The al Qaeda lawyers controversy
by AlexinCT
The recent revelation that came out, after some massive stonewalling by the WH which obviously knew it was damning, that many of Obama’s top legal appointees, including Eric Holder over at Justice, seem to have a conflict of interest when it comes to terrorism, seems to have lit a fire in the legal community. Whether you feel that there are issues with the whole terrorists are enemy combatants that purposefully avoid any uniforms or identifications vs. terrorist are just criminals, you can not fail to grasp that there is something problematic with having the very people that are now in charge of preventing another terrorist attack being sympathetic to that cause. And before you lambaste me for saying this, remember that, as this Andrew C. McCarthy article points out, these attorneys chose to go represent people that wanted to destroy this country, and we should be able to ask why. Especially when, as I pointed out, several of these attorneys are now the ones making critical decisions on how to handle not just captured terrorists, but how and how timely we get intelligence from these captured terrorists that can protect Americans from another attack. Here is the money quote:
The Justice Department lawyers who represented al-Qaeda were volunteers. Of all the causes to which they could have donated their services, they chose our enemies. They are no doubt sincere in claiming they sought to vindicate principles, not terrorists. But the other stubborn fact is that, since they took the helm at Justice, counterterrorism policy has become much more terrorist friendly.
Anyone that tries to make the case that those people asking for clarifications and pointing out the conflict, are just ushering a new era of McCarthyism, demanding we ignore the consequences and impact of the policies implemented by, and the actions taken by these lawyers now making the decisions to treat terrorists like common criminals, or worse tries to make the case that these policy shifts have made us safer, is an outright liar or moron. Maybe even both. I can guarantee you that the people that say this is much ado about nothing and that anyone that points out that these lawyers once chose to defend terrorists, would be singing a different tune if we had a clear conflict of interest like this with some government appointee that had links to the private sector. There is no excuse, and this is based on their won words and actions, even when you think that capitalism is a bigger threat than terrorism, to pretend that there isn’t a clear issue here. The truth is that these lawyers have made us all less safe. We have been lucky so far, but that luck won’t hold.
Update: It now looks like Holder wasn’t as forthcoming about his whole role in this and is now being looked at for failing to turn over briefs that would have been cause for concern. Oh, I am sure they will say it was an oversight, in fact they already are, nut what a convenient oversight huh? This is the mastermind that wanted to bring the terrorist show trials to NYC after all. The point is that Holder and his posse have an agenda, and that agenda makes plays havoc with our security. The left’s way of silencing those pointing this out is to accuse them of wanting to slime the lawyers for defending terrorists when the point is that these lawyers chose to defend the terrorists to undermine those that took terrorism seriously and treated this like a war and them like combatants.
Comments
Thanks Hal… saved me a bunch of time and did a far better job than I would have.
Meh, everyone should get a lawyer, even the guys in gitmo. Weather that lawyer can do anything about it is another story.
Everyone beat me to it…
First of all, they were representing terror suspects, not terrorists.
Sure Hal. That’s what they were representing. Most of the detainees in club Gitmo were captured on the battlefield. I think we can dispense with the pleasantries and say these are terrorists. Many of the ones that were not or were let go were later again captured on the battlefield or are still out there casuing trouble.
What do you say to Fouad Mahmoud al Rabiah, who was completely innocent and is only not rotting in Gitmo because these lawyers did their job? According to you, getting him out of prison was betraying our country.
Ok dude, you either are purposefully missing the point I am making or you aren’t that bright. I have no problem with the people in Club Gitmo getting lawyers. I have a huge problem with them getting treated as criminals instead of enemy combatants that purposefully avoid identification or uniforms. I even understand lawyers volunteering to do work for the people in Gitmo. I have a huge problem with those lawyers then ending up in the Justice department setting the rules of the game up in such a way that security suffers for it. That’s the fundamental issue at hand here.
And let me stress it again: these lawyers helped free a whole bunch of others that then went right back to Jihad. I understand why you feel compelled to ignore that side of the story though.
