Liz Cheney Finally Goes Too Far

Folks whose stomachs turn at the mere sight of Liz Cheney, whose only claim to fame is a genetic connection to the former Vice President of the United States, waited for this day to come. At last Liz Cheney revealed herself to be the bottom-feeder we all suspected her to be.

[picapp align=”left” wrap=”false” link=”term=elizabeth+cheney&iid=4916790″ src=”a/6/b/d/Cheney_Speaks_At_67c5.jpg?adImageId=11153768&imageId=4916790″ width=”234″ height=”351″ /]

Liz runs a think tank (for lack of a more fitting phrase) called Keep America Safe. Her organization issued a video which I refuse to soil my blog with by embedding. You can find it here. Bottom line is Liz’s premise is that Justice Department employees who once defended al Qaeda suspects are somehow al Qaeda sympathizers. Marc “Torture” Thiessen now an editorial writer for the Washington Post had this to say:

If lawyers who once sought to free captured terrorists are now setting U.S. policy when it comes to the release of Guantanamo detainees, moving terrorists to the United States, trying senior al-Qaeda leaders in civilian courts, and whether to give captured terrorists Miranda rights, then, as Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) put it, the public has “a right to know who advises the attorney general and the president on these critical matters.”

via Marc A. Thiessen – The ‘al-Qaeda seven’ and selective McCarthyism – washingtonpost.com.

All I can say is Marc is an incredible dumbass. Lawyers don’t seek to “free captured terrorists”, they seek to make sure that suspected terrorists get a fair trial. You see, Marc and Liz, that is the way our justice system works. Thiessen explicitly likens al Quada defense attorney’s to mob lawyers and drug cartel lawyers and asks wouldn’t you want to know if the prosecutors office hired them. Well for starters mob lawyers are paid by the mob. So there is a certain exchange of dirty money going on there that sullies things a bit. As far as I know combatant detainees are assigned counsel and do not pay for it. Again, in our justice system you don’t get prosecuted without an advocate working to protect you. But even if we buy the mob lawyer analogy, who has better expertise to apply to the prosecution of criminals than someone intimately familiar with defending them?

To my delight, Liz has gone so far out on the edge that even Republicans and other notable conservatives are ready to throw her into the shark tank. Even Ken Starr, Bill Clinton’s famous nemesis has come out publically against Cheney. The piece of history that has been brought up repeatedly in recent days is that of John Adams who as a colonist, defended British soldiers accused of massacring a group of Boston colonists. His decision to defend these men was unpopular to say the least but Adams knew that the foundation of justice was that every accused man has a right to a defense.

Of course, we can’t expect Liz Cheney to remember pre-revolutionary history. Heck, she spends all of her time now re-writing recent history.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

76 thoughts on “Liz Cheney Finally Goes Too Far

  1. Obvious terrorist sympathizing attorneys. Great article refuting Rutherford’s baseless charges. Wouldn’t doubt one of the “anonymous names” is LYNNE F. STEWART

    http://volokh.com/2010/03/09/more-on-liz-cheney/

    Remember this beauty demonstrating the true colors of progressives?

    Senator Dickhead Durbin: “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.”

    Rutherford needs to be reminded of these often if he doesn’t think there’s a bunch of Pinko American hatin’ dregs in that left wing. Reading his Twitter account, I’m not sure he isn’t one of them.

  2. Ask yourself one question. Why does Holder hide the names? He’s either hiding something, or too stupid to recognize this raises suspicions for an administration that would appear more dishonest than any in history.

    TRANSPARENCY! Wasn’t that the Bomba campaign promise? Anybody think Bomba has been transparent. Trust no one in the Bomba Administration, especially a known fraud and liar like Eric Holder, good friend of Marc Rich.

  3. Man, until our good friend “R” brought this to my attention, I didn’t realize how bad this makes the Obama Administration look. Holder definitely needs to be shit canned. Under the guise of defense, this stinks to the core.

    Tip of the hat again Rutherford – way ahead of the curve covering ass. I’m telling you, Bomba needs to put you on staff. 😉

  4. I support what Liz says 100%, as do most Americans. So, Rutherford may certainly disagree with her, but she hasn’t gone “to far”.

    Rutherford cracks me up. Not an independent thought goes into this blog.

    I’d rather Rutherford bash Catholics on twitter then spoon feed us Executive Branch propaganda on a daily basis.

    Pathetic.

  5. To my delight, Liz has gone so far out on the edge that even Republicans and other notable conservatives are ready to throw her into the shark tank.
    I’m not seeing the scales tipping that way Rutherford but I don’t wear the same rose colored glasses as ye.
    Although I could give you something on a fear mongering angle there is some history of attorneys going above and beyond at Gitmo for instance that makes me say “Hey Holder show the cards”
    FWIW I’m sure Holder saw the attorneys as good ACLU type progressive anti Bush anti war types that could tow an administration line and be competent.
    I’m missing that in the post if it’s there. Perhaps the clouds of rhetoric blinded me?

  6. First, a conflict of interest involves current activity of an attorney so if an attorney were currently defending al Qaeda operatives while also prosecuting other al Qaeda operatives, I could see a problem. There is no conflict of interest. Completely bogus.

    Second I’m actually kind of disgusted by the reaction of both Tex and Rabbit. Is there no bottom to which you will stoop in the “war on terror”? You see that is Liz and her dad the Dick’s problem. When it comes to terror, they will stop at nothing and this now includes wanting do deny suspects an advocate in court.

    Are you aware, all you ra-ra-sisboomba-I-love-the-military-so-much dudes, that some of these attorneys are military lawyers i.e. members of the military? So they are dishonorable also?

    What is it about the combination of vagina and conservatism that totally blinds you guys? Totally removes your ability to see right from wrong? Get your head out of the poontang and wake up. Cheney and Daddy dearest are so full of hate for the current administration that they will stop at nothing, besmirch anyone, to justify their history of un-American activity.

  7. I just wrote the more vile, mean thing I’ve ever uttered in my life and then deleted it.

    I didn’t even think myself capable of being so mean spirited.

