No matter how much you repeat this bullshit, it doesn’t become true. The Japanese weren’t executed just for waterboarding (there was much torture of all kinds), and the waterboarding they did bore no resemblance to what US interrogators did.
From my link above: “At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as ‘water cure,’ ‘water torture’ and ‘waterboarding,’ according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning.”
Also, Orin Kerr over at Volokh has some good thoughts. One of them is: “the judges, and especially the Justices, who are the real guilty parties, as they’re the ones that actually help the detainees by ruling in their favor. Does McCarthy think the Justices of the Supreme Court are guilty of aiding the enemy, and that (if we treat them like everybody else) they should be “indicted for coming to the enemy’s aid during wartime”? “
Just because they were “at the top of the list” didn’t mean that they were the only thing on the list. Use logic much?
And “simulates drowning” is a pretty anodyne description of what the Japanese did, which again was vastly different than US interrogation techniques.
“Use logic much?”
Silly reason-besotted libertarian! CG is a “liberal.” He doesn’t need no stinkin’ logic! If you’ve got “compassion” (defined as the willingness to spend other people’s money), why bother with logic? A raft of straw men, arguments-from-pity, and state-cult dogma, and he’s good to go!
From the same article: Specifically, a detainee could be kept awake for more than seven days straight by shackling his hands in a standing position to a bolt in the ceiling so he could never sit down. The agency diapered and hand-fed its detainees during this period before putting them on the waterboard – that was called “sleep deprivation.”
These are not facts to be proud of, but they are facts.
Chris, assuming that the linked article isn’t bullshit, it a) is still not as bad as what the Japanese did and b) has nothing to do with the topic of this post. In other words, you’re just trolling now.
Okay, back on topic. Are the Justices of the Supreme Court who ruled in favor of detainees “aiding the enemy in wartime?”
Do you understand the difference between being accused of a crime and being guilty of it? Because, as in the case of the Uighurs, they have been found to not be combatants.
I challenge Gerrib to prove his literacy by quoting, from the linked article, the discussion on torture and/or waterboarding.
Okay, back on topic. Are the Justices of the Supreme Court who ruled in favor of detainees “aiding the enemy in wartime?”
You are still not on topic. You continue to troll. The topic is whether or not the DoJ lawyers who went out of their way to defend Al Qaeda terrorists are modern-day John Adamses.
in the case of the Uighurs, they have been found to not be combatants.
Really? How?
After all, we’re constantly told the Bush Administration (which somehow seems in some people’s minds to remain in power at Gitmo) doesn’t care whether detainees are combatants — so how was it discovered that the Uighurs weren’t?
Somebody had to look into it. There had to be information to examine in order to make that finding. You’d think real war criminals would have shredded anything that didn’t fit the narrative, so why didn’t that happen?
Maybe your “war criminal” bullshit is exactly that.
Leland – the link is simple. Liz Cheney and Mark Thiessen are attacking the “Al Qaida 7” to change the topic from Dick Cheney’s misconduct in authorizing torture.
It’s not in the article, because if it was, the article would be even more obviously bogus.
Rand – if the lawyers who defended alleged Al Qaida suspects are somehow “un-American” then the judges who actually ruled in the detainees’ favor are also un-American. I mean, the judges could have easily thrown the cases out, or ruled against the lawyers.
In 2009 it was revealed that the lawyers in this project had stalked individuals they believed were CIA interrogators, surreptitiously took their pictures, and showed them to al-Qaeda terrorists at Guantanamo Bay — placing the identities – and, therefore, the lives — of these covert operatives and their families at risk.
Exposing the identities of covert federal agents to our enemies is the highest form of patriotism!
Rand – if the lawyers who defended alleged Al Qaida suspects are somehow “un-American”
Neither I, nor Mark Thiessen said, or implied, that they were “un-American.” Take your straw men and trolling elsewhere.
So, saying somebody does “immense damage to our national security” and “raising questions about the virtue of those choices” is praise? Certainly sounds to me like he’s accusing the “Al Qaida 7” of helping the enemy.
My question still stands – if the lawyers who defended detainees were of questionable virtue, what about the judges who ruled in their favor? Judges who go out of their way to praise the lawyers in question?
Titus – the allegations about the John Adams Project are just that – allegations. If they can be proven, that’s a different matter.
