused about water-boarding training and water-boarding torture. In training there is a stop signal, while torturing has no signal. Big difference! Please relay this information to your rightwing zealot friends.
Bernie,
What did you think of the interview?
Does anyone remember Lynne Stewart, the radical lawyer who defended Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/nyregion/20stewart.html)? Her mentality was totally anti-American as are most that regularly defend these subversives.
Notice I said, habitually. It is one thing to provide for counsel to the accused in our judicial system. It is another to make a career of wallowing with our enemies and still another of the transparency at being employed by the United States Department of Justice.
Liz Cheney is on to something. The fact that they are not upfront about who these characters are tells me something of the direction Holders Justice Department is going.
Eric Holder’s most notable accomplishments:
The pardon of Marc Rich
The pardons of Weather Underground members Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans
Clemency for FALN terrorists
Failure to prosecute Black Panthers for obstruction of the electoral process
Failure to disclose legal briefs to senators.
http://mobile.latimes.com/inf/infomo?view=page8&feed:a=latimes_1min&feed:c=topstories&feed:i=52712960
What a guy!
I’m still just baffled as to why these people, who aren’t even citizens, are being treated as such as are allowed to have legal representation. I wonder if John McCain ever got a lawyer while he was a POW. Not trying to say he was a better option for President, as some people will try to assume, just an observation.
As you point out Bernie, we are dealing with lawyers, so ethics and honesty are already out window from the jump. Worse, as bad as lawyers are, when you involve them with the sort of cynical and crass political sharps of either major party, mostly unabashedly partisan appointees like Eric Holder, you have to understand that you have created the perfect devil’s brew of selfishness, greed, and the abuse of the public.
While it is true that Obama personally promised transparency, openess, and accountability and has failed miserably to fulfill that promise, he really is no better or worse in that regard than any of his predecessors, including George Bush or especially Bill Clinton.
So Barack Obama fooled the American public at the right time with his shallow and puerile rhetoric, and won the election. In a paraphrase of the rather silly movie Love Story, for Obama and his team, winning means never having to say your sorry!
Obama and Holder tried to replicate Marwan Bargouti’s trial with the KSM in NYC. It was the same scenario. Israelis brought the top terrorist into civilian court. His lawyers made a circus out of it. He avoided the execution because the top officials in Israel said he will receive death penalty before the trials (like the constitutional lawyer Obama did and his friend Holder did with KSM). Makes you think Obama and Holder tried to save KSM’s life (judging from the similarities with the Barghouti trial).
41 years ago 500,000 hippies gathered on a farm in NY for sex, drugs and rock n roll. Can the Christian body gather one million believers on a farm in Delaware to celebrate the year of Jubilee?
Check out what World Net Daily reported on this epic upcoming event. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127794
This is also a patriotic event as the people will be gathered to pray for the healing of our nation.
In a sense, it’s a Tea Party with a Christian flavor.
Please feel free to contact me for an interview.
Sorry folks. I put this in the wrong forum.
We are stardust
We are golden
We are million year old carbon
And we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden
Excellent artice Bernie. Liz Cheney is right we have the right to know who these
lawyers are. Sometimes I wonder if the left realizes how much their hipocracy is on
display for all to see.
Listen Bernie I’m 61. I”m a mother an grand mother. I honest to God get a lump
in my throat every time I hear the Star Spangles Banner and I have to admit I
now actually fear for this country. I wish one of my Senators from MIchigan were
up for election this year so I could vote against them.
They don’t tell the names, because they are afraid, that these men and their families get killed by the mob. There is nothing worse than the just fury.
The lawyers do work for money, obviously they got paid enough and could not refuse.
Even the german men of horrors of the 2nd world war got a fair trial with lawyers. Remind you of Norimberg.
What Bernie says is very very dangerous, because it denies, what America stood for: Right and Justice.
The big question is, if a fair trial is possible in the States or if it should not be transferred to another country for safety reason – of the accused and of the lawyers.
Kate,
What is very, very dangerous is what some of the lawyers at Guantanamo Bay have done. Here is an article from Pajamas Media:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gitmo-lawyer-julia-tarver-mason-aiding-abetting-and-not-talking/?singlepage=true
The writer of the article was attempting to interview a lawyer who represents terrorists at Guantanamo.