  8. Anyone that besmirches Bongo & Eric Holdout is virtuous in my book. Lindsey Graham, on the other hand, needs to be booted to the curb. Hopefully, South Carolinans will do us a favor and give us a better representative next time. Graham is a disgrace.

    What is your fixation about Conservative women and their vaginas Rutherford ? It’s not Sarah Palin’s fault you’ve been relegated to beta male, or in your case gamma male. I think you’re sexist. 😆

    These greasy assholes out of the mold of Lynne Stewart (and Obama) weren’t defending these jihadists for some righteous Constitutional cause. These bastards are so twisted, they hate America. If there wasn’t something to be discovered here, asshole Holder would volunteer their names.

    And if we were running the country correctly, we’d line them all up in front of a firing squad. That actually give me a tingle up my leg.

  9. You too D.R.? I wrote a paragraph so vile, so nasty and personal, even I thought better to publish it. It would have had Rutherford adopting a black panther cap.

  10. No Karen,

    I saw your inane comment as I read back what I missed. You said I would be groveling. Do you like my version of groveling dingbat?

    But you are right. It’s so hard to keep from insulting Obama lackeys. Almost as good as hunting game.

  11. I am not in favor of civilian trials for terrorists.

    With that said, I think this whole “lawyers of terrorists are terrorist sympathizers” is ridiculous.

    If we are going to put terrorists on trial, they have the right to legal counsel.

    This is as silly as saying that lawyers who defend rapists and murderers sympathize with their clients.

    Does that mean the American people don’t have the right to know who our DoJ lawyers have defended? No. We have the right to know the professional details of those who work for us.

    But its stupid to stress over people doing their job.

  12. “What is it about the combination of vagina and conservatism that totally blinds you guys? Totally removes your ability to see right from wrong? Get your head out of the poontang and wake up.”

    That so reminded me of the 40-Year-Old Virgin “putting the pussy on a pedestal.”

  13. Does that mean the American people don’t have the right to know who our DoJ lawyers have defended? No. We have the right to know the professional details of those who work for us.

    Then why hide their names? Holder is a tool…

  14. Yeah, don’t get me wrong. I am not defending the lack of transparency happening here. I’m only defending the defense attornies who acted like defense attornies.

    If Liz’s gripe is the secrets, I’m on board. If its just to bitch about the lawyers defending terrorists, she needs to find a better battle to take on.

  15. First, a conflict of interest involves current activity of an attorney so if an attorney were currently defending al Qaeda operatives while also prosecuting other al Qaeda operatives, I could see a problem. There is no conflict of interest. Completely bogus.

    You aren’t a lawyer and you shouldn’t play one on TV.

    Conflicts of interest do not just involve “current activity”.

    While I’m not sure exactly what DR, Tex and Gorilla are talking about in this case (no, I don’t keep up on everything, there simply isn’t enough time), it is possible to have a conflict between a past client (to whom you will ALWAYS owe a duty) and a current one.

    That’s why professionals have to take it seriously.

    http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/mrpc_toc.html

    Read rules 1.7-1.11.

    There is a reason why big law firms have people on staff who do nothing but check for conflicts of interest, and potential conflicts of interest.

    Now stop babbling about things you know nothing about.

  16. Liz f*cked up royally with “The al Qaeda 7” like they’re some radical group like the Black Panthers (Tex) or something.

    I don’t know why or even if Holder kept names quiet. Since I don’t trust Liz any further than I could throw her, I doubt the allegation but I’m willing to dig deeper to see if it has any legs. If so, the animus should go toward Holder alone and not toward attorneys doing their job.

    And even if Holder kept names under wraps, quite frankly so what? Again we return to the premise that if these 7 attorneys simply defended combatants, that does not impugn their character nor does it disqualify for them for DoJ jobs.

    Also could someone please cite for me where the precedent is for ordinary citizens to review the resumes of DoJ lawyers? I have no doubt that is the way Tex would like to occupy his idle time … pouring over resumes of DoJ lawyers. Give me a break.

    P.S. I’m not a big fan of Lindsay Graham but man did he nail this one. Graham was a JAG and knows what honor it takes to defend the accused despite one’s personal feelings. On this topic, Liz ain’t fit to spit clean Graham’s shoes.

    P.P.S. Let’s take an analogous case closer to home for Tex. Tex, you’re an ER doctor with an accused pedophile rapist on the table. Do you put an overdose in his IV? Or better yet, do you condemn all the doctors who treat the guy? Surely any doctor who saves the life of a pedophile must be a perv himself right?

  17. Also just to lay to rest another unfounded accusation against me. When have any of you seen me rail against John Yue or any of the lawyers who advised Bush? I think they were doing their job to help their client justify his actions legally. It was their client, Bush (or more rightly the Dick, Cheney) who were the scumbags. The only person I have ever advocated be prosecuted on this blog either in articles or comments is Dick Cheney.

    So get off your “R has a double standard about lawyers” bullsh*t. That argument is DOA.

  18. Ahhh yes, I knew BiW would conveniently claim ignorance when caught between the Scylla and Charybdis of defending his profession and being a loyal conservative lackey..

    BiW, after you’ve caught up on this story weigh in on the substance and drop the “R ain’t a lawyer” meme. 😉 I assure you, just the suggestion that there might be a conflict of interest in this case is insulting beyond belief. THAT is the whole point.

  19. I assure you, just the suggestion that there might be a conflict of interest in this case is insulting beyond belief. THAT is the whole point.

    Then be precise about what you say. You said conflicts only involve current activities of a lawyer. That is not true.

  20. So Stewart’s lawyer was Tigar, who also represented Terry Nichols.

    My friend and mentor was the guy at Justice who signed the order to pick Nichols up after Oklahoma City.

    Ok, R, I’ve read a few articles on it, and it made me raise my eyebrows a bit.

    First, your comparison to John Adams is inopposite to this (with the exception counsel who represented American Citizens), because both the colonists in Massachusetts and the British Soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre were subjects of the crown when the trial took place.