The only one changing topics is Gerrib, and last I checked (some time last year, because once was enough), he his own blog for controlling topics.
Certainly sounds to me like he’s accusing the “Al Qaida 7″ of helping the enemy.
That’s because they were. It doesn’t make them “un-American.”
The issue isn’t about their “virtue.” It’s about whether or not it’s wise to have people with obvious sympathies for criminals in charge of prosecuting them. Should the DoJ hire mob capos to prosecute the Families? They have a right to defend anyone they want pro bono. They don’t have a right to work for the Justice Department. And the people who should really be criticized (and are) are those who hired them (aka the incompetent and ideological hack, Eric Holder).
Rand – you keep dancing around the judges. Either the judges are finding for innocent people, in which case the defense lawyer did nothing wrong, or helping the enemy. You can’t pick both.
A mob “capo” is not a lawyer – but if a lawyer has ethically defended mobsters, that should not disqualify them from working for the Justice Department.
Either the judges are finding for innocent people, in which case the defense lawyer did nothing wrong, or helping the enemy.
The judges aren’t really relevant to this topic, since it is about who the Justice department should be hiring, and they didn’t go out of their way to take the case up. But yes, their ruling helped the enemy, and damaged national security. Sometimes that happens. But it doesn’t make “un-American.” That remains your trolling straw man.
if a lawyer has ethically defended mobsters, that should not disqualify them from working for the Justice Department.
If they do it pro bono (as opposed to being assigned by a judge), it should disqualify them from prosecuting mobsters.
If they do it pro bono (as opposed to being assigned by a judge), it should disqualify them from prosecuting mobsters.
That’s the issue.
So only a criminal prosecutor can ever work for the Justice Department? That’s a new concept in American law.
Titus – the allegations about the John Adams Project are just that – allegations. If they can be proven, that’s a different matter.
I’m confident the Holder DOJ will make proving that their highest priority!
So only a criminal prosecutor can ever work for the Justice Department?
You seem to have a limitless supply of straw.
I guess it must be a requirement to be a troll.
Well, if anybody who’s ever defended a criminal pro-bono is “questionable” for the DoJ, that leaves a small pool to select from. The ABA strongly urges 50 hours a year. If you’re a lawyer in the criminal bar, that usually means defending a criminal.
Well, if anybody who’s ever defended a criminal pro-bono is “questionable” for the DoJ
Yet more straw. Have you ever learned to read for comprehension?
The bottom line, Rand, is this – Mark Thiessen is impuning the motives of lawyers for doing what lawyers do – advocating for their clients. That’s how the American justice system has worked since before there was an America.
Mark Thiessen is impuning the motives of lawyers for doing what lawyers do – advocating for their clients.
No, he’s not. He’s impugning the motives of lawyers who go out of their way to advocate for and defend, pro bono, enemies of the nation. He is also questioning their ability and willingness to vigorously and properly prosecute the same people. And rightfully so. To compare this to “defending a criminal pro bono” is ludicrous.
If they do it pro bono (as opposed to being assigned by a judge), it should disqualify them from prosecuting mobsters.
Just to clarify, are you saying that it’s the type of defendant that’s significant? That a lawyer can’t defend people of type X pro-bono and later be trusted to prosecute defendants of type X, where type X might be “mobster”, “enemy combatant”, “terrorist”, etc.?
He’s impugning the motives of lawyers who go out of their way to advocate for and defend, pro bono, enemies of the nation.
And there is no such thing as a good motive for offering pro-bono representation to people accused of being enemies of the nation?
Substitute “criminal” for “enemies of the nation” and you’ll find it’s the exact same thing.
Just to clarify, are you saying that it’s the type of defendant that’s significant?
Yes, though it goes beyond that in the case of foreign Islamic terrorists, which are not ordinary criminals. Even mobsters were generally loyal to the US (e.g., there were real Michael Corleones in WW II). In that case you have someone who is ideologically suspect. Not that this is necessarily criminal or treasonous behavior, but it should certainly be sufficient to prevent you from being hired by the DoJ to work the other side of the fence.
If the Attorney General had any sense, that is. But the evidence for that has been repeatedly demonstrated to be scant over the past year.
And there is no such thing as a good motive for offering pro-bono representation to people accused of being enemies of the nation?
