Republicans scold Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol for DOJ smear

[Winehole23]

Here is the full statement and signatories as of early Monday:

The past several days have seen a shameful series of attacks on attorneys in the Department of Justice who, in previous legal practice, either represented Guantanamo detainees or advocated for changes to detention policy. As attorneys, former officials and policy specialists who have worked on detention issues, we consider these attacks both unjust to the individuals in question and destructive of any attempt to build lasting mechanisms for counterterrorism adjudications.

The American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams’s representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston massacre. People come to serve in the Justice Department with a diverse array of prior private clients; that is one of the department’s strengths. The War on Terror raised any number of novel legal questions, which collectively created a significant role in judicial, executive and legislative forums alike for honorable advocacy on behalf of detainees. In several key cases, detainee advocates prevailed before the Supreme Court. 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.




Such attacks also undermine the Justice system more broadly. In terrorism detentions and trials alike, defense lawyers are playing, and will continue to play, a key role. Whether one believes in trial by military commission or in federal court, detainees will have access to counsel. Guantanamo detainees likewise have access to lawyers for purposes of habeas review, and the reach of that habeas corpus could eventually extend beyond this population. Good defense counsel is thus key to ensuring that military commissions, federal juries, and federal judges have access to the best arguments and most rigorous factual presentations before making crucial decisions that affect both national security and paramount liberty interests. To delegitimize the role detainee counsel play is to demand adjudications and policymaking stripped of a full record. Whatever systems America develops to handle difficult detention questions will rely, at least some of the time, on an aggressive defense bar; those who take up that function do a service to the system.




Benjamin Wittes
Robert Chesney
Matthew Waxman
David Rivkin
Lee Casey
Philip Bobbitt
Peter Keisler
Bradford Berenson
Kenneth Anderson
John Bellinger III
Philip Zelikow
Kenneth W. Starr
Larry Thompson
Charles "Cully" D. Stimson
Chuck Rosenberg
Harvey Rishikoff
Orin Kerr
Daniel Dell’Orto



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34050_Page3.html#ixzz0hcUdkGU3

[Winehole23]

Very classy of them to rally to the aid of Obama's embattled DOJ. Srsly.

[coyotes_geek]

Kenneth W. Starr


I was hoping to never see this name ever again.

[Winehole23]

Isn't he the new Baylor President or something?

[Winehole23]

In February 2010, Starr was named 14th president of Baylor University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baylor_University) in Waco, Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco,_Texas), to assume the role in June 2010. Starr, a member of the University Church of Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churches_of_Christ) in Malibu, California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malibu,_California), announced that on his transition to Baylor he will affiliate with a Baptist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention) congregation in Waco

[Winehole23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Starr

[EVAY]

In Re: the article itself, I thought one of the more interesting parts was the reference to the upheaval in the Bush administration itself between the Cheney forces and the more moderate forces regarding where the detainees would be tried, etc. I think it goes to the point that in the last couple of years of the administration, Cheney was less influential in the internal decisions than he had been previously.

It appears that now, Liz Cheney et.al., are picking up where her father's followers left off in the prior administration, and are still trying to settle old arguments (e.g., the supreme court case that the Bush administration lost which was argued by some of the guys they are going after today). Of course, while the prior administration was in office the arguments were private...now that the administration is of the opposite party those who disagree with the Cheney position are virtually (or literally) accused of being insufficiently patriotic and leading the country into unsafe waters.

The latter seems pretty par for the course for politicians, but it does seem interesting that Cheney father and daughter have been so vocal in opposition to this administration, and that they lost the same arguments in the last administration.

[coyotes_geek]

Well, good for Baylor I guess. May Waco be philanderer-free...................

[coyotes_geek]

The latter seems pretty par for the course for politicians, but it does seem interesting that Cheney father and daughter have been so vocal in opposition to this administration, and that they lost the same arguments in the last administration.

It's a two way street. The current administration points the finger at the previous administration, the previous administration will point the finger right back. The circle of partisan bickering remains unbroken.

[boutons_deux]

"current administration points the finger at the previous administration"

correctly

"previous administration will point the finger right back."

... was WRONG on every major initiative and failed horribly at governance, as intended. Now it CYA and blame all Repug fuckups on MN.

[Winehole23]

In Re: the article itself, I thought one of the more interesting parts was the reference to the upheaval in the Bush administration itself between the Cheney forces and the more moderate forces regarding where the detainees would be tried, etc. I think it goes to the point that in the last couple of years of the administration, Cheney was less influential in the internal decisions than he had been previously. Could be. The media megaphone is still turned on, I think. Usage can be telling.


