They don’t have a right to work for the Justice Department.
The governments primary responsibility is the protection of this country. Choosing prosecutors who went out of their way to defend enemies of this country and then appointing them as prosecutors of the same is outrageous; other choices are available. The accused have a right to a defense. They don’t have the right to a subverted process in their favor or even the perception of such. It’s incredible that some would argue otherwise.
Just to clarify, my point was that a lawyer who takes positions directly counter to the mission of a given agency is probably a poor choice for that specific agency. Thus a lawyer who repreented Klan members, for instance, might reasonably be expected to have values that ran counter to the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ. This was PRECISELY the argument used by Democrats in opposing Charles Pickering, for instance, when he was proposed for a spot on the Federal bench.
Now, if we want to discuss whether this same hypotheical lawyer might be entirely qualified (and indeed welcome) in other branches of the DOJ, I would have no trouble agreeing with that, but clearly someone who represents accused terrorists is a less than desirable choice for an antiterrorist branch of the DOJ. To pretend that acting as a representative for these groups does not imply (to some extent) a level of sympathy for the group itself (if not its motives) is naive or simply disingenuous…clearly it gives the appearance of impropriety.
As for the notion that these lawyers are there simply because of their love of the law….pull the other one Jim… Most of these lawyers have strong ideological positions (read their briefs, I have), and many of those positions are antithetical to the mission. Even Holder concealed his own involvement during his confirmation hearings…now just why do you think he did that?
“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?”
If and when they lose their jobs, you will have a point and no, I can’t name a single time when so many lawyers leapt to the defense of enemy combatants. In the mean time, as the Liz Cheney ad said, why all the secrecy? Why hide their names? What WERE their motives. Should these lawyers have control of cases involving detainees without more information? Because you can’t seem to keep the difference between criminals and enemies of our country straight, your average rapist murderer is not going to end up at Gitmo.
And that would have been a good thing.
Not according to a majority of the Supreme Court. But maybe we should question the loyalties of the Supremes as well.
Just to clarify, my point was that a lawyer who takes positions directly counter to the mission of a given agency is probably a poor choice for that specific agency.
Every defense lawyer takes the position that her client is not guilty, a position counter to the mission of the prosecution. That’s the nature of an adversarial legal system. It says nothing about the defense lawyer’s loyalty to the country or its laws.
Most of these lawyers have strong ideological positions (read their briefs, I have), and many of those positions are antithetical to the mission.
The mission as defined by you. But then Barack Obama has strong ideological positions that are antithetical to the mission, as defined by you. Should we ignore the electorate and bar him from his job?
“Should we ignore the electorate and bar him from his job?”
No, we should stop believing what he or his mouthpiece Bagdad Bob says.
“It says nothing about the defense lawyer’s loyalty to the country or its laws.”
These lawyers CHOSE to defend enemy combatants. Hey, I love my country SO much I’m going to go represent, for free, those trying to destroy it. The military had already provided them with counsel. You keep conflating the justice system with treatment of enemy combatants.
These lawyers CHOSE to defend enemy combatants.
So what? Other lawyers CHOSE to defend Timothy McVeigh.
Hey, I love my country SO much I’m going to go represent, for free, those trying to destroy it.
You are assuming the very thing that trials are supposed to determine: whether these people in fact were trying to destroy the country.
So what? Other lawyers CHOSE to defend Timothy McVeigh.
They don’t have a right to work for the Justice Department.
The governments primary responsibility is the protection of this country. Choosing prosecutors who went out of their way to defend enemies of this country and then appointing them as prosecutors of the same is outrageous; other choices are available. The accused have a right to a defense. They don’t have the right to a subverted process in their favor or even the perception of such. It’s incredible that some would argue otherwise.
Just to clarify, my point was that a lawyer who takes positions directly counter to the mission of a given agency is probably a poor choice for that specific agency. Thus a lawyer who repreented Klan members, for instance, might reasonably be expected to have values that ran counter to the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ. This was PRECISELY the argument used by Democrats in opposing Charles Pickering, for instance, when he was proposed for a spot on the Federal bench.
Now, if we want to discuss whether this same hypotheical lawyer might be entirely qualified (and indeed welcome) in other branches of the DOJ, I would have no trouble agreeing with that, but clearly someone who represents accused terrorists is a less than desirable choice for an antiterrorist branch of the DOJ. To pretend that acting as a representative for these groups does not imply (to some extent) a level of sympathy for the group itself (if not its motives) is naive or simply disingenuous…clearly it gives the appearance of impropriety.
As for the notion that these lawyers are there simply because of their love of the law….pull the other one Jim… Most of these lawyers have strong ideological positions (read their briefs, I have), and many of those positions are antithetical to the mission. Even Holder concealed his own involvement during his confirmation hearings…now just why do you think he did that?
“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?”
If and when they lose their jobs, you will have a point and no, I can’t name a single time when so many lawyers leapt to the defense of enemy combatants. In the mean time, as the Liz Cheney ad said, why all the secrecy? Why hide their names? What WERE their motives. Should these lawyers have control of cases involving detainees without more information? Because you can’t seem to keep the difference between criminals and enemies of our country straight, your average rapist murderer is not going to end up at Gitmo.
And that would have been a good thing.
Not according to a majority of the Supreme Court. But maybe we should question the loyalties of the Supremes as well.
Just to clarify, my point was that a lawyer who takes positions directly counter to the mission of a given agency is probably a poor choice for that specific agency.
Every defense lawyer takes the position that her client is not guilty, a position counter to the mission of the prosecution. That’s the nature of an adversarial legal system. It says nothing about the defense lawyer’s loyalty to the country or its laws.
Most of these lawyers have strong ideological positions (read their briefs, I have), and many of those positions are antithetical to the mission.
The mission as defined by you. But then Barack Obama has strong ideological positions that are antithetical to the mission, as defined by you. Should we ignore the electorate and bar him from his job?
“Should we ignore the electorate and bar him from his job?”
No, we should stop believing what he or his mouthpiece Bagdad Bob says.
“It says nothing about the defense lawyer’s loyalty to the country or its laws.”
These lawyers CHOSE to defend enemy combatants. Hey, I love my country SO much I’m going to go represent, for free, those trying to destroy it. The military had already provided them with counsel. You keep conflating the justice system with treatment of enemy combatants.
These lawyers CHOSE to defend enemy combatants.
So what? Other lawyers CHOSE to defend Timothy McVeigh.
Hey, I love my country SO much I’m going to go represent, for free, those trying to destroy it.
You are assuming the very thing that trials are supposed to determine: whether these people in fact were trying to destroy the country.
So what? Other lawyers CHOSE to defend Timothy McVeigh.
No. They were assigned by the court.