There could be, in theory, but there could also be be bad ones. With no shortage of well-qualified lawyers for the job, why take a chance? All other things being equal, I’d prefer a prosecutor that hadn’t gone out of his way to defend the kinds of people he’s prosecuting, particularly when those people are making war on me and mine. I question the motives of people who don’t.
With no shortage of well-qualified lawyers for the job, why take a chance?
Because it’s discriminating on a basis that you acknowledge is purely speculative. There are Democrats/Arab-Americans/homosexuals who aren’t loyal to the U.S., and there is no shortage of well-qualified Republican/non-Arab/heterosexual lawyers, so why not bar Democrats/Arab-Americans/homosexuals from the DOJ?
I see nothing suspicious about wanting to work for Gitmo detainees pro-bono. Their cases are on the cutting edge of important questions of executive power and human rights law, and I’d expect them to attract lawyers with extraordinary interest and expertise in those questions. That’s the very sort of lawyers I’d want working the cases from DOJ side.
John Adams defended his roll in the Boston Massacre trials by stating that he wanted to demonstrate that the American colonies were ruled by law, not ideology or favoritism. A country ruled by law can have prosecutors who have defended the accused, no matter who the accused were or what they were accused of.
Because it’s discriminating on a basis that you acknowledge is purely speculative. There are Democrats/Arab-Americans/homosexuals who aren’t loyal to the U.S., and there is no shortage of well-qualified Republican/non-Arab/heterosexual lawyers, so why not bar Democrats/Arab-Americans/homosexuals from the DOJ?
Because the numbers of such are vanishingly small.
I see nothing suspicious about wanting to work for Gitmo detainees pro-bono.
Of course you don’t.
Regarding judges; Remember, the Supremes gave us Dred Scott and Roe v Wade among others. To imply they always know what to do or don’t let their personal opinions influence their judgement is ludicrous. And yes, I think they were wrong.
If you look at the ABA, NLG and the ACLU (founded by a communist) you will see groups dominated by far-left lawyers and I guarantee Lynne Stewart was not the exception. This is another example of the far-left-radical Islam convergence. Considering who they defended and their current positions, I don’t think more scrutiny is out of line. These lawyers had an agenda and John Adams never entered into it.
OK, so we are arguing that a defense lawyer shouldn’t be restricted from working for the DOJ, even when the possible targets of the DOJ may be individuals or groups that he has previously defended.
Former defense attorney for Rapists working in a sexual crimes division? How about a defender of the KKK working for the Civil Rights division?
Let me save hypocrites like Jim and CG some trouble….back when the GOP was in the WH, I remember judicial appointments being rejected because the nominee had represented the wrong people in the past. Were you playing politics then, or playing politics now?
Because the numbers of such are vanishingly small.
The numbers of what? Democratic lawyers?
The numbers of what? Democratic lawyers?
The numbers of Democrat lawyers that are unloyal to America. Or are you saying it’s high? And why include homosexuals? They’re born that way. What a bizarre analogy.
Former defense attorney for Rapists working in a sexual crimes division?
Why not? Shouldn’t people accused of rape have lawyers?
How about a defender of the KKK working for the Civil Rights division?
If by “a defender of” you mean “a lawyer who represented”, why not? Trust me, if you are accused of a crime and a lawyer defends you, it doesn’t mean that lawyer agrees with you or your actions.
back when the GOP was in the WH, I remember judicial appointments being rejected because the nominee had represented the wrong people in the past
You are conflating the Senate’s advise and consent role in approving judicial appointments with an effort to oust sitting DOJ prosecutors. But even so, you should check your memory. I’d be surprised if you could find a case of someone who was rejected simply because they represented the “wrong people”.
Why not? Shouldn’t people accused of rape have lawyers?
Yet more moronic straw men. Apparently it’s all you have.
The numbers of Democrat lawyers that are unloyal to America
We don’t know that any of the Gitmo lawyers are disloyal, but you’d bar all of them.
And why include homosexuals?
Some have been traitors to their countries (e.g. Kim Philby), and that fact was used for decades to tar all of them as suspect.
Yet more moronic straw men.
I don’t think so. Scott is saying that a lawyer who defends people accused of rape should be disqualified from ever being a prosecutor in a sex crimes division. So he’d limit such defendants to lawyers who have no interest in ever being on the other side of the courtroom. Since plenty of the best lawyers have thoughts or hopes of someday being a district attorney or state’s attorney, he’s saying that people accused (not necessarily guilty, just accused) of rape should be denied some of the best lawyers available. All because he can’t imagine that they could be representing a rape defendant because they serve the law, and not because they think rape is okay.