    Secondly, I don’t know if you read Byron York’s piece on it or not, but he made an interesting comparison, that being that it is like taking lawyers who had represented the mob and hiring them into DOJ’s Organized Crime group. You just don’t do things like that.

    I think the argument being made is that these attorneys, having represented these terrorists, might not have the country’s interests at heart when they come to work at DOJ. That may or may not be true. I remember enough about the Lynne Stewart case to recall that there was ample evidence that she had gone beyond “representation”, and that is an example where these attorney’s motives could be questioned. However, I would think that it is just as serious a problem in the other direction. Are they doing something at Justice now that is in violation of their previous clients’ interests?

    Whether or not they are in fact in conflict, or doing something wrong, R, the situation gives the impression that something could be wrong. Careful attorneys, and ones who never wanted to have the question raised about themselves, would not do it. And relying on Holder’s judgement in this matter? Forgeddabouit. He’s already proven with his own testimony that he really isn’t that sharp, and attorneys like that are usually the ones who blunder right into conflicts.

  21. “so full of hate for the current administration that they will stop at nothing, besmirch anyone, to justify their history of un-American activity.” — R

    R, that is so 2006…

    Covington & Burling, LLC, Eric Holders former law firm, represents 18 of the GITMO detainees. They still represent 18 of the GITMO detainees, so anyone who had anything to do with defending those detainees should have zero influence on anything that will affect those detainees, to include policy.

    Marc Theissen actually makes a great point. If you have a lawyer who was in any way connected to the defense of the detainees, setting policy to release them, move them, change venue for trials- and the international standards of law that apply-, or impact future detentions of sympathetic ‘clients’, then hell yeah, we have a right to know.

    I frankly don’t get where you are coming from. This is such common sense that it really couldn’t be any clearer- if you touched them before, you can’t touch them now since you’re playing for the other team. That’s why we have conflict of interest laws and protocols- it removes any question of doubt or double dealing. We have another word for this- CORRUPTION.

    I feel sorry for you R, really I do. You’re idol is an idiot. You didn’t realize it before, but I think its been sinking in over the last 2 or 3 months and now you’re pissed. You can’t believe you fell for it, that he could be so dumb, that they- with such a lead both politically and publicly- could piss it all away so fast.

    So now- with this post- you’re reaching, there has to be something to grasp at, and once again, you’ve pulled the shortest straw.

  22. BiW spoke to this, quite well I might add, so there is no need to belabor it aside to say that once again, we see the Dems- and importantly the One- showing there colors.

    Pathetic.

    “Roberts: Scene at State of Union `very troubling’

    By JAY REEVES (AP) – 12 hours ago

    TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama’s State of the Union address was “very troubling” and the annual speech has “degenerated to a political pep rally.”

    Obama chided the court, with the justices seated before him in their black robes, for its decision on a campaign finance case.

    Responding to a University of Alabama law student’s question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

    “So I have no problems with that,” he said. “On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.

    “The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gyvfRvSPtr5INaLpoyt0_bd8V0AwD9EBCSAG0

  23. From Andrew McCarthy
    Why the al-Qaeda Seven Matter
    http://article.nationalreview.com/427318/why-the-al-qaeda-seven-matter/andrew-c-mccarthy

    “…The Left is embarrassed. It senses that the public is no longer buying its bogus narrative about the Gitmo Bar: that they are noble attorneys answering the Constitution’s call in order to protect “our values.” Many of the detainees represented by these volunteers have returned to the jihad against America. Some of them have already committed more mass murders. Others are now in top positions, planning operations against our troops and our homeland. With that in mind, preaching about “the rule of law” — by which they mean “the rule of lawyers” — doesn’t seem like the best strategy for progressives at the moment. So they’ve switched to the tactic that works best with their media sympathizers: just keep saying “Cheney.”

    [Gorilla Comment: Don’t you feel like a tool?]

    But that isn’t going to work, either. Since Jan. 20, 2009, Vice President Cheney’s warnings about national security have been vindicated. Cheney argued that American counterterrorism policies had to change after 9/11 and that regarding jihadist terror as a mere law-enforcement issue irresponsibly endangered the nation. But Barack Obama campaigned on going back to the September 10 mindset. So where are we now? Gitmo is still open, we still have military commissions, aggressive surveillance has been inscribed in our law, and military operations have escalated. The warrantless, targeted killing of al-Qaeda operatives has not been curtailed — if anything, it has been stepped up: Evidently, that’s enough due process for Pakistan.

    Obama hasn’t adopted these policies because he wants to. He has been dragged into doing so by political reality: The American people would tolerate nothing less. Given a choice, it turns out Americans vastly prefer Cheney’s counterterrorism program to the Left’s blame-America prescriptions. “Just keep saying ‘Cheney’” is not an effective argument when the public is more comfortable hearing “Cheney” than, say, “Holder.”…

  24. Damn Gorilla…I hadn’t seen that beauty of speech from Nancy Peelosi. 😆 I guess this what passes for profoundness in Rutherford’s circles. Our blog author sells himself short associating with these fools. And let us not forget – this is 3rd in command. Can you imagine the mocking and outrage if George Bush had something like that?

    Everytime I ponder how I wish Obama would disappear like a fart in the wind, I slap myself thinking, “My Gawd. Joe Biden is next in line, and if something happens to Jolting Joe, Nancy Pelosi steps to the plate.” Terrifying stuff.

    Rutherford thinks I’m blowing smoke but I pray for Obama’s safety every day and never say anymore, “It can’t be any worse.”

  25. O.T. – Has everyone received their “warning letter” about the arriving census?

    I understand fully 1/4 of the questions have to do with “race” which is absolutely none of the government’s business.

    Well, I have decided what race mine is this year: Daytona.

    Sounds kind of Native American, doesn’t it?

  26. Covington & Burling, LLC, Eric Holders former law firm, represents 18 of the GITMO detainees. They still represent 18 of the GITMO detainees, so anyone who had anything to do with defending those detainees should have zero influence on anything that will affect those detainees, to include policy.