It appears that now, Liz Cheney et.al., are picking up where her father's followers left off in the prior administration, and are still trying to settle old arguments (e.g., the supreme court case that the Bush administration lost which was argued by some of the guys they are going after today). Of course, while the prior administration was in office the arguments were private...Ol' fashioned score settling. Isn't there supposed to be a Dick Cheney book for all that?


now that the administration is of the opposite party those who disagree with the Cheney position are virtually (or literally) accused of being insufficiently patriotic and leading the country into unsafe waters. New brand propaganda, year two. By now it's thematic, and it bears a distinct resemblance to the old propaganda.


The latter seems pretty par for the course for politicians, but it does seem interesting that Cheney father and daughter have been so vocal in opposition to this administration, and that they lost the same arguments in the last administration.Sore losers? One can hope...

[coyotes_geek]

"current administration points the finger at the previous administration"

correctly

"previous administration will point the finger right back."

... was WRONG on every major initiative and failed horribly at governance, as intended. Now it CYA and blame all Repug fuckups on MN.

Cue someone from the red team clan to reverse these responses and the cycle continues....................

[Marcus Bryant]

When the state can identify a citizen as an enemy of the state and breeze straight past the formalities of judicial proceedings to the gallows....

Anyways, it's good to see that someone would point out that representation does not equate to solidarity, morons be damned.

[EVAY]

Regardless of whether or not Cheney father and daughter WIN the arguments this time around, it is at indicative that their positions have remained unchanged, and they seem to be still trying to get someone to agree with them.

I read the book The One Percent Doctrine and it purports to explain Cheney (pere)'s position that 'as long as there is a 1% chance that there could be another attack' then anything and everything that could be done should be done to limit the chance. The emphasis was on minimizing the chances of another attack, regardless of the impact on civil liberties or any of the other 'niceties' of our constitution.

I suspect that remains his priority, even if it is not everyone else's.

[Winehole23]

When the state can identify a citizen as an enemy of the state and breeze straight past the formalities of judicial proceedings to the gallows....Apparently this expansion of executive power is so overwhelmingly popular that not even people who hate Barack Obama would see him denied this power, or even scold his use of it.

With Bush it was novelty; now it is the precedent, and Obama hallows it as custom by his mere usage.

[EVAY]

When the state can identify a citizen as an enemy of the state and breeze straight past the formalities of judicial proceedings to the gallows....

Anyways, it's good to see that someone would point out that representation does not equate to solidarity, morons be damned.

+1. Succinctly put.

[Marcus Bryant]

Apparently this expansion of executive power is so overwhelmingly popular that not even people who hate Barack Obama would see him denied this power, or even scold his use of it.



Rather curious for a crew that fancies him as the new Stalin, no?

[Marcus Bryant]

"Fascism" lurks in the Health Care Reform Act of 2010, not in the state arbitrarily executing citizens.

[Winehole23]

I read the book The One Percent Doctrine and it purports to explain Cheney (pere)'s position that 'as long as there is a 1% chance that there could be another attack' then anything and everything that could be done should be done to limit the chance. The emphasis was on minimizing the chances of another attack, regardless of the impact on civil liberties or any of the other 'niceties' of our constitution.
What does it mean when high public officials tell you the protection they're selling you is worth more than the constitution they swore to uphold?

Or when they sell severity of their measures vis a vis personal liberty as a tough-minded virtue, and not as the dangerous innovation it is?

[Marcus Bryant]

King George has won?

[EVAY]

What does it mean when high public officials tell you the protection they're selling you is worth more than the constitution they swore to uphold?

Or when they sell severity of their measures vis a vis personal liberty as a tough-minded virtue, and not as the dangerous innovation it is?

It means they think you are an imbecile, that's what it means. It means that they would trample all over the constitution they vowed to uphold because they figure you don't know enough or care enough to remember what it says. It means they believe that they are being 'benevolent' dictators, when in fact there is lttle 'benevolent' about it.

[EVAY]

King George has won?

King Richard?

[Marcus Bryant]

Dress it in the flag and call it "freedom." That's all it takes. Freedom isn't free. Your freedom comes from the government, never mind that old notion of a free people consenting to create a government of laws.

[Marcus Bryant]

King Richard?

George. (http://www.io.com/gibbonsb/mencken/declaration.html)

[Marcus Bryant]

Richard today, I suppose. I must admit that I don't pay much attention to the royals.

[spursncowboys]

i haven't read all the uproar about lawyers who worked for the terrorists and now are in the obama justice dept. I would like to note that lawyers defending lawyers is not new. It is one of the only times when partisan politics can be put to the side. Is it acceptable that the obama group will not give the number of ex terrorist lawyers? I donl't, personally have a problem with barry hiring all the ex lawyers. But, let's say, these lawyers come from the same couple firms or are hired in large numbers, are we not allowed to question what the connecting factors are?