Rand, you ought to have more legal-related stories. It seems to bring out the best in your trolls.
I’m curious about how everyone would feel if the defendants were Martin Bormann, Hermann Goring, and Rudolf Hess.
“Because it’s discriminating on a basis that you acknowledge is purely speculative.”
Every case of a lawyer or judge being recused is speculative and it happens all the time.
Why is the fact that the Gitmo detainees didn’t NEED civilian lawyers being ignored? We went through years of litigation to get the tribunals set up. These people all had military lawyer representation. The cases Jim talks about refer to the US civilian court system. Another case of apples and oranges.
I don’t think so.
Is there some reason we should care what trolls think?
Why is the fact that the Gitmo detainees didn’t NEED civilian lawyers being ignored?
The Hamdan case wouldn’t have reached the Supreme Court were it not for the involvement of civilian lawyers.
These people all had military lawyer representation.
Presumably at least some of those military lawyers volunteered for the assignment. Should they now be disqualified from prosecuting cases?
Every case of a lawyer or judge being recused is speculative and it happens all the time.
DOJ lawyers being hounded from their jobs because of the identity of their past clients fortunately does not happen all the time. Can you name a single time when it’s happened?
The Hamdan case wouldn’t have reached the Supreme Court were it not for the involvement of civilian lawyers.
And that would have been a good thing.
Presumably at least some of those military lawyers volunteered for the assignment. Should they now be disqualified from prosecuting cases?
Why would you presume that any of them would have been throwing up their hands and saying “Me, me, me, choose me,” in response to that specific assignment? They signed up to defend military people in court martials and disciplinary procedures, not foreign illegal combatants. They are no different than civil public attorneys, whose actions are laudable, but completely unlike those who deliberately defend terrorists pro bono.
First, the issue of many of the detainees, such as the Uighurs, was whether or not they were actually combatants in the first place.
Second, if the Gitmo detainees are actually combatants, then “enhanced interrogation” is a war crime. After all, we executed Japanese soldiers as war criminals for waterboarding.
No matter how much you repeat this bullshit, it doesn’t become true. The Japanese weren’t executed just for waterboarding (there was much torture of all kinds), and the waterboarding they did bore no resemblance to what US interrogators did.
From my link above: “At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as ‘water cure,’ ‘water torture’ and ‘waterboarding,’ according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning.”
Also, Orin Kerr over at Volokh has some good thoughts. One of them is: “the judges, and especially the Justices, who are the real guilty parties, as they’re the ones that actually help the detainees by ruling in their favor. Does McCarthy think the Justices of the Supreme Court are guilty of aiding the enemy, and that (if we treat them like everybody else) they should be “indicted for coming to the enemy’s aid during wartime”? “
Just because they were “at the top of the list” didn’t mean that they were the only thing on the list. Use logic much?
And “simulates drowning” is a pretty anodyne description of what the Japanese did, which again was vastly different than US interrogation techniques.
“Use logic much?”
Silly reason-besotted libertarian! CG is a “liberal.” He doesn’t need no stinkin’ logic! If you’ve got “compassion” (defined as the willingness to spend other people’s money), why bother with logic? A raft of straw men, arguments-from-pity, and state-cult dogma, and he’s good to go!
Interrogators pumped detainees full of so much water that the CIA turned to a special saline solution to minimize the risk of death, the documents show. The agency used a gurney “specially designed” to tilt backwards at a perfect angle to maximize the water entering the prisoner’s nose and mouth, intensifying the sense of choking – and to be lifted upright quickly in the event that a prisoner stopped breathing.
From the same article: Specifically, a detainee could be kept awake for more than seven days straight by shackling his hands in a standing position to a bolt in the ceiling so he could never sit down. The agency diapered and hand-fed its detainees during this period before putting them on the waterboard – that was called “sleep deprivation.”
These are not facts to be proud of, but they are facts.
Chris, assuming that the linked article isn’t bullshit, it a) is still not as bad as what the Japanese did and b) has nothing to do with the topic of this post. In other words, you’re just trolling now.
Okay, back on topic. Are the Justices of the Supreme Court who ruled in favor of detainees “aiding the enemy in wartime?”