A direct quote from the article:
“Ms. Mason has not been the only lawyer providing assistance to detainees which extends beyond mere legal help. The John Adams Project — an enterprise undertaken by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers — says they “have assembled defense teams to be available to assist in the representation of detainees facing prosecution at Guantánamo.” That description did not cover the scope of their activities.
Last August the Washington Post revealed that the John Adams Project had covertly photographed up to 45 CIA field agents who had interrogated captured terrorists. Three John Adams lawyers went to Guantanamo and showed their clients the pictures of the interrogators, identifying the CIA agents and contractors. There are federal laws against outing CIA agents to the public, let alone to terrorists whom you are attempting to have released.”
The American people have a right to know if the lawyers working at the Justice Department, or rather, the 9 Gitmo lawyers that Holder hired, engaged in such tactics and if they are now formulating terrorism policy on the public’s behalf. As you can see from the quote above, it is illegal to out a CIA agent let alone the moral and ethical question involved. If any of the 9 Gitmo lawyers now working at Justice engaged in illegal, immoral and unethical behavior while representing detainees at Guantanamo, the people most certainly have a right to know about. And it calls in to question the judgement and motives of the Attorney General working on the public’s behalf.
If these men are involved in this illegal action, prosecute them… and prosecute them quickly, before this trial starts. This whole thing is very very important. If a sort of fair trial fails this time, for whatever reason, nobody is ever going to take America’s aims and ideals as far as democracy etc. seriously. Once again it will prove, that democratic systems are weak and incompetent to solve large scale system problems. If this trial is not going to be as clear as a cristal, the whole war for democracy in totalitarian systems will be lost for a long long time.
I mean it is ridiculous, if lawyers do illegal actions in the name of justice… And remain lawyers…
If these lawyers went to Guantanamo an showed the pictures of interrogators, CIA agents and contractors, so because probably these guys did what they should not have done, but did it, because they did not know, that there is going to be a public trial. If the consequence is, that the terrorists get free, because torture is forbidden in normal life, then America is in big troubble. I mean, they brought them to Guantanamo, so they are not under american law. There is no good solution to this. Or may be a small ebola virus??
No sure what you mean by ” a small ebola virus”, but here is what I think some logical solutions should be. We should keep Gitmo open, from what I understand it is a world class facility, the inmates are treated well, they are offered a 6,000 calorie a day diet, have access to gym facilities, medical treatment, etc. No one is “tortured” at Gitmo, contrary to the popular myth created by the liberal media. There is a facility to hold military tribunals, let them be held there away from the U.S. mainland. Under the U.S. Constitution, enemy combatants are not entitled to legal counsel. The trials at Nuremberg were held AFTER the end of WWII. The War on Terror is NOT over, they have declared endless war on us. As I mentioned in a previous post, I was there for the start of that war. However, if the detainees are given counsel, these lawyers should not be allowed to use the tactics that I mentioned in my previous post. They are endangering the guards that work at the prison, CIA agents and our military overseas.
Just the same old double standard that we’ve come to know and love from the political left. So what else is new.
This is consistant with Obama’s entire life. Obama’s hidden his college transcripts, the work he did when he was practicing law, and all of the records when he was an Illinois state representative. All hidden.
Justice has hidden all of the deliberation concerning the indictment and surprise release of the Black Panthers who intimidated voters in the presidential election.
Now they hide the names of lawyers. Who has ever had to do that?
When we all hide things, we believe we would suffer in some way if that which was hidden became exposed.
Bernie,
I just came across an informative and fascinating article from frontpagemag.com:
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/03/15/defending-gitmos-lawyers/
I was wrong when I said in my previous post that the mastermind behind 9/11 (KSM) was entitled to legal counsel. The detainees at Guantanamo are “enemy combatants” not “defendants” and therefore have no right to counsel under the U.S. Constitution, they must represent themselves. There is also a curious double standard between how the left screamed for Bush attorneys such as John Yoo to be disbarred and tried as war criminals, yet when the keepamericasafe.com video merely asked for openness and transparency on the identities of the “Al Qaeda 7″ the left screamed it was McCarthyism.