Second, many of them were asked by the Bush Administration to represent these guys. One is Colonel David Morris, who was the chief prosecutor at Gitmo and decided to defend these guys because he thought everyone deserved representation.
I am sure he doesn’t think we should treat them as common criminals either. And more importantly, he isn’t the head of the DOJ and setting the rules by which we fight a war against terrorists. Just because the gang of infantile morons now in charge of the country have done away with the term “War on terror” doesn’t mean that the terrorists stopped being at war with us. You attempt to avoid that has not gone unnoticed however.
Third, do you think guys who defend child molesters want kids molested? Do you think people who defend serial killers want innocent throats cut? Were the lawyers who defended the Rosenbergs commie traitors?
What I don’t want is for enemy troops to be treated as common criminals. Neither a child molester nor a kidnapper is at war with you, and I am struggling to find the connection between them and those that are actively working to destroy our nation like these terrorists are. That you equate child molesters and kidnappers with terrorists says more about your lack of ability to distinguish between acts of war and crimes than anything else. And again, I do not think terrorists should be denied lawyers once they are scheduled for a trial, but I certainly have issues with the lawyers that represent them and have shown sympathy for the cause then being put in charge of the very system they want to use to prosecute them as criminals in.
You have to present a better argument for this than cutting and pasting from Bill Kristol’s latest column.
That was Andrew C. McCarthy, whom himself once worked for the DOJ and knows about these things, that I “cut and pasted” from Hal. You keep ignoring the argument and pretending this is about denying terrorists lawyers when it is about something fundamentally different.
But I understand why you need to keep boxing the discussion in, and want to limit it to the issue/topic of offering/providing lawyers to terrorists, and in the process taking cheap shots at me personally, instead of focusing on the issue that we have a serious security problem now that we are back to treating terrorists like common criminals.
People that believe like you that these guys are criminals and should be tried in the criminal system should not feel offended or act as if you didn’t know better after the next terrorist attack, because of lapses in our security caused by these idiots now deciding how the system will deal with terrorist, happens. The shortsightedness of those pre-9-11 fools that did the same can be eventually forgiven because they had no idea what could come of that idiotic practice, but when the next attack happens because of the same shortsighted and stupid practice of treating terrorists like criminals, there is no excuse.
You can go back to pretending that my issue is with giving terrorists lawyers though. It makes your case more convincing and allows the other members of that group of misguided fools that despite the lessons of 9-11 want to treat terrorists like criminals feel supperior. For now.
Most of the detainees in club Gitmo were captured on the battlefield
This isn’t even close to true. A huge number of these guys were turned in for bounties or dragged out of their homes based on tips or tortured information.Al Rabiah, for example.
And let me stress it again: these lawyers helped free a whole bunch of others that then went right back to Jihad
More bullshit. The few guys who have returned to the fight—and it does appear to be only a few as the Pentagon claims that those talking about torture have “returned to the fight”—were released by the Bush Administration after their own internal review. None of them got free because they were acquitted in court.
, I do not think terrorists should be denied lawyers once they are scheduled for a trial, but I certainly have issues with the lawyers that represent them and have shown sympathy for the cause then being put in charge of the very system they want to use to prosecute them as criminals in.
Translation: I think these guys should have lawyers. But anyone who represents them should be slimed as a jihadist sympathizer.
And I’m sorry. The connection between “giving these guys criminal trials” and “things blowing up” is not something you can just conjure out of thin air. All of these guys are subject to interrogation (just as the undie-bomber was, despite conservative claims to the contrary).
But your post wasn’t about whether these guys should have criminal trials anyway. It was about sliming the attorneys who represent these guys.
More bullshit. The few guys who have returned to the fight—and it does appear to be only a few as the Pentagon claims that those talking about torture have “returned to the fight”—were released by the Bush Administration after their own internal review.