Do you understand the difference between being accused of a crime and being guilty of it? Because, as in the case of the Uighurs, they have been found to not be combatants.
I challenge Gerrib to prove his literacy by quoting, from the linked article, the discussion on torture and/or waterboarding.
Okay, back on topic. Are the Justices of the Supreme Court who ruled in favor of detainees “aiding the enemy in wartime?”
You are still not on topic. You continue to troll. The topic is whether or not the DoJ lawyers who went out of their way to defend Al Qaeda terrorists are modern-day John Adamses.
Really? How?
After all, we’re constantly told the Bush Administration (which somehow seems in some people’s minds to remain in power at Gitmo) doesn’t care whether detainees are combatants — so how was it discovered that the Uighurs weren’t?
Somebody had to look into it. There had to be information to examine in order to make that finding. You’d think real war criminals would have shredded anything that didn’t fit the narrative, so why didn’t that happen?
Maybe your “war criminal” bullshit is exactly that.
Leland – the link is simple. Liz Cheney and Mark Thiessen are attacking the “Al Qaida 7” to change the topic from Dick Cheney’s misconduct in authorizing torture.
It’s not in the article, because if it was, the article would be even more obviously bogus.
Rand – if the lawyers who defended alleged Al Qaida suspects are somehow “un-American” then the judges who actually ruled in the detainees’ favor are also un-American. I mean, the judges could have easily thrown the cases out, or ruled against the lawyers.
Instead, the Justices praised them, saying: The Court recognizes that Petitioners’ counsel are providing their services on a pro bono basis. Such pro bono representation, especially in controversial and high profile cases such as these, is in the very finest tradition of the American legal profession.
Exposing the identities of covert federal agents to our enemies is the highest form of patriotism!
Rand – if the lawyers who defended alleged Al Qaida suspects are somehow “un-American”
Neither I, nor Mark Thiessen said, or implied, that they were “un-American.” Take your straw men and trolling elsewhere.
So, saying somebody does “immense damage to our national security” and “raising questions about the virtue of those choices” is praise? Certainly sounds to me like he’s accusing the “Al Qaida 7” of helping the enemy.
My question still stands – if the lawyers who defended detainees were of questionable virtue, what about the judges who ruled in their favor? Judges who go out of their way to praise the lawyers in question?
Titus – the allegations about the John Adams Project are just that – allegations. If they can be proven, that’s a different matter.
The only one changing topics is Gerrib, and last I checked (some time last year, because once was enough), he his own blog for controlling topics.
Certainly sounds to me like he’s accusing the “Al Qaida 7″ of helping the enemy.
That’s because they were. It doesn’t make them “un-American.”
The issue isn’t about their “virtue.” It’s about whether or not it’s wise to have people with obvious sympathies for criminals in charge of prosecuting them. Should the DoJ hire mob capos to prosecute the Families? They have a right to defend anyone they want pro bono. They don’t have a right to work for the Justice Department. And the people who should really be criticized (and are) are those who hired them (aka the incompetent and ideological hack, Eric Holder).
Rand – you keep dancing around the judges. Either the judges are finding for innocent people, in which case the defense lawyer did nothing wrong, or helping the enemy. You can’t pick both.
A mob “capo” is not a lawyer – but if a lawyer has ethically defended mobsters, that should not disqualify them from working for the Justice Department.
Either the judges are finding for innocent people, in which case the defense lawyer did nothing wrong, or helping the enemy.
The judges aren’t really relevant to this topic, since it is about who the Justice department should be hiring, and they didn’t go out of their way to take the case up. But yes, their ruling helped the enemy, and damaged national security. Sometimes that happens. But it doesn’t make “un-American.” That remains your trolling straw man.
if a lawyer has ethically defended mobsters, that should not disqualify them from working for the Justice Department.
If they do it pro bono (as opposed to being assigned by a judge), it should disqualify them from prosecuting mobsters.
If they do it pro bono (as opposed to being assigned by a judge), it should disqualify them from prosecuting mobsters.
That’s the issue.
So only a criminal prosecutor can ever work for the Justice Department? That’s a new concept in American law.
I’m confident the Holder DOJ will make proving that their highest priority!
So only a criminal prosecutor can ever work for the Justice Department?
You seem to have a limitless supply of straw.
I guess it must be a requirement to be a troll.