    How does this not create an imputed conflict of interest problem for Holder?

  27. It’s says so much about you conservatives that you are so eager to take huge chunks of the Bill of Rights and write it out of existence. Tell me, is former President Bush a Bin Laden-loving jihadist sympathizer if when he enacted the Military Commissions Act of 2006, cause you know…it expressly provided that detainees get defense lawyers?

    I find your belief repulsive that once you’re labeled a terrorist you can no longer find a lawyer to help you make the case that you were not, because now just by representing you—even if you’re acquitted—your lawyers become terrorists, too!

    Under your beliefs you have lost your Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

    Furthermore if you labeled someone a terrorist, they no longer have protection under the Eighth Amendment right to be free from torture. But thanks to people like Tex Taylor, BiW, Dead Rabbit, and Gorilla, it’s OK to torture terrorists these days. As long as you’re pretty sure they’re terrorists. This is good news for the conservative way of thinking, because it means that you can abuse a possible terrorist into admitting that he actually is a terrorist without all those facts and stuff that comes out in a trial he can no longer have because all his lawyers are jihadist sympathizer.

    I think ABA President Carolyn Lamm says it best.

    lawyers have an ethical obligation to “provide representation to people who otherwise would stand alone against the power and resources of the government–even to those accused of heinous crimes against this nation in the name of causes that evoke our contempt.”

    Or even these former Republican administration officials in the DOJ.

    Former Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division Peter Keisler, former U.S. Attorney for Eastern District of Virginia Chuck Rosenberg and former Associate White House Counsel Bradford Berenson. Former Solicitor General Kenneth Starr and David Rivkin, the Deputy Director, Office of Policy Development during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

    “To suggest that the Justice Department should not employ talented lawyers who have advocated on behalf of detainees maligns the patriotism of people who have taken honorable positions on contested questions and demands a uniformity of background and view in government service from which no administration would benefit,” the statement said.

    Tell me, when do you realize you no longer believe in our Constitution and Bill of Rights? What conservative line do you cross?

  28. &diety bless Curator!!! It is mind blowing how no claim from the right is too repulsive for the conservative round table of the RL blog to embrace.

    When we take BiW and G’s conflict of interest argument to its logical extreme, no defense attorney could ever be employed to be a prosecutor EVER. Why? Because a history of defending accused criminals ipso facto makes one compromised in the prosecution of them. That’s the argument. It’s absurd.

    You guys talk about playing for “the other team”. What nonsense. It is all ONE team. Both defense and prosecution want justice done. I am quite sure that when a defense attorney loses a case on which he worked diligently, and where he suspected his client was indeed guilty, he sleeps well at night knowing he protected his client from unfair prosecution and justice prevailed.

    Does anyone notice how Tex ignored my medical hypothetical? He had to ignore it because he knows full well that in both law and medicine, an oath is taken that overrides personal opinion or belief. Many lawyers are not cut out to defend suspected terrorists because they just can’t stomach it. Others have the courage to defend our system of justice. That does not make them a terrorist.

    BiW, Liz Cheney insulted your profession and instead of knowing when you’ve been dissed, you drink the damn GOP Koolaid.

  29. “Also could someone please cite for me where the precedent is for ordinary citizens to review the resumes of DoJ lawyers”

    It’s called the Freedom of Information Act.

    Like all federal agencies, the Department of Justice (DOJ) generally is required under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to disclose records requested in writing by any person.

  30. OH, I did miss Rutherford’s hypothetical to me. Sorry “r”, I really was not brushing you off. Usually your insipid hypothetical questions never make much sense, so unless I specifically see my name (and I didn’t), I usually ignore them.

    Your hypothesis is invalid. Which is nothing new because your logic is invariably faulty, a common malady amongst libs like you and Wally. Wally Curator never blinks an eye if he could possibly break the very 1st Amendment squashing freedom of religion and free speech.

    I’m the ER Doc, I administer aid. You go me there. But I’m being paid doing a job which I took an oath, just like assigned defense counsel would do in a courtroom. And that is not the situation here.

    I’m not volunteering pro bono to go seek out pedophile rapists to heal. These lawyers believed so strongly about their own principles that they sacrificed paying work and instead went to work without charge just to turn their principles into law, which immediately makes me suspect. I think it only fair that we get to ask what are those principles and do citizens share those principles. Like you like to tell me, America isn’t a theocracy, or a monarchy, or an oligarchy.

    Would you feel so strongly if John Ashcroft had stocked the Civil Rights Division with appointees who had done extensive pro bono work for white supremacists?

    Answer that one and get back with me.

  31. Thank you Lord that Chief Justice John Roberts finally stood up and called the unseemly lecture from the Idiot President on his poor behavior during Thug’s SOTU. It would have been better if Roberts had also called the toadies behind the justices acting like savages on their idiot behavior too.

    It would serve Bongo right if not one SCOTUS showed up next year for his usual Propaganda Union Speech (PUS). It would be great if half the building was empty next time.

  32. What would serve him right is a Congressional resolution against him politicizing the SOTU address and the call for a public apology to the SCOTUS.

    Also, won’t it be a hoot when he signs a health care bill that includes language that funds abortion? Then he can be a proven liar and Wilson can retract his apology.

    Get your popcorn ready, folks!

  33. Hey Curator, you’re always whining about our Conservative abuses. Want to tackle this one sport?

    Remember when your man told us, “We’ve excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs.”

    In fact, more than 40 former lobbyists work in the administration, including such policy makers as Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn (who was lobbying for Raytheon as recently as 2008), Office of the First Lady Director of Policy and Projects Jocelyn Frye (National Partnership for Women and Families), White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Muñoz (National Council of La Raza), and Treasury Secretary Chief of Staff Mark Patterson (Goldman Sachs).

    What was that about dishonesty and abuses of authority again?