Let me clear up your idea of bullshit, Hal:
Mohammed Ismail was released from the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in early 2004 and sent back to Afghanistan to be set free. Within four months, the U.S. military said, he was recaptured in Afghanistan attacking U.S. troops there, with paperwork on him that said he was a Taliban in good standing. He is just one of 74 former Guantanamo Bay detainees who the military says were active in, or were suspected of being active in, fighting against the United States or committing terrorist acts after being released.
That we know of, at least 74 of those Gitmo detainees returned to terrorism after being releases. The number is likely much higher. Out of some 900 people that called Gitmo home, with some 245 still being held we basically have 1 in 10 of the people released going back to terrorism. That’s a freaking high rate considering that what they do when released is go back to looking for ways to kills us, but you can play that down all you want.
This isn’t even close to true. A huge number of these guys were turned in for bounties or dragged out of their homes based on tips or tortured information.Al Rabiah, for example.
Really? Take a look at that website I linked you to above and do the math.
Translation: I think these guys should have lawyers. But anyone who represents them should be slimed as a jihadist sympathizer.
Expected nothing else but more of the same from you, Hal. Let me type it out again, slowly, so maybe this time you don’t try to distort it for me: If you are a believer that Jihadists are criminals and should be treated as criminals, and then decide to defend them because you don’t want them treated as enemy combatants in a war, don’t act surprised when those of us that believe treating them as criminals proves you unqualified to be put in charge of national security decisions when you make changes to again treat terrorists as criminals point out the problem.
And I’m sorry. The connection between “giving these guys criminal trials” and “things blowing up” is not something you can just conjure out of thin air.
Again you twist yourself into a pretzel to minimize the fact this is war and they are the enemy to give them criminal status. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor FDR didn’t send out the lawyers and the cops. The left didn’t start worrying about these guys rights to a lawyer until they saw it as a convenient way to hamstring our war fighting capability, to hamper our troops in their effort, and to make us lose in Iraq.
All of these guys are subject to interrogation (just as the undie-bomber was, despite conservative claims to the contrary).
And you prove you live in la-la land if you want to make the argument that hardened and trained terrorist will break under interrogation in the criminal system. These idiots you are defending got luckier than hell that this kid failed at his task in the first place, and that then the parents turned out to be decent people. I am sure we can find the parents of every terrorist that does harm and have them come here to convince their kid to spill their guts, even if it is a few months too late. In fact, we should have asked KSM’s parents to come help us get him talking too.
But your post wasn’t about whether these guys should have criminal trials anyway. It was about sliming the attorneys who represent these guys.
Nice cheap shot Hal, but what I was pointing out is the indisputable fact that we now have the same kind of idiots that treated terrorism as a matter for the courts and allowed 9-11 to happen back when, reverting to that practice again. Don’t worry. When the terrorists use the massive security hole these bastards you are defending have provided them to kill more Americans, you can pretend you didn’t help them screw us over.
And you prove you live in la-la land if you want to make the argument that hardened and trained terrorist will break under interrogation in the criminal system.
Yes, the la-la land where this has actually worked, producing breakthrough intelligence like the one that led to Zarqawi’s death as opposed to the real world where you live where KSM, under torture, confesses to terror acts the CIA knows he didn’t commit.
And if you’re going to cite Gitmo recidivism rates, read this and this. The Pentagon can only document a handful of cases, that 74 includes 47 “suspected” cases and it’s not clear at all whether they turned against us because of their treatment under interrogation.
Yes, the la-la land where this has actually worked, producing breakthrough intelligence like the one that led to Zarqawi’s death as opposed to the real world where you live where KSM, under torture, confesses to terror acts the CIA knows he didn’t commit.
Pray tell elaborate on what intel you think led to Zarqawi’s death please, Hal, because if it was collected in Iraq by our troops and intel orgs, I would love to know how you are trying to make the allusion that reflects well on the people that want the criminal justice system to handle intel gathering from enemy combatants. I do notice that you conveniently forget to mention the attacks KSM did talk about that were thwarted like the Brooklyn Bridge attack.