Well, if anybody who’s ever defended a criminal pro-bono is “questionable” for the DoJ, that leaves a small pool to select from. The ABA strongly urges 50 hours a year. If you’re a lawyer in the criminal bar, that usually means defending a criminal.
Well, if anybody who’s ever defended a criminal pro-bono is “questionable” for the DoJ
Yet more straw. Have you ever learned to read for comprehension?
The bottom line, Rand, is this – Mark Thiessen is impuning the motives of lawyers for doing what lawyers do – advocating for their clients. That’s how the American justice system has worked since before there was an America.
Mark Thiessen is impuning the motives of lawyers for doing what lawyers do – advocating for their clients.
No, he’s not. He’s impugning the motives of lawyers who go out of their way to advocate for and defend, pro bono, enemies of the nation. He is also questioning their ability and willingness to vigorously and properly prosecute the same people. And rightfully so. To compare this to “defending a criminal pro bono” is ludicrous.
If they do it pro bono (as opposed to being assigned by a judge), it should disqualify them from prosecuting mobsters.
Just to clarify, are you saying that it’s the type of defendant that’s significant? That a lawyer can’t defend people of type X pro-bono and later be trusted to prosecute defendants of type X, where type X might be “mobster”, “enemy combatant”, “terrorist”, etc.?
He’s impugning the motives of lawyers who go out of their way to advocate for and defend, pro bono, enemies of the nation.
And there is no such thing as a good motive for offering pro-bono representation to people accused of being enemies of the nation?
Substitute “criminal” for “enemies of the nation” and you’ll find it’s the exact same thing.
You also keep forgetting that part of the dispute was determining if these people were in fact “enemies of the nation” or some poor schmo sold to the Americans because he pissed off a relative.
Just to clarify, are you saying that it’s the type of defendant that’s significant?
Yes, though it goes beyond that in the case of foreign Islamic terrorists, which are not ordinary criminals. Even mobsters were generally loyal to the US (e.g., there were real Michael Corleones in WW II). In that case you have someone who is ideologically suspect. Not that this is necessarily criminal or treasonous behavior, but it should certainly be sufficient to prevent you from being hired by the DoJ to work the other side of the fence.
If the Attorney General had any sense, that is. But the evidence for that has been repeatedly demonstrated to be scant over the past year.
And there is no such thing as a good motive for offering pro-bono representation to people accused of being enemies of the nation?
There could be, in theory, but there could also be be bad ones. With no shortage of well-qualified lawyers for the job, why take a chance? All other things being equal, I’d prefer a prosecutor that hadn’t gone out of his way to defend the kinds of people he’s prosecuting, particularly when those people are making war on me and mine. I question the motives of people who don’t.
With no shortage of well-qualified lawyers for the job, why take a chance?
Because it’s discriminating on a basis that you acknowledge is purely speculative. There are Democrats/Arab-Americans/homosexuals who aren’t loyal to the U.S., and there is no shortage of well-qualified Republican/non-Arab/heterosexual lawyers, so why not bar Democrats/Arab-Americans/homosexuals from the DOJ?
I see nothing suspicious about wanting to work for Gitmo detainees pro-bono. Their cases are on the cutting edge of important questions of executive power and human rights law, and I’d expect them to attract lawyers with extraordinary interest and expertise in those questions. That’s the very sort of lawyers I’d want working the cases from DOJ side.
John Adams defended his roll in the Boston Massacre trials by stating that he wanted to demonstrate that the American colonies were ruled by law, not ideology or favoritism. A country ruled by law can have prosecutors who have defended the accused, no matter who the accused were or what they were accused of.
Because it’s discriminating on a basis that you acknowledge is purely speculative. There are Democrats/Arab-Americans/homosexuals who aren’t loyal to the U.S., and there is no shortage of well-qualified Republican/non-Arab/heterosexual lawyers, so why not bar Democrats/Arab-Americans/homosexuals from the DOJ?
Because the numbers of such are vanishingly small.
I see nothing suspicious about wanting to work for Gitmo detainees pro-bono.
Of course you don’t.
Regarding judges; Remember, the Supremes gave us Dred Scott and Roe v Wade among others. To imply they always know what to do or don’t let their personal opinions influence their judgement is ludicrous. And yes, I think they were wrong.