[Winehole23]

Rather curious for a crew that fancies him as the new Stalin, no?I thought so too at first, but maybe it isn't. Maybe the comparisons are more agonistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agonistic_behaviour) than accurate.

People are used to a strong President, and the power of the office has become an idol in and of itself as the adversary par excellence of *radical evil*.

The practical indignities to US citizenship and liberty contemplated in the policy, its extreme novelty, the regal measure of discretion it affords the President?

Almost nobody cares. Even the people you'd think were an intuitive fit for it

[Marcus Bryant]

The Republic is dead. Conservatism is a lifestyle, for those fixated on living vicariously through the US military.

[Winehole23]

(urp)

beg pardon.

[EVAY]

George. (http://www.io.com/gibbonsb/mencken/declaration.html)

I understood your reference to George III. Since we were talking about Cheney, my reference was to Richard III. Sorry.

[Yonivore]

Very classy of them to rally to the aid of Obama's embattled DOJ. Srsly.
It is disappointing there were no Democrats "rallying" for the Bush DOJ when they were zealously defending our country against terrorists for the past 8 years.

I guess they have no class. Srsly.

[EVAY]

i haven't read all the uproar about lawyers who worked for the terrorists and now are in the obama justice dept. I would like to note that lawyers defending lawyers is not new. It is one of the only times when partisan politics can be put to the side. Is it acceptable that the obama group will not give the number of ex terrorist lawyers? I donl't, personally have a problem with barry hiring all the ex lawyers. But, let's say, these lawyers come from the same couple firms or are hired in large numbers, are we not allowed to question what the connecting factors are?

I think that somewhere in the actual full article it references that the DOJ identified 7 such lawyers recently, including one who won the argument before the Supreme Court that went against the Bush administration. I don't think it mentioned whether or not they came from the same law firm. I would be awfully surprised if more than one came from the same place.

In any event, SnC, The Cheneys' concern was not what firm they came from, but that they had represented defendents in the terrorism trials during the Bush administration , (hence, the other lawyers' references to John Adams defending the Boston masacre soldiers).

[Winehole23]

The Republic is dead. Conservatism is a lifestyle, for those fixated on living vicariously through the US military.Just the sort of electorate that might nominate a Stalin, IMO.

(BTW: That's not a knock the US military, just on the T-shirt Owners Group; see, HOG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harley_Owners_Group).)

[EVAY]

It is disappointing there were no Democrats "rallying" for the Bush DOJ when they were zealously defending our country against terrorists for the past 8 years.

I guess they have no class. Srsly.

Democrats like Ken Starr?

[Winehole23]

It is disappointing there were no Democrats "rallying" for the Bush DOJ when they were zealously defending our country against terrorists for the past 8 years.

I guess they have no class. Srsly.Boo hoo. You expected public manifestations in favor of indefinite detention and harsh interrogation?

Srsly? :hat

[spursncowboys]

I think that somewhere in the actual full article it references that the DOJ identified 7 such lawyers recently, including one who won the argument before the Supreme Court that went against the Bush administration. I don't think it mentioned whether or not they came from the same law firm. I would be awfully surprised if more than one came from the same place.

In any event, SnC, The Cheneys' concern was not what firm they came from, but that they had represented defendents in the terrorism trials during the Bush administration , (hence, the other lawyers' references to John Adams defending the Boston masacre soldiers).

I didn't see what liz cheney said. I did watch kristol make a point to obama not disclosing the number in the doj who were previously defending gitmo detainees. When hearing rush bring this up, adams was the first thing that came to mind. although this was to calm the citizens from lynching the soldiers, imo. Also adams was the first true american politician (i'm more of a sam adams kind of guy). I am not sure but I thought:
1. Adams didn't get paid for defending the soldiers; and
2. was asked by the brittish govenor, I can't remember his name.
My comment was to point out that if there were a litmus test being administered, how else to find out than to question. I personally think it smart to get them in there to help with the loop holes that the very lawyers profited from. But also think it no reason to not disclose how many were involved in it prior.

[Winehole23]

John Adams, in his old age, called his defense of British soldiers in 1770 "one of the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country."

[Winehole23]

Adams got most of them off. A couple of Redcoats got their thumbs branded.

[Winehole23]

His law business fell off by half, and did not recover with much swiftness.

[Marcus Bryant]

It is disappointing there were no Democrats "rallying" for the Bush DOJ when they were zealously defending our country against terrorists for the past 8 years.

I guess they have no class. Srsly.

That's one way of putting it. At least you didn't proffer the 'defending our freedoms by shitting on the Constitution' hobby horse.