And if you’re going to cite Gitmo recidivism rates, read this and this. The Pentagon can only document a handful of cases, that 74 includes 47 “suspected” cases and it’s not clear at all whether they turned against us because of their treatment under interrogation.
I guess we should do what people that think like you want, and wait until these terrorists actually try to kill people and hope they are not successful so we can prosecute them in court. After all, they are only “alleged” or “suspected” terrorists. I know some 3000 people that died on 9-11 that might disagree with you, but WTF, right?
My point still stands undisputed: because people sympathetic to treating terrorists like criminals are now in charge, our security will suffer. The next attack will be on the heads of the people that dismantled a system that kept us attack free for 8 years despite numerous attempted attacks, and did not count on just luck & convenient family members that will break down the terrorists, like the current bunch of losers is. There is a reason that the radicals are all abuzz and trying much harder now to get us: their chances are much better.
Pray tell elaborate on what intel you think led to Zarqawi’s death please, Hal
I’m not going through this again.
I do notice that you conveniently forget to mention the attacks KSM did talk about that were thwarted like the Brooklyn Bridge attack.
Huh? Your talking about those jokers who wanted to bring the bridge down with blowtorches. We found out about that attack before KSM was interrogated through traditional police work.
Oh, and the Bush Administration pushed Faris trough the regular criminal justice system. He got 20 years on a plea agreement. Those terrorist sympathizing Bush people!
he next attack will be on the heads of the people that dismantled a system that kept us attack free for 8 years
Ah, this myth again. Apparently, the shoe bomber, the Bali attack, the London attack, the attack on Spain and the thousands of terrorist attacks on our troops in Iraq do not count as terrorism.
Stalin had a special place in his heart for people just like you Hal.
He even coined a term to identify them…
I think you know what it is too.
Ah, this myth again.
I hope you are going to come around after the next attack happens and innocents die because of those that think like you Hal, because I do not care if it is petty or not, I intend to tell you “I told you so”.
Apparently, the shoe bomber, the Bali attack, the London attack, the attack on Spain and the thousands of terrorist attacks on our troops in Iraq do not count as terrorism.
I did not know any of those places were in the US Hal. Even better, I never knew we had jurisdiction in any of those places. Overreach much? I understand the need to move the goal post some more whenever you get cornered, but your argument has a feeling of desperation to it. And as Mississippi Yankee pointed out, there is a special name for people that think like this.
I hope you are going to come around after the next attack happens and innocents die because of those that think like you Hal, because I do not care if it is petty or not, I intend to tell you “I told you so”.
Well, that’s the catch-22, isn’t it? You guys denounce everything Obama does so that you can claim “I told you so” when an attack happens. Whether it was a result of his policies or not, you will claim this, given your disconnect from fact.
I did not know any of those places were in the US Hal. Even better, I never knew we had jurisdiction in any of those places. Overreach much?
We didn’t have jurisdiction over occupied Iraq?
OK. Then Clinton kept this country safe because we didn’t have a domestic terror attack after the first WTC.
Stalin had a special place in his heart for people just like you Hal.
He even coined a term to identify them…I think you know what it is too.
Not really.
As for the PS, God damn that Holder for filing a brief to keep the Bush Administration from indefinitely imprisoning an American citizen.
Well, that’s the catch-22, isn’t it?
No, it is not.
You guys denounce everything Obama does so that you can claim “I told you so” when an attack happens.
Weak even from you Hal. Who the F is the supposed “You guys” you are talking about and lumping me in? I denounce everything Obama does that’s wrong, and so far his wrong outnumbers the good by 3 digit orders of magnitudes. I have even defended him when I though he was right or unfairly attacked, granted that’s not often, but on this topic he is dead wrong, and the consequences will be disastrous. See, you would have a point if what Obama was doing was not done before. The indisputable fact is that what he is doing is taking us back to the treating terrorists at war with us the same way that was done before 9-11. And we all know how well that worked and what happened then. You do know what the definition of insanity is right? Treating terrorists at war with us like common criminals while making people like you feel good led to the worst attack on our soil ever, and it will not work now either. No matter how much smarter or better the current collectivist morons think they are. You can however keep pretending that our beef with this disastrous policy change is just because we are automatically opposed to anything Obama, like the libs did when Bush was president, but the delusion is on your part.