If you look at the ABA, NLG and the ACLU (founded by a communist) you will see groups dominated by far-left lawyers and I guarantee Lynne Stewart was not the exception. This is another example of the far-left-radical Islam convergence. Considering who they defended and their current positions, I don’t think more scrutiny is out of line. These lawyers had an agenda and John Adams never entered into it.
OK, so we are arguing that a defense lawyer shouldn’t be restricted from working for the DOJ, even when the possible targets of the DOJ may be individuals or groups that he has previously defended.
Former defense attorney for Rapists working in a sexual crimes division? How about a defender of the KKK working for the Civil Rights division?
Let me save hypocrites like Jim and CG some trouble….back when the GOP was in the WH, I remember judicial appointments being rejected because the nominee had represented the wrong people in the past. Were you playing politics then, or playing politics now?
Because the numbers of such are vanishingly small.
The numbers of what? Democratic lawyers?
The numbers of what? Democratic lawyers?
The numbers of Democrat lawyers that are unloyal to America. Or are you saying it’s high? And why include homosexuals? They’re born that way. What a bizarre analogy.
Former defense attorney for Rapists working in a sexual crimes division?
Why not? Shouldn’t people accused of rape have lawyers?
How about a defender of the KKK working for the Civil Rights division?
If by “a defender of” you mean “a lawyer who represented”, why not? Trust me, if you are accused of a crime and a lawyer defends you, it doesn’t mean that lawyer agrees with you or your actions.
back when the GOP was in the WH, I remember judicial appointments being rejected because the nominee had represented the wrong people in the past
You are conflating the Senate’s advise and consent role in approving judicial appointments with an effort to oust sitting DOJ prosecutors. But even so, you should check your memory. I’d be surprised if you could find a case of someone who was rejected simply because they represented the “wrong people”.
Why not? Shouldn’t people accused of rape have lawyers?
Yet more moronic straw men. Apparently it’s all you have.
The numbers of Democrat lawyers that are unloyal to America
We don’t know that any of the Gitmo lawyers are disloyal, but you’d bar all of them.
And why include homosexuals?
Some have been traitors to their countries (e.g. Kim Philby), and that fact was used for decades to tar all of them as suspect.
Yet more moronic straw men.
I don’t think so. Scott is saying that a lawyer who defends people accused of rape should be disqualified from ever being a prosecutor in a sex crimes division. So he’d limit such defendants to lawyers who have no interest in ever being on the other side of the courtroom. Since plenty of the best lawyers have thoughts or hopes of someday being a district attorney or state’s attorney, he’s saying that people accused (not necessarily guilty, just accused) of rape should be denied some of the best lawyers available. All because he can’t imagine that they could be representing a rape defendant because they serve the law, and not because they think rape is okay.
Rand, you ought to have more legal-related stories. It seems to bring out the best in your trolls.
I’m curious about how everyone would feel if the defendants were Martin Bormann, Hermann Goring, and Rudolf Hess.
“Because it’s discriminating on a basis that you acknowledge is purely speculative.”
Every case of a lawyer or judge being recused is speculative and it happens all the time.
Why is the fact that the Gitmo detainees didn’t NEED civilian lawyers being ignored? We went through years of litigation to get the tribunals set up. These people all had military lawyer representation. The cases Jim talks about refer to the US civilian court system. Another case of apples and oranges.
I don’t think so.
Is there some reason we should care what trolls think?
Why is the fact that the Gitmo detainees didn’t NEED civilian lawyers being ignored?
The Hamdan case wouldn’t have reached the Supreme Court were it not for the involvement of civilian lawyers.
These people all had military lawyer representation.
Presumably at least some of those military lawyers volunteered for the assignment. Should they now be disqualified from prosecuting cases?
Every case of a lawyer or judge being recused is speculative and it happens all the time.
DOJ lawyers being hounded from their jobs because of the identity of their past clients fortunately does not happen all the time. Can you name a single time when it’s happened?
The Hamdan case wouldn’t have reached the Supreme Court were it not for the involvement of civilian lawyers.
And that would have been a good thing.
Presumably at least some of those military lawyers volunteered for the assignment. Should they now be disqualified from prosecuting cases?
Why would you presume that any of them would have been throwing up their hands and saying “Me, me, me, choose me,” in response to that specific assignment? They signed up to defend military people in court martials and disciplinary procedures, not foreign illegal combatants. They are no different than civil public attorneys, whose actions are laudable, but completely unlike those who deliberately defend terrorists pro bono.