Remember openness and transparency was a theme during the Obama campaign? It is also interesting some of the tactics used by (some) lawyers representing the Gitmo detainees, such as: (this is an exact quote from the article) “distributing anti-American propaganda; encouraging the detainees to claim they were abused and tortured; and even endangering Guantanamo’s guards by handing out a map of the detention camp’s layout, including the guard towers.” We don’t know if the 9 lawyers at the DOJ engaged in these tactics, but that’s the whole point that Liz Cheney and Keep America Safe was trying to make; get it out in the open.
Bernie,
Another great article from the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704131404575117611125872740.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular
Powerful article. Thanks for letting us know this.
Sorry to keep doing this, but here is another video I think everyone should see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSIRPAjL690&feature=player_embedded#
I just had to post this article from the National Review. It breaks down the Wall Street Journal article so it’s an easy read:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjdlMzE0NGIxMzY0ODI3OTNiNTdhYTdlYjljNWQ0ZWU=
Everyone is looking at the healthcare reform push this week, but you need to see this. Re: The Gitmo Bar
The NYT will attack anything and anybody that criticizes so-called progressive actions no matter how ridiculous they are such as refusing to name the lawyers working for accused terrorists without first being asked to do so. News will consistantly be printed supporting what the NYT advocates while either totally suppressed or hidden in the deepest recesses of their rag if they do not. Wil Burns will consistantly support anything that the NYT advocates and ridicule anything that they do not. The operative word here is consistancy which truly renders all offerings of the NYT and similarly afflicted peolpe such as Burns totally meaningless because their thoughts are triggered solely by ideology which makes all liberal actions “good” and all conservative actions “bad”.
http://www.bartcop.com/
Just in case anyone wanted to see what Wil Burns does in his spare time. Just when I thought liberalism could go no lower. Well, I guess hell will surely freeze over when their frigid hearts arrive.
Excellent article. There was a time when the printed press served as a watch dog over government for the people. It is clear that they have turned into guard dogs for this administration. Thanks Bernie for not forgetting your journalistic oath!
Steve, If you people and Bernie hate the NY Times so much, don’t read it. It’s just that simple! Oh, I forgot, you people just need to hate something or anyone, because that what you do! Just like Liz Cheney!
I can’t speak for Steve but from what I have heard from Liz Cheney I have never heard any thing in her words or action as you paint her. I thought Will that it was patriotic to criticize our government? That’s what the left and the lawyers always say.
Hey Wil,
I don’t want to cause you a heart attack or a stroke, but Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife is organizing a tea party – and I don’t mean the kind with Earl Grey, orange scones and marmalade. Try to stay calm, Wil. Call your primary care physician. Ask him to up your meds. (Just make sure you can mix the meds with that gallon of Kool-aid you drink every day. I wouldn’t want you to drop dead or anything.)
What if it were announced today that Michelle Obama had joined the Black Panthers? Don’t you don’t find anything wrong with Virginia Thomas joining up with a radical anti-government group. Why is that?
Jane, This is the new face of the Republican Party? Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms are somewhere wishing they could have lived so long to see such a glorious return of all they held so near and dear to their heart.
I don’t read it. I just found it ironic. Why do you hate America?
Oh, and Wil, you complaining about “you people just need to hate something or anyone” is the single most hypocritical thing that has ever been uttered in the history of communication. By the way, it’s Stephen, not Steve. You don’t know me, you don’t know anything about me, and you sure as hell better not talk to me like you are buddy buddy with me. You are nothing but a loud mouth uninformed narcissistic know it all.
Okay Stephen, Happy now? And for the record, keyboard bullies don’t scare anyone, so knock it off!
Wil,
I know you’re enjoying yourself here but you come across as just being silly.
Wil,
If you hate Bernie and like-minded conservatives so much, then why do you continually read these articles and post anything on this site? It’s kind of hard to ignore the New York Times and the articles, slant, and outright bias that they attempt to pass off as “news.” And give me a break about Liz Cheney and the Justice Department, I could right about book about how liberals treated the Bush Justice Department. Furthermore, didn’t this president campaign (lie) about transparency in government? If he and his attorney general can’t even disclose names of attorneys that the Justice Department retains doesn’t that cause a reasonable citizen to wonder “why?”
Bernie’s example of the double standard for liberal-progressives is completely accurate and I’ll go one further. How would liberals feel about the lawyers who represent the Bush Administration if the Obama Administration prosecuted George Bush and Dick Cheney? I’m sure if Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer questioned the values of those attorneys the New York Times would protect the lawyers defending Bush and Cheney and refer to Boxer and Pelosi as doing nothing more than advocating “McCarthyism.”
