| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| DOJ: Department Of Jihad? |
| 2010-02-25 |
| The Justice Department employs nine lawyers previously involved in the defense of terrorist detainees. This is a colossal conflict of interest. Just whose side are they on From the dropping of a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party to the decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammed in a civilian court within blocks of where the World Trade Center once stood, the actions and attitudes of the Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder toward the thugs and terrorists who threaten us has grown curiouser and curiouser. We may now have a clue as to why. Last November, Sen. Charles Grassley, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked the Justice Department how many of its lawyers had defended terrorist detainees over whom the department holds sway. Grassley knew from earlier press reports of two such lawyers who worked on behalf of detainees at the liberal organization Human Rights Watch. He wanted to know how many more there were. Last Friday, Holder answered nine. "To the best of our knowledge, during their employment prior to joining the government, only five of the lawyers who serve as political appointees in those components represented detainees," Holder said in a letter dated Feb. 18. "Four others contributed to amicus briefs in detainee-related cases involved in advocacy on behalf of detainees." So the decision to Mirandize the Christmas bomber, Umar Abdulmutallab, and to quickly get him lawyered up was made by a department populated by leftist lawyers who believe terror is a law enforcement matter and who have tried to get off those actively trying to kill us. We still have no official answer to what the Justice Department would do if Osama bin Laden were captured. "It's like they're bringing al-Qaida lawyers inside the Department of Justice," said Debra Burlingame, whose brother was the pilot of the plane driven by terrorists into the Pentagon, following KSM's plan. We still have not been told all the lawyers' names. Like the detainees they represented, presumably they have the right to remain silent. So much for transparency. Lawyers in private practice are free to choose their clients and their reasons for defending them. But these lawyers are in the employ of the American people and have the task of prosecuting those who try to kill them. Some chose to defend enemies who are making war on America. We have a right to know who they are, who their clients were and why they defended them. As Michelle Malkin reports, Holder is a former partner at Covington & Burling, a law firm that contributed more than 3,000 hours to detainee litigation in 2007 alone. The firm has worked on behalf of a dozen Yemenite detainees who are seeking civilian trials on American soil. Holder played a central role in the granting of clemency to 16 FALN terrorists in 1999, when he worked for the Clinton Justice Department. The terrorists claimed responsibility for more than 130 bombings and incendiary attacks in the U.S. and Puerto Rico from 1974 to 1983, killing six and wounding scores. As deputy attorney general, Holder was responsible for signing off on all clemency matters forwarded to the president. In this case, he recommended that clemency be granted despite vehement opposition from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Prisons and his own Justice Department. We are reminded of the case of Lynne Stewart, attorney for Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, the "blind sheikh" who was the architect of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. She was later found guilty of charges she had illegally "facilitated and concealed communications" between Rahman and his fellow terrorists. We wonder if she could have found a job in the Holder Justice Department. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #4 they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, And we need specific assurances that they take their citizenship sincerely. Who knows what things have been done quietly with authorities. More than we will ever know, I suspect. And most muslims seem to be living here peacefully. But I don't know that they wouldn't be just as happy if the jihadists succeeded. What I do know is that I haven't read about any later day 442nd RCT demonstrating in the currency that counts that they are committed to their country. In fact seems like all we hear about is the shortage of translators and how much we need to respect them. So right now their citizenship doesn't mean much to me. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-02-25 17:51 |
| #3 John QC - that's not an "urban legend" so much as urban shading. There are some myths and phantoms matched up with a few ghosts and packed into a big straw man. Why should "we" be any more concerned about "them", regardless of who "we" and "them" are? Finally, "political winds", no matter how ugly, are a vast improvement over the "political" reality of much of the "muslim world". Finally, finally, I wonder what Orwell had to say about the need to use excessive parenthetical quotes? |
| Posted by: Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2010-02-25 17:07 |
| #2 Besoeker, I agree that we need to be wary of creeping Sharia Law across the Western world. I also think muslims have gotten a pass in this country because of political correctness crap or left wing guilt because of Japanese internment during WWII (e.g. Ft. Hood shootings, not calling terrorists and terrorism as such). I'm not a great fan of Obama or Holder but the quote is an urban legend. The quote on page 261 of Audacity of Hope is: Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. This was checked by both Fact Check and Snopes. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-02-25 14:32 |
| #1 Rough start for Sharia Law. “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” - Audacity of Hope |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-02-25 07:00 |