  34. It’s says so much about you conservatives that you are so eager to take huge chunks of the Bill of Rights and write it out of existence. Tell me, is former President Bush a Bin Laden-loving jihadist sympathizer if when he enacted the Military Commissions Act of 2006, cause you know…it expressly provided that detainees get defense lawyers?

    Your logic is faulty. Giving them attorneys is not the same thing as giving them all the rights of citizens. Just because they have the right to counsel does not mean that the Bill of Rights applies to them. Now if we are talking about specifc cases where the accused is a US Citizen, then yes, they should be accorded all the rights of citizens, including the right to be tried for treason.

    I find your belief repulsive that once you’re labeled a terrorist you can no longer find a lawyer to help you make the case that you were not, because now just by representing you—even if you’re acquitted—your lawyers become terrorists, too!

    I articulated no such belief, in fact, I said the contrary above. No one is being denied counsel because some one might questioon whether a conflict of interest exists when they later get hired by the opposing team. However, since you and Rutherford have purposely chosen to be thick on the subject of conflicts, potential conflicts, and imputed conflicts, let me make another anology: I was counsel for XYZ Bank last year, and resigned effective 12/31/09. On January 1, 2010, I start to represent Mal, who is in custody for robbing a string of XYZ Bank branches. You don’t think that the bank will be filing complaints against me with the bar association? You better believe they will, and I guarantee you, I would be in trouble for it. Now with Holder’s situation as described above, in the Imputed conflicts issue, it isn’t me who represents Mal. I am now doing estate planning, but my partner or associate, who never did any work for the bank, is representing Mal. That is STILL a guaranteed conflict of interest complaint, and one that will likely be successful.

    Under your beliefs you have lost your Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

    Bzzzzt! Wrong, for the reasons decribed above, and because defense attorney’s are a different breed. A pro bono representation of a terror suspect is the kind of thing that can make a career if done right, and I know very few hotshot defense attorneys who wouldn’t thrive on the notariety, especially if it is negative, because you can’t buy street cred like that with potential clients.

    Furthermore if you labeled someone a terrorist, they no longer have protection under the Eighth Amendment right to be free from torture. But thanks to people like Tex Taylor, BiW, Dead Rabbit, and Gorilla, it’s OK to torture terrorists these days. As long as you’re pretty sure they’re terrorists. This is good news for the conservative way of thinking, because it means that you can abuse a possible terrorist into admitting that he actually is a terrorist without all those facts and stuff that comes out in a trial he can no longer have because all his lawyers are jihadist sympathizer.

    There is a lot of sloppy thinking in this paragraph. First, if they are not a US Citizen, I’m not convinced they have 8th Amendment rights. Secondly, I don’t see the word “torture” anywhere in the 8th Amendment (and no, you and I do not agree on what is and what is not torture) And Third, I don’t know of any instance where someone was “tortured” in to admitting guilt.

    As for your quotes, they’re nice and all, but they miss the point. This is not about someone being denied counsel, or Justice not being able to hire talented attorneys. For me, it isn’t even about the patriotism of those attorneys. It is about whether or not there is a conflict of interest or a potential conflict of interest, and if there is, whether or not a knowing waiver or informed consent was given to continuing that conflict. Period. End of Story.

  35. &diety bless Curator!!! It is mind blowing how no claim from the right is too repulsive for the conservative round table of the RL blog to embrace.

    R, if you had to sit through some of the classes I did, you might have an inkling of how galactically stupid that remark was.

    When we take BiW and G’s conflict of interest argument to its logical extreme, no defense attorney could ever be employed to be a prosecutor EVER. Why? Because a history of defending accused criminals ipso facto makes one compromised in the prosecution of them. That’s the argument. It’s absurd.

    Sloppy sloppy sloppy thinking R. I think you’re letting your exuberance hogtie your judgment.

    First of all, I can’t think of many examples of defense attorney’s wanting to become prosecutors or vice versa. The idea is anathema to most of them, and considering how a lot of defense attorneys are flamboyant and do things their own way, many of them wouldn’t last long playing for the other team. Secondly, when many of the accused are members of the same organization or enterprise, you will likely learn things common to the enterprise, and therefore other members, that you can’t unlearn if you go to work for the other side. (As you should go back and read, I did indicate that conflicts work both ways.

    You guys talk about playing for “the other team”. What nonsense. It is all ONE team. Both defense and prosecution want justice done.

    Your naivite’ is touching. Really. I may tear up here.
    R, prosecutors want successful prosecutions. Some will even cross the time to get them. It is sad, but true. Defense attorneys, at least the good ones will move heaven and earth for their clients, and any argument they can make with a straight face is good enough for that purpose. They also know that the system only works right when both sides do their job, which is why when the prosecution makes a mistake, defense attorneys will let them, even when they know their client is guilty.

    I am quite sure that when a defense attorney loses a case on which he worked diligently, and where he suspected his client was indeed guilty, he sleeps well at night knowing he protected his client from unfair prosecution and justice prevailed.

    No. Sometimes they don’t sleep well at all, and other times they do.

    BiW, Liz Cheney insulted your profession and instead of knowing when you’ve been dissed, you drink the damn GOP Koolaid.

    R, my profession is maligned all the time, but it is not maligned when people raise questions about conflicts of interest. It does more damage to the integrity of what I, and thousands others do daily when people do not adequately address such inquiries, obfuscate the real issue with baseless emotional claims, and appoint wise latina women to the bench when they have repeatedly indcicated that they consider cannons regarding impartiualityand the perception thereof to be advisory rather than binding.

  36. Just because they have the right to counsel does not mean that the Bill of Rights applies to them.

    It does not matter whether they are citizens or foreign nationals because the Bill of Rights makes no such distinctions and court precedence has held as much since at least the 19th century.

    I’m no lawyer but I have read from several sources that the Bill of Rights applies to everyone within the jurisdiction of the American legal system.

    Maybe I should not have lumped you in with DR, Tex and Gorilla with respect to affording the accused a lawyer without also accusing the lawyer of the same crime.

    @Tex

    Remember when your man told us, “We’ve excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs.”