Nice Wil. Sue Liz Cheney indeed. Not a chance – they would have to reveal their names. Ever ask yourself why all the sociolibtard secrecy? What is there to hide if they were just good people involved in the American way and pro bono to boot. Then there is that secret thing about schools, law review articles, schools, passports, . . . .
Rich, The names are known. Try to keep up with the rest of America!
These ambulance chasers are about as nobel as John Edwards. The NYT doesn’t see this?
Bernie, Why does Liz Cheney hate America? And I’m not kidding! What is it about our Constitution, its rights and system of criminal justice that Liz Cheney hates? Why doesn’t she trust mechanisms in place for centuries to be able to determine guilt? Are we to be reduced to a nation where one person’s opinion is sufficient to deprive an accused person of life, liberty or property? The United States used to stand against dictatorial regimes like that, advocating for the rule of law. And why are you supporting her?
Silly progressive libratard dumacrat. You non question, question pretty much states Bernie’s AND Liz Cheney’s case. It all goes back to motive. What’s yours? Might I guess that you are a very very leftwingnut? No doubt.
No name, Those lawyers are heroes for doing what they did in the climate created by treasonous liars like her father. An atmosphere of fear and hatred and injustice. Those seven attorneys should sue Liz Cheney. This is the only thing people like her understand and the lawsuit itself might help to provide a lesson in civics for evil, hate-mongers. Her father tried hard to deny foreign detainees access to our judicial system. He is a torturer and a traitor and came close to totally destroying this democracy.
When is the DOJ going to appoint a Special Prosecutor to go after these war criminals? It is America’s shame that they are still free to continue their evil attempts to create a country where no one has any rights.
Wil,
Here is a video you should see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcC6bTHosx0
This is what the Bush Administration was reacting to. I lived through this. Every policy the Bush Administration formulated after 9/11 was a response to this. The terrorist mastermind behind this has the right to an attorney just like you and I. That’s what makes America a great country. No one is arguing the point. But when an Attorney General goes out of his way to seek out individuals whose value system is to sympathize with the people who could perpetrate something like this, and put them in the Justice Department where they may formulate terrorism policy, the people have a right to question the AG’s judgement and motives.
One final thing. The lawyers you mentioned are not heroes. Lawyers represent murderers every day of the week. The first responders who ran into the towers that day (I saw them) are heroes. My cousin who joined the Marines a week after 9/11 and served in Ramadi and Fallujah is a hero. The CIA personnel who did everything they could after 9/11 to keep us safe are heroes.
Wil,
Your thinking is way off base.
How on earth is Liz Cheney a dictator in which you need to be protected from. She formed an intelligent opinion and put it forth under free speech. I guess the difference is that it’s not your opinion!
Quit grazing the artificial turf!
Tim Ned says: How on earth is Liz Cheney a dictator>>
You tell me, I never said she was a dictator.
It’s bad when you can’t even remember your own drivel.
“The United States used to stand against dictatorial regimes like that, advocating for the rule of law. And why are you supporting her?”
As has been said in other matters: “If you believe (The New York Times), no proof is necessary. If you do not believe (The New York Times), no proof will suffice.”
One need only read Bob Herbert, Frank Rich, Thomas Friedman, Roger Cohen and the posts they inspire to know that The New York Times is a lost cause, and has been for some time.
On a lighter note, Bernie, there’s an error in your use of “lame stream media” on mugs, shirts, hats and blocks.
On mugs, shirts, hats and blocks, you have “lame stream” as two words, whereas in other usages you have it as one word. Clearly, it should be one word, since you’re using “lamestream” as a counterpoint to “mainstream,” which is one word.
If you compare the I-don’t-trust “media blocks” logo to the I-don’t-trust “TV with bent antenna” logo, you’ll again see two usages: lame stream as two words in the building blocks; lamestream as one word under the TV.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter!
forwarding it to the right people, Jack. thanks.
Applause for the attention to detail, on all counts.
Good article Bernie. Isn’t it ironic, that the NY Times does so much “investigative” journalism on really important stories like The First Ladies mother, but stories like this seem to have no importance in their eyes? Such is the world, and such are the ways of the media today.