Where's Toby Keith when we need him?

[Yonivore]

The three lawyers (two conservative and one moderate to left-leaning) have been discussing this over at Powerline for the past couple of days. I didn't see the commercial but, in following the discussion here and there, I think this latest post -- commenting on the letter that is the topic of this thread -- kind of sums up their position with which I can't disagree.


Getting it partly right on the DOJ 7 (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/03/025777.php)


A group of 19 lawyers, including some prominent conservative ones, has signed a statement (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34050_Page3.html%22%22) criticizing as "unjust" and "shameful," the video released by Keep America Safe that attacked Justice Department lawyers who represented terrorist detainees. The group is a mixed bag, but it includes such unrelenting critics of Obama/Holder anti-terrorism policy as Lee Casey and David Rivkin.

The statement too is a mixed bag as far as I'm concerned. I don't think that representing Osama bin Laden's driver is part of an honorable tradition that extends back to John Adams (though defending someone falsely accused of being bin Laden's driver might be). We're not talking merely about unpopular defendants here; we're talking about folks who are at war with the United States. And al Qaeda cannot be compared to nervous British soldiers who over-reacted when faced by an angry crowd.

I agree that lawyers who defended terrorists should not be subject to a per se bar from employment in high level Justice Department jobs. However, the Keep America Safe video was attempting to acertain who these lawyers were. With their identitiies known, it would then be possible to assess more fully whether, to the extent the lawyers in question may become involved in matters relating to terrorism issues, they are good selections.

The left would want to know whether, for example, high level Justice Department jobs were going to lawyers who, on a pro bono basis, represented clients who aggressively take conservative positions on civil rights issues. And the left would reserve the right to scream if this turned out to be the case. Nor would the left be mollified if the Supreme Court had, by a 5-4 vote, agreed with the aggressively conservative position on civil rights law. The same principle applies here, and perhaps with more force, since our national security is at stake.

However, I agree with the statement to the extent it takes strong exception to the way the seven DOJ lawyers were characterized in the Keep America Safe video.
I think that's a reasonable position.

[doobs]

This is so obvious that it almost doesn't merit discussion. We have an adversarial justice system. Competent representation doesn't just help the defendants; it helps us all by keeping government honest.

BTW, Phillip Bobbit a Republican?

[Marcus Bryant]

So Osama's driver was at war with the US, or did he take the wrong job?

Not to mention that once upon a time Osama was a friend of these United States as he hated the commies too.

If guilt by association makes one beyond the pale, why'd W (that doesn't stand for Wilson) let some of bin Laden's family skip town shortly after the 9/11 attacks?

I know, we're neocons and we're always right.

[Marcus Bryant]

When this "War on Terror" justifies assassinations of American citizens by the executive branch, then by all means let's provide counsel to those deemed enemies of the state.

[Winehole23]

Giving the defense bar more any scrutiny than the prosecution here would seem to be invidious.

All officers of the courts can potentially be tainted by their contact with presumptive "terrorists", not just the lawyers who defend them. If Keep America Safe were vetting all the prosecutors too, that'd be one thing. But instead it discloses an evident and unashamed bias against defense.

The wise heads at Powerline apparently superimpose "national security" and transparency as a fig leaves for McCarthyite agitation. Big whoop. What did you think they were going to say? :lol

[Marcus Bryant]

This is so obvious that it almost doesn't merit discussion. We have an adversarial justice system. Competent representation doesn't just help the defendants; it helps us all by keeping government honest.



Who cares about the government when there's a terrorist behind every tree?

Let's put a boot in dar ass, it's duh murican way.

[Winehole23]

This is so obvious that it almost doesn't merit discussion. We have an adversarial justice system.Thanks for the reminder. Some people here seem to think we shouldn't.


Competent representation doesn't just help the defendants; it helps us all by keeping government honest.You seem to think this is not worth mentioning as being too obvious, but I don't think it is. Among non-lawyers at least.

[spursncowboys]

The 'al-Qaeda seven' and selective McCarthyism
By Marc A. Thiessen
Monday, March 8, 2010; 11:22 AM

Would most Americans want to know if the Justice Department had hired a bunch of mob lawyers and put them in charge of mob cases? Or a group of drug cartel lawyers and put them in charge of drug cases? Would they want their elected representatives to find out who these lawyers were, which mob bosses and drug lords they had worked for, and what roles they were now playing at the Justice Department? Of course they would -- and rightly so.

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder hired former al-Qaeda lawyers to serve in the Justice Department and resisted providing Congress this basic information. In November, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Holder a letter requesting that he identify officials who represented terrorists or worked for organizations advocating on their behalf, the cases and projects they worked on before coming to the Justice Department, the cases and projects they've worked on since joining the administration, and a list of officials who have recused themselves because of prior work on behalf of terrorist detainees.