    A rate his one a a DEFINITE broken campaign promise. A “waiver” clause doesn’t sit well with me. Still I guess it is better then Bush’s over 100 lobbyist. No?

  37. Tex said:

    Would you feel so strongly if John Ashcroft had stocked the Civil Rights Division with appointees who had done extensive pro bono work for white supremacists?

    Answer it Rutherford!

    I also have to say the thread has taken on a life well outside of what the original post created.

    And kudos to Curator for speaking out against Obama regards the broken campaign promise.

  38. It does not matter whether they are citizens or foreign nationals because the Bill of Rights makes no such distinctions and court precedence has held as much since at least the 19th century.

    Really? I’d like to see some of that precedent.

    I’m no lawyer but I have read from several sources that the Bill of Rights applies to everyone within the jurisdiction of the American legal system.

    Are you saying that military tribunerals are the same as civil courts? Because members of the military are not free to say whatever they want without sanction from the government. Not sure that it truly comports with the First Amendent.

  39. “But thanks to people like Tex Taylor, BiW, Dead Rabbit, and Gorilla, it’s OK to torture terrorists these days. As long as you’re pretty sure they’re terrorists.”

    You’re cool with assassinating them though? Rutherford won’t answer. Maybe you will.

    It’s ok to “murder” these people who you deem innocent before guilty?

  40. Wally,

    A rate his one a a DEFINITE broken campaign promise.

    Surely you don’t think the path of broken campaign promises just stops at this one do you? Shall we run down the list in 14 short months, including Obama’s grand plans of transparency?

    YES WE CAN!!!! 🙄

  41. I will comment more later, but you two are a couple of twits.

    I never said they have no right to counsel, I said counsel doesn’t necessarily have the right to make national policy vis a vis their previous clients.

    You two idiots would be the first to burn Cheney at the stake for being involved in energy policy because of his Haliburton connections (as incorrect as that would be), yet think this somehow different.

    Why don’t you two paragons of law and policy explain to us all why folks recuse themselves from issues, and then explain how that would not apply to this.

  42. “The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”

    Nah. Rutherford thought it was awesome, Supreme Court Chief Justice.

  43. Nah. Rutherford thought it was awesome, Supreme Court Chief Justice.

    Well, he is only the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. What the heck would he know about it? After all, I’m sure the wise latina woman sitting with them was cheering on the inside, and we know her conclusions would be better than Justice Roberts’ conclusions. She told us so!

  44. You’re cool with assassinating them though? Rutherford won’t answer. Maybe you will.

    It’s ok to “murder” these people who you deem innocent before guilty?

    You are saying our military is murdering people? You sound like an anti-war leftist. Do you think if we have actionable intelligence on a top al Qaeda operative we should not act and just sit on our hands?

    Why don’t you go on blackfive or freerepublic and see how your friends treat you?

  45. “It does not matter whether they are citizens or foreign nationals because the Bill of Rights makes no such distinctions and court precedence has held as much since at least the 19th century.” — Wally

    Only if they are IN the United States, does the U.S. Constitution apply to them, hence the uproar over bringing GITMO detainees to the U.S.

    “Maybe I should not have lumped you in with DR, Tex and Gorilla with respect to affording the accused a lawyer without also accusing the lawyer of the same crime.” — Wally

    Maybe you should focus more on what I said instead of what you think I said…

    “It’s says so much about you conservatives that you are so eager to take huge chunks of the Bill of Rights and write it out of existence. Tell me, is former President Bush a Bin Laden-loving jihadist sympathizer if when he enacted the Military Commissions Act of 2006, cause you know…it expressly provided that detainees get defense lawyers?” — Wally

    Again, your straw man sucks. No one said they shouldn’t have a lawyer. In fact, we’ve been proponents of the Military Tribunals- not Article 3 courts- so where this little neutron of thought came from, I’ve no idea…

    In fact, pretty much all of comment 34 is bullshit. If you want to build imaginary boogie men to tear down, well, Paul Bunyan have at it. When you’re ready to actually address our comments, let me know…

    “When we take BiW and G’s conflict of interest argument to its logical extreme, no defense attorney could ever be employed to be a prosecutor EVER. Why? Because a history of defending accused criminals ipso facto makes one compromised in the prosecution of them. That’s the argument. It’s absurd.” — R

    That’s not the argument you twit. BiW commented on this very well, but this just shows how shallow your thought process seems to be. Sweeping generalizations are great on the Campaign trail, but crap in real life.

    “You guys talk about playing for “the other team”. What nonsense. It is all ONE team. Both defense and prosecution want justice done. I am quite sure that when a defense attorney loses a case on which he worked diligently, and where he suspected his client was indeed guilty, he sleeps well at night knowing he protected his client from unfair prosecution and justice prevailed.” — R

    It is now…their team!

    R, answer my question about recusing and then tell me that absolutely everything you’ve written thus far isn’t total crap…

  46. No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises,” the bill, A. 10129 , states in part.

    Fucking stupid New Yorkers pissing their freedom away.

  47. Rabbit, I heard that idiocy earlier today. Is that approved, or just being discussed?

    I’ll tell you, I am beginning to wonder how long before Americans decide to simply disband the current government, get rid of all of them, possibly banish those in charge, and start completely over.

    Now our nanny is telling us what we can eat? Screw them…I wouldn’t visit a restaurant that didn’t allow salt and I hope most others wouldn’t either.

    This is what happens when you have elitist libs stepping in to decide for us. There are no bigger bullies on earth.

  48. Furthermore if you labeled someone a terrorist, they no longer have protection under the Eighth Amendment right to be free from torture.

    This struck me as wrong when I read it, and after I got home and consulted the library, I know why.

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    That cruel and unusual punishment thing? That’s post conviction.

    You might want to start consulting a good hornbook before you start pontificating on Constitutional interpretations.

  49. If you ever want to stir the hornet’s nest, find a biased liberal paper, in this case the Boston Globe, and have their one pseudo-conservative writers (Jeff Jacoby) write an article giving George Bush credit for anything (in this case Iraq). The readership goes apoplectic.