Whether it was a result of his policies or not, you will claim this, given your disconnect from fact
Already feeling the need to hedge to provide yourself some cover, Hal? Let me say it again: he policy of treating terrorists like common criminals and having to deal with them after the fact is what made the 9-11 attacks possible. There is no correlation or false claim there. That was proven to be the problem. Yet here we are going right back to it and pretending that this time it will work. Them’s the facts. The disconnect is on your part.
We didn’t have jurisdiction over occupied Iraq?
Are you seriously this stupid? Iraq was a war zone dude! You do know the difference between the US and a place that US troops are engaged in a hot war right? What’s next? Stretch it to say we had jurisdiction in Indonesia too because we have a president that lived there?
OK. Then Clinton kept this country safe because we didn’t have a domestic terror attack after the first WTC.
Yeah sure, except epic fail. I am not even going to focus on the fact that we had the WTC attacks under his watch, I am only going to point out that his policies and the same practice Obama is re-instituting of treating terrorists like common criminals and not enemy combatants lead to 9-11. I am even willing to give Clinton a huge pass compared to Obama because he didn’t know better – there had been no 9-11 attack yet – yet, and even more importantly, he did not see the reality that we were at war with these people. Obama and his people on the other hand do know and are in the middle of the war, despite their every attempt to pretend otherwise, and yet they are hell bent on taking us backward. There is no excuse for that.
As for the PS, God damn that Holder for filing a brief to keep the Bush Administration from indefinitely imprisoning an American citizen.
Yeah, that’s what you need to make the argument about, even when that’s got nothing to do with what those of us that oppose this lunacy are pointing out, so you can demonize us and ignore the facts in the case. You have earned your lib bonnafides on this one.
Let me say it again: he policy of treating terrorists like common criminals and having to deal with them after the fact is what made the 9-11 attacks possible.
Again, do you have anything to back this claim up, other than bold lettering? This claim that you keep making—that criminal trials will somehow make us vulnerable. The only logic I can see supporting this is:
1) Clinton treated terrorism like a criminal issue. I mean, apart from bombing Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya. And after he left office, a terror attack happened.
2) Bush treated terrorism like a war issue. Except for using the criminal justice system to get the shoe bomber, the bridge bomber and a bunch of other guys. And apart from thousands of our soldiers getting blown up in a foreign country, nothing bad happened!
3) Obama is treating this like a criminal issue—I mean apart from intensified attacks of Afghanistan and more drone attacks in Pakistan. So if anthing happens, it must be because we put KSM on trial!
That’s no logic, Alex. That’s tribalism. My guy good, your guy bad.
And I’m still curious what the Stalin smear is all about.
And I’m still curious what the Stalin smear is all about.
He’s calling a “useful idiot.” Honestly, I think it’s unfair to call you a useful idiot.
The detainees should have lawyers--military lawyers who represent them in Combat Status Review Tribunals and military trials.
At issue is the fact that Holder and his buddies didn’t just want to defend them in court but to bless them with a whole set of rights that go far beyond any protections ever given to any belligerents that fought against the US. They went far, far beyond mere “representation.”
That is a problem that even a regular ol’ idiot should be able to identifty, Hal.
Ah Thrill, always can rely on you to come around for this sort of thing.
At issue is the fact that Holder and his buddies didn’t just want to defend them in court but to bless them with a whole set of rights that go far beyond any protections ever given to any belligerents that fought against the US. They went far, far beyond mere “representation.”
Yes, I remember how we imprisoned communist traitors and spies indefinitely without trial and tortured them. And how we imprisoned suspected Viet Cong without trial and tortured them. And how we imprisoned British loyalists without trial and tortured them. Good times, good times.