Holder stonewalled for nearly three months. Finally, two weeks ago, he admitted that nine political appointees in the Justice Department had represented or advocated for terrorist detainees, but he failed to identify seven whose names were not publicly known or to directly answer other questions the senators posed. So Keep America Safe, a group headed by Liz Cheney, posted a Web ad demanding that Holder identify the "al-Qaeda seven," and a subsequent Fox News investigation unearthed the names. Only under this public pressure did the Justice Department confirm their identities -- but Holder still refuses to disclose their roles in detention policy.

Americans have a right to this information. One lawyer in the National Security Division of Holder's Justice Department, Jennifer Daskal, has written that any terrorist not charged with a crime "should be released from Guantanamo's system of indefinite detention" even though "at least some of these men may ... join the battlefield to fight U.S. soldiers and our allies another day." Should a lawyer who advocates setting terrorists free, knowing they may go on to kill Americans, have any role in setting U.S. detention policy? My hunch is that most Americans would say no.

Do other lawyers in question hold similarly radical and dangerous views? Without the information Holder is withholding, we cannot know if such lawyers are affecting detainee policy.

Yet for raising questions, Cheney and the Republican senators have been vilified. Former Clinton Justice Department official Walter Dellinger decried the "shameful" personal attacks on "these fine lawyers," while numerous commentators leveled charges of "McCarthyism."

Where was the moral outrage when fine lawyers like John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Jim Haynes, Steve Bradbury and others came under vicious personal attack? Their critics did not demand simple transparency; they demanded heads. They called these individuals "war criminals" and sought to have them fired, disbarred, impeached and even jailed. Where were the defenders of the "al-Qaeda seven" when a Spanish judge tried to indict the "Bush six"? Philippe Sands, author of the "Torture Team," crowed: "This is the end of these people's professional reputations!" I don't recall anyone accusing him of "shameful" personal attacks.

The standard today seems to be that you can say or do anything when it comes to the Bush lawyers who defended America against the terrorists. But if you publish an Internet ad or ask legitimate questions about Obama administration lawyers who defended America's terrorist enemies, you are engaged in a McCarthyite witch hunt.

Some defenders say al-Qaeda lawyers are simply following a great American tradition, in which everyone gets a lawyer and their day in court. Not so, says Andy McCarthy, the former assistant U.S. attorney who put Omar Abdel Rahman, the "blind sheik," behind bars for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. "We need to be clear about what the American tradition is," McCarthy told me. "The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused -- that means somebody who has been indicted or otherwise charged with a crime -- a right to counsel. But that right only exists if you are accused, which means you are someone who the government has brought into the civilian criminal justice system." The habeas lawyers were not doing their constitutional duty to defend unpopular criminal defendants. They were using the federal courts as a tool to undermine our military's ability to keep dangerous enemy combatants off the battlefield in a time of war.

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." Only when this information is public can members of Congress judge whether these individuals have properly recused themselves or whether they should be involved in detainee matters at all. The charge of McCarthyism is intended to intimidate those raising legitimate questions into silence. But asking such questions is not McCarthyism. It's oversight.

[ChumpDumper]

You don't believe in the American justice system.

That's fine for you.

[Wild Cobra]

---oops... wrong thread---

[TeyshaBlue]

Isn't he the new Baylor President or something?

His brother is my Dad's barber.:lol

[doobs]

His brother is my Dad's barber.:lol

Are you sure about that? Are you talking about Terry at JB's?

He's Ken Starr's friend from high school, not his brother.

[TeyshaBlue]

Are you sure about that? Are you talking about Terry at JB's?

He's Ken Starr's friend from high school, not his brother.

His brother's name is Jerry and he's a barber in my home town in West Texas....I know, I've met him.

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2010/feb/15/snyder-barber-starr-gets-a-big-surprise/

[doobs]

His brother's name is Jerry and he's a barber in my home town in West Texas....I know, I've met him.

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2010/feb/15/snyder-barber-starr-gets-a-big-surprise/

Oh, wow.

Well it is true that his friend from high school is a barber at JB's in Alamo Heights. His name is Terry. That's who I thought you meant, since this is a Spurs fansite.

[Winehole23]

King George has won?Or soon will.

[ElNono]

This is the kind of stuff that hurts the GOP. Instead of trying to unite the party to try to regain some ground, you have little Cheney splintering it more and more.

[boutons_deux]

Kristol more or less lifted pitbull bitch Out of Alaska obscurity.

Now he's connected to another huge loser of a stupid bitch.

