Former U.S. attorney dumps Obama's charade

Andrew McCarthy's Clear Eyed Response To An Obama Invitation
Former U.S. attorney and author Andrew McCarthy has turned down an Obama administration request to participate in a discussion of policies concerning detainees in taken as part of our contingency operation on man-caused disasters. He has declined - and his letter to that Attorney General Holder to that effect is a must read:

This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening . . .

The invitation email . . . indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” . . . [I]t is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government. . . .

. . . We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.

The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year. The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that’s what it takes to close Gitmo by January.

Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance. I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States. The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law.

I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade.

If there's anything I really like about this whole interrogation/guantanamo deal, is that now you can clearly see who are these pro-torture, anti-justice people.
You don't even need to root out the bad apples, they come out singing themselves.

What I really wonder is, why do they hate America and everything America stands for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

If there's anything I really like about this whole interrogation/guantanamo deal, is that now you can clearly see who are these pro-torture, anti-justice people.
You don't even need to root out the bad apples, they come out singing themselves.

What I really wonder is, why do they hate America and everything America stands for?

---

Andrew McCarthy isn't just a former U.S. Attorney, he's the lead pit bull at NRO's The Corner. He's the guy who (tried to) brought the Obama's birth certificate canard in from the cold outer reaches of the wingnut blogosphere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PixelPusher

Andrew McCarthy isn't just a former U.S. Attorney, he's the lead pit bull at NRO's The Corner. He's the guy who (tried to) brought the Obama's birth certificate canard in from the cold outer reaches of the wingnut blogosphere.

---

Wingnut? and yet Obama requests his presence on this panel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hope4dopes

Wingnut? and yet Obama requests his presence on this panel.

---

Yeah, so much for extending a hand in professional courtesy. McCarthy jumped all over the opportunity to bloviate from a soap box.

Quote:

---

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government. . . .

---

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2109/...715f4edefa.jpg

Quote:

---

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government. . . .

---

This is actually a good point.

Prudent lawyers don't have anything to worry about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

This is actually a good point.

---

So if a lawyer tells you in good faith (or not), that murdering somebody is perfectly legal, and you go ahead and do it, you think he's not accessory to the crime?
One thing is to merely write an opinion, and a completely different thing is to actually offer legal advise.
These guys are lawyers. They know better than be crying foul now.

Quote:

---

What I really wonder is, why do they hate America and everything America stands for?

---

They're not the ones that want to release terrorists under our soil in violation of our own immigration laws. You're asking this question of the wrong people.

While this guy is an obvious hack I don't think we should go after the lawyers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

So if a lawyer tells you in good faith (or not), that murdering somebody is perfectly legal, and you go ahead and do it, you think he's not accessory to the crime?
One thing is to merely write an opinion, and a completely different thing is to actually offer legal advise.
These guys are lawyers. They know better than crying foul now.

---

LOL, who died from waterboarding? Nice reach, Gumby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

They're not the ones that want to release terrorists under our soil in violation of our own immigration laws. You're asking this question of the wrong people.

---

Except that according to a federal judge that reviewed the evidence against them, they're not terrorists or 'enemy combatants' at all.

Again, why these people hate America and everything America stands for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

LOL, who died from waterboarding? Nice reach, Gumby.

---

Waterboarding (torture) is a crime. No different than rape, murder, and any other crime out there. You don't need loss of life to commit a crime.

I think the Obama admin should really focus on this issue.


Oh, by the way, Pakistan is teetering on anarchy. Hope the nukes are safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

While this guy is an obvious hack I don't think we should go after the lawyers.

---

I agree there are other, more important priorities right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Oh, by the way, Pakistan is teetering on anarchy. Hope the nukes are safe.

---

I guess we haven't been making our payments on time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

LOL, who died from waterboarding? Nice reach, Gumby.

---

Not from waterboarding that we know, but others did die after interrogation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

This is actually a good point.

---

It would be if the advice Yoo/Bybee/Bradbury gave on *enhanced interrogation* were legally competent. It was not. If government lawyers issue opinions without any legal basis, they deserve to reap the whirlwind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

It would be if the advice Yoo/Bybee/Bradbury gave on *enhanced interrogation* were legally competent. It was not. If government lawyers issue opinions without any legal basis, they deserve to reap the whirlwind.

---

Then let the reaping begin.

Do American SF protect the nukes in Paki?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I think the Obama admin should really focus on this issue.


Oh, by the way, Pakistan is teetering on anarchy. Hope the nukes are safe.

---

:lmao

So fucking rich. I'm sure Obama is sitting there doing nothing but focusing on this and I'm sure that this takes precedents over the huge national security concerns. No, lets not prioritize lets just forget about these violations of the law because a President may have more than one thing to deal with at once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

It would be if the advice Yoo/Bybee/Bradbury gave on *enhanced interrogation* were legally competent. It was not. If government lawyers issue opinions without any legal basis, they deserve to reap the whirlwind.

---

I love how people now believe that if you invoke national security you're allowed to do whatever the hell you want no matter how much it violates the law or the basic things America stands for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FaithInOne

Do American SF protect the nukes in Paki?

---

My understanding is that the actual nuclear warheads are heavily secured by the Pakistani military, but it's probable that excess nuclear fuel could fall into the wrong hands if the shit hits the fan.

I was just reading that the US doesn't even know (or at least claims it doesn't know) where all the nukes are in Pakistan...
Not that they have the capability of launching anything transcontinental anyways, but India is probably getting their own gear ready...
I recall the US funneling billions of dollars to Pakistan in a form of 'payment' for allowing us to use their country as an access route to Afghanistan and Iraq.
I wonder if that money is still flowing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

They're not the ones that want to release terrorists under our soil in violation of our own immigration laws. You're asking this question of the wrong people.

---

If you are referring to the Uighurs, they were determined by the Bush administration to be no threat to the US, and face persecution if returned to the hands of the repressive communist government of China. There are definitely asylum laws on the books for just this kind of situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PixelPusher

Yeah, so much for extending a hand in professional courtesy. McCarthy jumped all over the opportunity to bloviate from a soap box.

---

Please.....

Show of hands how many of you when you read these innocents outraged by I what I like to call MAN-MADE CONFESSIONS it harkens you back to the days of watching Jane Fonda perching her bourgeous tennis firmed ass on a NV tank and wave her soft little fists in the air. The cause of the month. The only thing more important is the new beer at the microbrewery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hope4dopes

Show of hands how many of you when you read these innocents outraged by I what I like to call MAN-MADE CONFESSIONS it harkens you back to the days of watching Jane Fonda perching her bourgeous tennis firmed ass on a NV tank and wave her soft little fists in the air. The cause of the month. The only thing more important is the new beer at the microbrewery.

---

You must be new here. We discussed Guantanamo, the Uighrs and military tribunals way back when the Bush administration was still in power. A simple search would have clued you in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hope4dopes

The only thing more important is the new beer at the microbrewery.

---

For the first and last time perhaps, you have drawn our attention to something worthwhile. :toast