Really, they should have just told these guys to confess and walked away. Asking for even a modicum of proof that they were terrorists was going way too far. No one should ever zealously represent a client within the bounds of the law.
As for useful idiots, I thought that’s what he meant. So once again, we circle around to “you’re a terrorist sympathizer”. And the circle is complete. I’ll just call up the Gitmo 7 lawyers so we can burn an American flag together.
Keep in mind. Had these lawyers not gotten involved, the situation would be:
1) The Gitmo prisoners who were freed and “returned to the fight” would still have been freed. The 500 men were freed, most after many many years, by the Bush Administration without court intervention.
2) Al-Rabiah and several other innocent men will still be confined in Gitmo. Their cases only came up because of these lawyers.
3) Jose Padilla, an American citizen, would still be indefinitely detained. Charges were only brought against him because the court insisted on it thanks to these lawyers. Same goes for John Lindh.
To you guys, this is going way way beyond representation.
Again, do you have anything to back this claim up, other than bold lettering?
9-11.
I rest my case.
1) Clinton treated terrorism like a criminal issue. I mean, apart from bombing Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya. And after he left office, a terror attack happened.
Clinton bombed? You mean the like that incident where we fired off few cruise missiles at empty buildings that house the Iraqi intel org machine in the middle of the night to avoid casualties? Effective as hell. Or are you discussing that attack on the Somali aspirin factory? Maybe the missiles fired at empty al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan? I distinctly remember Clinton getting all butch and though right around the time he was in trouble for lying under oath, but it was meaningless crap.
I would also love to know what bombs Clinton ordered dropped on Libya. I don’t think we have had to bomb Libya ever since Reagan ordered our troops to kill Khadafy back when, and they missed him by a few minutes, but killed his beloved kid. He got so scared then that he played nice after that. Maybe you are confusing Libya with the bombs that were dropped on the Chinese embassy in Serbia when Clinton was president?
The fact remains that Clinton did his best to produce a great show for the distraction factor, but in general terrorist were treated like criminals and with kid gloves. Do I have to rehash the entire bin Laden could have been long dead if Clinton had done his job bit, again?
2) Bush treated terrorism like a war issue. Except for using the criminal justice system to get the shoe bomber, the bridge bomber and a bunch of other guys.
So you agree with me Bush was wrong there then? Good.
And apart from thousands of our soldiers getting blown up in a foreign country, nothing bad happened!
Maybe you also think most soldier join up just for the free money, food, lodging, and education, but I can tell you that most of them do it because they believe in their country, and want to defend it and give back for it. They understand why they serve. The death of even one soldier is a tragedy, but they make the ultimate sacrifice to keep us free, and this was just more of the same. Please don’t insult them and their sacrifice by claiming they were victims of terrorism when they were soldiers at war, just so you can score cheap points. You sound about as convincing as the libs that claim to want to support our troops by doing everything they can to help get them killed and fail at their mission. This attempt to equate soldiers in harms way during a war with acts of terrorism so you can make like treating terrorists like criminals was a better thing, reeks of desperation.
3) Obama is treating this like a criminal issue—I mean apart from intensified attacks of Afghanistan and more drone attacks in Pakistan.
Speaking of that, and relating it right back to the death of our troops. Ain’t it funny how when Bush was doing this same thing the very people now pointing out Obama is doing more were front & center doing everything they could to undermine his efforts, force a stop to this, and accusing him of murdering civilians? Now Obama is doing it and you want to give him credit for it. Don’t get me wrong. I am glad Obama has ordered our troops to kill these bastards, and I will give him his props for that, but I draw the line there. We could have been doing the same 4 or 5 years ago if the left had not then actively worked to stop us from doing so.
So if anthing happens, it must be because we put KSM on trial!