Kristol really know hows to pick his bitches.

[boutons_deux]

"no Democrats "rallying" for the Bush DOJ when they were zealously defending our country against terrorists for the past 8 years."

Typicaly LYING spin. nobody's rallying for the Bush DOJ.

Nearly everybody is supporting the Constitutional concept of the DOJ.

dubya and dickhead were terrorizing, politicizing, compromising the DOJ and the Consitution with yes-lawyers like Gonzo, Yoo, Bybee. THAT's indefensible and attackable.

You're such a partisan fucktard, pussyeater.

[Winehole23]

The Obama DOJ w/r/t counterterrorism is hardly to be distinguished from that of Bush apart from waterboarding.

[Winehole23]

George. (http://www.io.com/gibbonsb/mencken/declaration.html)He had me at *saturnalia of oppressions* wrt Wilson-Palmer.

[Winehole23]

Somewhere, a phone was ringing.

[Winehole23]

Kristol has a long record of predicting it wrong, but his cool TV demeanor and urbane delivery seem to make up for every mistake. He still has a good job.

Still, as a weathervane of the wrong, you could hardly pick a better one. JMO.

[Winehole23]

That any government that don't give a man them rights ain't worth a damn; also, people ought to choose the kind of government they want themselves, and nobody else ought to have no say in the matter

[Winehole23]

That whenever any government don't do this, then the people have got a right to give it the bum's rush and put in one that will take care of their interests. Of course, that don't mean having a revolution every day like them South American yellowbellies, or every time some jobholder goes to work and does something he ain't got no business to do. It is better to stand a little graft, etc., than to have revolutions all the time, like them coons, and any man that wasn't a anarchist or one of them I.W.W.'s would say the same

[Winehole23]

But when things get so bad that a man ain't hardly got no rights at all no more, but you might almost call him a slave, then everybody ought to get together and throw the grafters out, and put in new ones who won't carry on so high and steal so much, and then watch them. This is the proposition the people of these Colonies is up against, and they have got tired of it, and won't stand it no more.

[Winehole23]

The administration of the present King, George III, has been rotten from the start, and when anybody kicked about it he always tried to get away with it by strong-arm work. Here is some of the rough stuff he has pulled:

He vetoed bills in the Legislature that everybody was in favor of, and hardly nobody was against.



He wouldn't allow no law to be passed without it was first put up to him, and then he stuck it in his pocket and let on he forgot about it, and didn't pay no attention to no kicks.



When people went to work and gone to him and asked him to put through a law about this or that, he give them their choice: either they had to shut down the Legislature and let him pass it all by himself, or they couldn't have it at all.



He made the Legislature meet at one-horse tank-towns, so that hardly nobody could get there and most of the leaders would stay home and let him go to work and do things like he wanted.



He give the Legislature the air, and sent the members home every time they stood up to him and give him a call-down or bawled him out.



When a Legislature was busted up he wouldn't allow no new one to be elected, so that there wasn't nobody left to run things, but anybody could walk in and do whatever they pleased.



He tried to scare people outen moving into these States, and made it so hard for a wop or one of these here kikes to get his papers that he would rather stay home and not try it, and then, when he come in, he wouldn't let him have no land, and so he either went home again or never come.



He monkeyed with the courts, and didn't hire enough judges to do the work, and so a person had to wait so long for his case to come up that he got sick of waiting, and went home, and so never got what was coming to him.



He got the judges under his thumb by turning them out when they done anything he didn't like, or by holding up their salaries, so that they had to knuckle down or not get no money.



He made a lot of new jobs, and give them to loafers that nobody knowed nothing about, and the poor people had to pay the bill, whether they could or not.



Without no war going on, he kept an army loafing around the country, no matter how much people kicked about it.



He let the army run things to suit theirself and never paid no attention whatsoever to nobody which didn't wear no uniform.



He let grafters run loose, from God knows where, and give them the say in everything, and let them put over such things as the following:



Making poor people board and lodge a lot of soldiers they ain't got no use for, and don't want to see loafing around.



When the soldiers kill a man, framing it up so that they would get off.



Interfering with business. Making us pay taxes without asking us whether we thought the things we had to pay taxes for was something that was worth paying taxes for or not.


When a man was arrested and asked for a jury trial, not letting him have no jury trial.


Chasing men out of the country, without being guilty of nothing, and trying them somewheres else for what they done here.



In countries that border on us, he put in bum governments? and then tried to spread them out, so that by and by they would take in this country too, or make our own government as bum as they was.



He never paid no attention whatever to the Constitution, but he went to work and repealed laws that everybody was satisfied with and hardly nobody was against, and tried to fix the government so that he could do whatever he pleased.