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/03/10/mission_accomplished_indeed/?comments=all#readerComm

    This must be an incredibly sad time for neopagans like Wally Curator and our pal Rutherford. Here the gullible American public handed Jeremiah Jr., the House, and the Senate to liberals and it took 14 whole months for them to so screw up the grand plan, that even liberals are ditching liberals.

    Next time Rutherford, when you tell us that America grew up and changed, adopting your amoral stances, has shifted left, and that men like Obama represent America has to offer, you try and remind yourself of just how pathetic the “progressive performance has been. Four out of five Americans either have or close to summarily rejecting your idea of utopia sport.

    God does work in mysterious ways…

  50. Liz is spot on. Her target isn’t the attorneys. It’s Holder. Holder was asked repeatedly by members of Congress with oversight duty of the judiciary to provide the names of those attorneys who WERE NOW POLITICAL APPOINTEES that provided defense counsel to Gitmo detainees. Holder repeatedly failed to comply with that request.

    How can Congress perform its oversight duties as a co-equal branch of government when the Executive branch answer is “pound sand.”

  51. Her target isn’t the attorneys. It’s Holder.

    Xbradtc, sorry but if Holder is the only target, why the need for the reference to the al Qaeda 7? Why the shot of the IBD headline “Department of Jihad”?

    The ad was a broad brush that smeared lots more folks than Holder. If this was Cheney’s way of criticizing Holder, then she is indeed stupid.

    P.S. Welcome to the blog. Nice to see you here.

  52. I know I’ve got comments to address but I spent the time tonight on a new post that discusses in part the tweet that BiW mentions a few comments ago.

    I’ll be back tomorrow for more.

  53. Welcome to politics, Rutherford.

    They are POLITICAL APPOINTEES.

    I guess you’re going to be spending a lot of time retracting various political attacks against members of the Bush administration now.

  54. “r”,

    You accused me of ducking you and I answered your questions. Now you need to answer mine in return.

  55. Rutherford, far be in for me to want to give you a hand, and the thought of helping Wally is actually hateful to me being I so detest people like him, but I will one time be a sincere friend so that perhaps a day will return where you begin to make some sense – like you kind of once did when I first met you about certain things.

    You keep telling us that the American public when polled is in favor of ObamaCare, if I understand. Do you know more than two professional Democratic pollsters?

    Excerpt:

    Nothing has been more disconcerting than to watch Democratic politicians and their media supporters deceive themselves into believing that the public favors the Democrats’ current health-care plan. Yes, most Americans believe, as we do, that real health-care reform is needed. And yes, certain proposals in the plan are supported by the public.

    However, a solid majority of Americans opposes the massive health-reform plan. Four-fifths of those who oppose the plan strongly oppose it, according to Rasmussen polling this week, while only half of those who support the plan do so strongly. Many more Americans believe the legislation will worsen their health care, cost them more personally and add significantly to the national deficit. Never in our experience as pollsters can we recall such self-deluding misconstruction of survey data.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102904.html

  56. Yes, most Americans believe, as we do, that real health-care reform is needed. And yes, certain proposals in the plan are supported by the public.

    However, a solid majority of Americans opposes the massive health-reform plan.

    How does this contradict what I already stated? The parts of the bill go down easy, the whole does not. I will ignore the source (Rasmussen, a known GOP sympathizer) and simply say that I agree that the 2000 pager ain’t popular.

    I contend that as this becomes law and gets enacted a bit at a time it will become just like social security and medicare, social programs that are loved by their recipients. Yes, I know your reflexive answer is social programs that are going broke, but that is a different issue.

  57. OK Tex, you’ve probably got a bunch of q’s in this thread that have gone unanswered, I’ve lost track, but I’ll answer the one you think is the real gotcha question.

    If I was told that a number of lawyers in the civil rights division of the Justice Department used to be defense lawyers for white supremacists, my emotional reaction would be one of discomfort. It wouldn’t sit well with me. But if someone a bit more detached from the race issue reminded me that lawyers don’t necessarily share the views of the accused they are defending, I would have to concede the point at least intellectually.

    I would further say that the more heinous the defendant, the less likely that his lawyer sympathizes with his ideology. So a DoJ lawyer who had defended someone accused of lynching a man, would get much more the benefit of the doubt in my book than say a defense attorney in a job discrimination case.

    Let’s get down to brass tacks. The very worst you can say about the “al Qaeda 7” (damn that’s disgusting) is that they view Gitmo negatively and they believe their clients, while guilty, were tortured. They did NOT believe that their clients should have conspired to hurt the United States, They are not al Qaeda sympathizers from any ideological perspective. To imply they were is beneath contempt.

    But to go back to a comment made by Xbradtc, let’s say Holder is the only target of the attack. Then the attack is equally vile by implying that Holder is an al Qaeda sympathizer.

    You can scream full disclosure and freedom of information act until you turn blue in the face. If that was the only point being made in the ad, it could have been made in a much more dignified manner that didn’t smear patriots doing their job. Liz wanted to press buttons and she succeeded. Hopefully to her long term detriment.

  58. You two idiots would be the first to burn Cheney at the stake for being involved in energy policy because of his Haliburton connections (as incorrect as that would be), yet think this somehow different.

    Why don’t you two paragons of law and policy explain to us all why folks recuse themselves from issues, and then explain how that would not apply to this.

    G, sorry I’m getting to this so late. I’ve added emphasis to your quote to make my point. Haliburton connections. Yes the fact that Cheney’s history implies an ongoing connection with Haliburton is not analogous to saying that a defense attorney for a terrorist has an ongoing connection to a terrorist organization. Your Cheney example could not be worse.

    In fact, if I were Eric Holder and I opposed torture and wanted to close Gitmo, I would absolutely want to hire former defense attorneys who, while they detest terrorism, also detest torture. They are perfectly suited to lead the way toward lawful prosecution of these criminals. No need to recuse and no conflict of interest. The only interest involved is the pursuit of justice.