No, if anything happens Hal, it is because Obama and the idiots that think like you have dismantled the post 9-11 system that was put in place that put to successfully defend American lives and prevent terrorist attacks in favor of the same broken system that was in place pre-9-11 and failed us. But you can keep up the desperate tactic that the game being rigged in favor of the terrorists didn’t make an attack on their part easer. It works well to make my case.
That’s no logic, Alex. That’s tribalism. My guy good, your guy bad.
Yeah, that’s what it is. Unlike you I have no problem admitting when my guy is wrong. It’s nothing about my guy good, your guy bad but I, again, understand the need for that to be your defense/argument/premse. If Obama had chosen to keep the policy that was instituted after 9-11 I would be defending him here. Just like I defend him when morons say he is wrong for ramping up the predator attacks or not pulling out of Afghanistan yet.
The point is simple: terrorists are not criminals, and when we treat them as such during a time of war, we are going to pay for it. It has nothing to do my guy or your guy.
3) Jose Padilla, an American citizen, would still be indefinitely detained. Charges were only brought against him because the court insisted on it thanks to these lawyers. Same goes for John Lindh.
If the legal system had any value and the Constitution was still the law of the land, this guy would have been executed for treason. He took up arms against his country. That he was not executed strenghtens my believe we are doomed to lose this fight.
To you guys, this is going way way beyond representation.
No clue WTF you mean by this statement, but if it is to say that terrorists need to be treated like criminals, I disagree.
Next entry: Government healthcare takeover economics 101.
Previous entry: The Insurance Company Canard
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 7041
Total Logged in members: 1
Total guests: 70
Total anonymous users: 0
Irmo,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
The $8.7 Billion Hole
(4 total, Last @ 10:43)
Ed Kline: There’s a part of me that thinks we should still keep trying to fix these countries. But there’s a growing part that thinks this would be just throwing good money after bad. The world will make you a libertarian yet Hal.
Calculate the impact of Congress letting the Bush tax cuts expire..
(10 total, Last @ 08:46)
Seattle Outcast: What about the vermin sure to co inhabit the place with muirgeo1? Surly if you could overcome your allergy for the plywood shack you would then have to deal with that too? Would a .45 auto be overkill for shooting vermin? On second thought, I'll just torch the place and…
Calculate the impact of Congress letting the Bush tax cuts expire..
(10 total, Last @ 07:52)
AlexinCT: I know “the wealthy” make for great rhetorical fodder on the campaign trail, but I really would like to see someone runningn for election acknowledge that these evil greedy rich elite are actually also the ones who take the business risks required to real create jobs. Every time I hear…
Calculate the impact of Congress letting the Bush tax cuts expire..
(10 total, Last @ 07:25)
Seattle Outcast: Why not stay at muirgeo’s? He’s got a vacation home :) I'm allergic to cheap plywood shacks...
Calculate the impact of Congress letting the Bush tax cuts expire..
(10 total, Last @ 06:01)
Retluocc1: Why not stay at muirgeo’s? He’s got a vacation home :) Okay, now THAT made me laugh.
Last 30 Comments
What a bunch of shit.
First of all, they were representing terror suspects, not terrorists. What do you say to Fouad Mahmoud al Rabiah, who was completely innocent and is only not rotting in Gitmo because these lawyers did their job? According to you, getting him out of prison was betraying our country.
Second, many of them were asked by the Bush Administration to represent these guys. One is Colonel David Morris, who was the chief prosecutor at Gitmo and decided to defend these guys because he thought everyone deserved representation.
Third, do you think guys who defend child molesters want kids molested? Do you think people who defend serial killers want innocent throats cut? Were the lawyers who defended the Rosenbergs commie traitors?
You have to present a better argument for this than cutting and pasting from Bill Kristol’s latest column.
I had trouble following your endless run-on “lair or moron” line. But give the recent success with arresting or killing high-level operatives in Pakistan, given the continuing progress in Iraq, given the big troubles AQ is having in recruiting, I don’t think arguing we’re safer is an indefensible point of view.
Unless, like McCarthy, you define safety in terms of how many people we torture and how loudly we thump our chests.