He busted up the Legislatures and let on he could do all the work better by himself.



Now he washes his hands of us and even goes to work and declares war on us, so we don't owe him nothing, and whatever authority he ever bad he ain't got no more.



He has burned down towns, shot down people like dogs, and raised hell against us out on the ocean.



He hired whole regiments of Dutch, etc., to fight us, and told them they could have anything they wanted if they could take it away from us, and sicked these Dutch, etc., on us.



He grabbed our own people when he found them in ships on the ocean, and shoved guns into their hands, and made them fight against us, no matter how much they didn't want to.



He stirred up the Indians, and give them arms and ammunition, and told them to go to it, and they have killed men, women and chdren, and don't care which.


Every time he has went to work and pulled any of these things, we have went to work and put in a kick, but every time we have went to work and put in a kick he has went to work and did it again. When a man keeps on handing out such rough stuff all the time, all you can say is that he ain't got no class and ain't fitten to have no authority over people who have got any rights, and he ought to be kicked out.



When we complained to the English we didn't get no more satisfaction. Almost every day we give them plenty of warning that the politicians over there was doing things to us that they didn't have no right to do. We kept on reminding them who we was, and what we was doing here, and how we come to come here. We asked them to get us a square deal, and told them that if this thing kept on we'd have to do something about it and maybe they wouldn't like it. But the more we talked, the more they didn't pay no attention to us. Therefore, if they ain't for us they must be agin us, and we are ready to give them the fight of their lives, or to shake hands when it is over.



Therefore be it resolved, That we, the representatives of the people of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, hereby declare as follows: That the United States, which was the United Colonies in former times, is now a free country, and ought to be; that we have throwed out the English King and don't want to have nothing to do with him no more, and are not taking no more English orders no more; and that, being as we are now a free country, we can do anything that free countries can do, especially declare war, make peace, sign treaties, go into business, etc. And we swear on the Bible on this proposition, one and all, and agree to stick to it no matter what ha pens, whether we win or we lose, and whether we get away with it or get the worst of it, no matter whether we lose all our property by it or even get hung for it.

[LnGrrrR]

When the state can identify a citizen as an enemy of the state and breeze straight past the formalities of judicial proceedings to the gallows....

Anyways, it's good to see that someone would point out that representation does not equate to solidarity, morons be damned.

I wouldn't expect any less from that fearmongering powerzealot Cheney.

[spursncowboys]

Kristol has a long record of predicting it wrong, but his cool TV demeanor and urbane delivery seem to make up for every mistake. He still has a good job.

Still, as a weathervane of the wrong, you could hardly pick a better one. JMO.

I doubt any of the political "experts" have a very good record, unless they take safe fortune cookie type predictions.

[Winehole23]

In the wilderness of fail, Bill Kristol holds a rather large estancia.

[SnakeBoy]

This is the kind of stuff that hurts the GOP. Instead of trying to unite the party to try to regain some ground, you have little Cheney splintering it more and more.

Perhaps. Then again when the inevitable next major terrorist attack occurs in the US the neocons will able to say "We tried to warn you, we would have protected you". It will probably work too.

[ElNono]

Perhaps. Then again when the inevitable next major terrorist attack occurs in the US the neocons will able to say "We tried to warn you, we would have protected you". It will probably work too.

Sometimes it looks like they cannot wait for that to happen...

[Marcus Bryant]

Mencken would probably be branded a "libtard" "al Qaeda seven" "traitor" today.

[LnGrrrR]

The only way to be safe is to give US all your freedoms! We'll take good care of them! Promise!

[Yonivore]

Gitmo's Indefensible Lawyers (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704131404575117611125872740.html)


Legal counsel to some of the detainees went far beyond vigorous representation of their clients. Doesn't the public have a right to know?
I think this issue is far from over...

[LnGrrrR]

Typical fear-mongering in that article. Oh my goodness, there's a supposed 20% recidivism rate! That's far too high! That means we must keep all of them forever, without trying them.

What about the 80% we've released that DON'T go back to the fight? Better to keep those 80% locked up with the 20%, just in case?

Did that lawyer overstep the boundaries? Sure. So fire her.

That doesn't justify the ridiculously low bar set to accuse terrorists in the military tribunals. Heck, I could be a prosecutor for the government using those rules.

"Counsel, I heard JimmyBobJoe say that he saw this guy shooting Americans with a gun."

"Guilty!"

[Wild Cobra]

Typical fear-mongering in that article. Oh my goodness, there's a supposed 20% recidivism rate!

etc. etc...

In a way I agree with you. Now once we get all the Extremists to vow they will stop attacking us, and others in a holy war, I say we release them.