  59. If I was told that a number of lawyers in the civil rights division of the Justice Department used to be defense lawyers for white supremacists, my emotional reaction would be one of discomfort.

    Discomfort my ass. You’d be screaming to the heavens about racist attorneys, Jim Crow, and lynchings if these same attorneys went seeking to provide services for free to white supremacists. You’re not even being honest. You accused me of being racist for using the term Mammy once sending you into rants of banning, but your only “uncomfortable” with attorneys providing services for Aryan Brothers. Pleazzzzeee…

    They are not al Qaeda sympathizers from any ideological perspective. To imply they were is beneath contempt.

    Then consider me contemptible, because this is exactly why I think these scumbags seek these people out. Al-Qaeda is simply an excuse to be used as ammunition for the hate America, no blood for oil, waterboarding is torture, slam George Bush crowd. These are the million Mogadishus, little Eichmanns, and anti-Christian crowd Rutherford and you know it. Lynne Stewart personified.

    Holder is a radical and a dishonest scumbag. And the worst part is, we all knew that before he was ever nominated to that position.

    Your denial changes nothing

  60. How does this contradict what I already stated? The parts of the bill go down easy, the whole does not. I will ignore the source (Rasmussen, a known GOP sympathizer) and simply say that I agree that the 2000 pager ain’t popular.

    No, the parts of the bill don’t go down easy. If they did, there would be absolutely no objection to the passing. Public option is a disaster, the cost is outrageous, few believe the proposed cost savings, everyone knows this will raise taxes, to remake 16% of the GDP is problematic at best, and I can profess to knowing a little something about how one can skew a question into leading the answers sought.

    I find it laughable you diss Rasmussen when he is without doubt the most accurate gauge of prediction in political elections eight years in a row. You just don’t like his results because you never made mention of Rasmussen 14 months ago.

    Pass it by bribery Rutherford. Ram it through with unscrupulous methods. These are the same types of assumptions that almost destroyed our economy 16 months ago. And see what happens to your party. Your own pollsters are telling you as much.

  61. Doing some catchup. DR, when Curator called you out on our killing folks in battle he was not dodging at all. Either we are at war or not. My understanding is that it is ok to kill an enemy combatant in a battle. Once you capture him alive, then there are conventions for treating a POW.

    So how was Curator’s answer to you a dodge?

  62. Again, I’m reviewing old comments:

    Your naivite’ is touching. Really. I may tear up here.

    Methinks your time on the docket has made you a cynic. I’d love to see you in a debate with an ACLU attorney. 😉

  63. My understanding is that it is ok to kill an enemy combatant in a battle. Once you capture him alive, then there are conventions for treating a POW.

    Your understanding is faulty. POW conventions apply to soldiers of nations fighting in uniform. The jihadis don’t fit the description.

    Methinks your time on the docket has made you a cynic.

    Rutherford, 10 years as a practicing attorney and another 5 or so working for practicing attorneys has not only refined my own personal bullshit detector, but it allows me to give clients a very grounded view of what the courts are and aren’t aiming to do, not to mention the fact that I have yet to meet a law school professor who adheres to and instills such lofty notions of “justice”.

    I’d love to see you in a debate with an ACLU attorney.

    I can think of more direct ways to make you cry. I did VERY well in law school, R, and I have little patience for people who advocate such twisted ideas about the law as the ACLU frequently does.

  64. BiW it sounds to me like you really want to have your cake and eat it too. Don’t treat terrorism as a criminal act …. it’s an act of war. But oh yeah, the warriors don’t wear uniforms so you don’t have to abide by the “rules of war”. How convenient! What pure BS.

    Are you seriously telling me that none of your law professors were idealists who tried to instill in you an essence of true justice? None had a philosophical bent? It was all meat and potatoes … how to screw over the defense if you’re the prosecutor or vice versa? I find that incredibly hard to believe unless you just went to a jaded law school. It’s funny, my sister has a law degree although she never practiced. I will ask her what her recollection was of law school and whether any of her professors wore rose colored glasses. Maybe I’ve watched too many episodes of “The Paper Chase”?

    My desire for you to debate an ACLU attorney had nothing to do with your intellect. I wasn’t implying that he would out-smart you. I was suggesting that his sense of justice would be more in line with mine and that such a debate would reveal you to be jaded.

  65. R, I did have one professor who was an idealist. At the time I had him, he was writing an Amicus brief for the University of Michigan admissions cases.

    He and I sparred considerably when we got to the Bakke v. University of California case. I had the temerity actually read the Court’s footnotes and ask why it was that blacks were the only minority group that had to have the admissions standards lowered for them to join the UC medical school that year, when asians seemed to do just fine with getting in under the admissions standards that were set for EVERYONE ELSE.

    He told me that it was really about “remediation”, and because their educational opportunities had been substandard for years, this was a way to make it a little easier for them to achieve what so many others had.

    I had a little trouble believing what I had just heard, especially when you consider what all the implications for society are in a statement like that. I asked him if he really thought if graduate school was really the place to practice such remediation. He blinked and asked me what I meant by that.

    I replied “Well, we are talking about someone who obviously has already gone to college, and a school good enough to allow them to consider graduate school to begin with. Yet, despite what was probably four years at this undergraduate level, they still were not able to achieve test scores high enough to fill as many seats as someone believed they should have been able to do statistically unless someone lowered the standards for them, and them alone, thus allowing them to push out someone else who was otherwise qualified. How does it serve society to make it a priority to train less qualified doctors in favor of more qualified ones? What’s more, just how far are you willing to go to back such a questionable notion? Do you want to be the guy who’s doc wasn’t able to meet the same admissions standards for med school (i.e. he wasn’t as smart as the rest of his class) but got in purely because of the color of his skin?”

    A LOT of heads bobbed along with the question. He mumbled something about remediation being the right thing to do, and how the footnotes don’t really mean anything, but he never answered the question.

    I was persona non grata for the rest of the semester in that class, and I was fine with that. He was one of only two profs I had at that school whom I had very little respect for.

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s