What do you think? Afterall, it is normal to release the captured enemy when the war is over.

Of course, we have to be certain that they will have integrity over the issue.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Gitmo's Indefensible Lawyers (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704131404575117611125872740.html)


I think this issue is far from over...

so says liz cheney's associate. you're right, the issue will live on in the right-wing blogospere--but it will be seen for the bullshit that it truly is by intelligent life.

[PixelPusher]

The three lawyers (two conservative and one moderate to left-leaning) have been discussing this over at Powerline for the past couple of days. I didn't see the commercial but, in following the discussion here and there, I think this latest post -- commenting on the letter that is the topic of this thread -- kind of sums up their position with which I can't disagree.


Getting it partly right on the DOJ 7 (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/03/025777.php)


I think that's a reasonable position.

lol, you know it's bad when Yoni has to carefully cherry pick the posts of his favorite right wing blog;



http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/03/025821.php
At this point, it may be useful to compare (a) the relationship between al Qaeda and leftist lawyers of today and (b) the relationship between Soviet Communism and those American leftists who were falsely accused of being communists during the McCarthy era (I'm mindful that not all of the accused were falsely accused). Many of the wrongly accused leftists thought very badly of the U.S. Some I knew and have read about were appalled by racial segregation, deeply offended by the way income was distributed, and unhappy with important aspects of our foreign and national security policy including aspects of our policy towards the Soviet Union. But they didn't desire the expansion of Soviet power and they didn't favor the imposition of a communist system in the U.S.

In my opinion, these individuals have much more in common with communists and the professed values of Soviet Communism than today's leftist lawyers have in common with al Qaeda and the Islamists. Yet, it was wrong to accuse them of being communists, pro-communist, communist sympathizers, Soviet agents, etc.

I think it's also wrong to suggest that those lawyers who represent al Qaeda members and who also condemn American policies and favor radical change in this country are, by virtue of this, al Qaeda (as in "the al Qaeda Seven"), pro al Qaeda, or pro Islamist.

[Yonivore]

lol, you know it's bad when Yoni has to carefully cherry pick the posts of his favorite right wing blog;
I think you need to read the entire train of posts, by all three at Powerline contributors, before you accuse me of "cherry-picking." They've had a spirited debate on the issue; analyzing the opinions of others -- with whom they disagree and agree. Paul happens to be the moderate of the three.

I posted the sentiment of one of the three with which I agreed. And, I stated so. It's not my job to make your argument for you.

Where did I cherry-pick that post? I posted a link to the entire Powerline post and said I thought it was a reasonable position.

What's your beef?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think you need to read the entire train of posts, by all three at Powerline contributors, before you accuse me of "cherry-picking." They've had a spirited debate on the issue; analyzing the opinions of others -- with whom they disagree and agree. Paul happens to be the moderate of the three.

I posted the sentiment of one of the three with which I agreed. And, I stated so. It's not my job to make your argument for you.

Where did I cherry-pick that post? I posted a link to the entire Powerline post and said I thought it was a reasonable position.

What's your beef?

so you cherry picked the blog.

[Yonivore]

so you cherry picked the blog.
No, I posted a link to an opinion, posted by the more liberal of the three, with which I found common ground.

I've posted a lot of stuff from that blog; if that post was cherry-picked, it was cherry-picked in favor of a position I more, than not, disagree with.

[PixelPusher]

I think you need to read the entire train of posts, by all three at Powerline contributors, before you accuse me of "cherry-picking." They've had a spirited debate on the issue; analyzing the opinions of others -- with whom they disagree and agree. Paul happens to be the moderate of the three.

I posted the sentiment of one of the three with which I agreed. And, I stated so. It's not my job to make your argument for you.

Where did I cherry-pick that post? I posted a link to the entire Powerline post and said I thought it was a reasonable position.

What's your beef?

My bad, Yoni. They were both from Paul Mirengoff, so egg on my face.

[LnGrrrR]

In a way I agree with you. Now once we get all the Extremists to vow they will stop attacking us, and others in a holy war, I say we release them.

What do you think? Afterall, it is normal to release the captured enemy when the war is over.

Of course, we have to be certain that they will have integrity over the issue.

You and I both know that you'll never get "every" extremist, meaning the "war" will never end. Does that justify locking up anyone who MIGHT be an extremist for an indefinite amount of time with access to limited legal resources at best?

[Wild Cobra]

You and I both know that you'll never get "every" extremist, meaning the "war" will never end. Does that justify locking up anyone who MIGHT be an extremist for an indefinite amount of time with access to limited legal resources at best?
So you don't have an acceptable solution at most people either.

[Winehole23]

So you don't have an acceptable solution at most people either.Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.