Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 191

Thread: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

  1. #141
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    The best argument I've heard so far for why the substance of her criticism is correct:

    But imagine that John Ashcroft had stocked the Civil Rights Division with appointees who had done extensive pro bono work for white supremacists. Would people’s positions be the same?
    Still don't know that it holds water, but it doesn't seem like as one-sided of a debate as it initially does.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  2. #142
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,915

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    The best argument I've heard so far for why the substance of her criticism is correct:



    Still don't know that it holds water, but it doesn't seem like as one-sided of a debate as it initially does.
    Cutting against this analysis is the argument that lawyers often defend even unpopular and unlikeable clients in order to preserve an important principle. In that well-worn narrative, lawyers bravely stand against the tide of popular opinion to vindicate a principle, not to help a particular client.


    I believe this is their true motivation due to the Bush administrations penchant for propagandizing the war on terror. (They are still touting the Los Angeles Library Tower as proof water-boarding is effective when it has been totally debunked.) Given that, lawyers strongly believing in the rule of law would not want to see the Bush administration run these kangaroo courts, obtaining guilty verdicts, in order to justify how they prosecuted the WOT. Their involvement would assure that any guilty verdict was rendered according to law not because:


    So, for example, the rules for Hamdan's trial admit hearsay evidence in ways that American courts (both civilian and military) do not. The New York Times reported over the weekend, moreover, that the detainees have not been given access even to the names of the people who will testify against them.
    A real Guantanamo trial begins. - By Neal Katyal - Slate Magazine

    This is completely different from representing White Supremacists.

  3. #143
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    Cutting against this analysis is the argument that lawyers often defend even unpopular and unlikeable clients in order to preserve an important principle. In that well-worn narrative, lawyers bravely stand against the tide of popular opinion to vindicate a principle, not to help a particular client.


    I believe this is their true motivation due to the Bush administrations penchant for propagandizing the war on terror. (They are still touting the Los Angeles Library Tower as proof water-boarding is effective when it has been totally debunked.) Given that, lawyers strongly believing in the rule of law would not want to see the Bush administration run these kangaroo courts, obtaining guilty verdicts, in order to justify how they prosecuted the WOT. Their involvement would assure that any guilty verdict was rendered according to law not because:


    So, for example, the rules for Hamdan's trial admit hearsay evidence in ways that American courts (both civilian and military) do not. The New York Times reported over the weekend, moreover, that the detainees have not been given access even to the names of the people who will testify against them.
    A real Guantanamo trial begins. - By Neal Katyal - Slate Magazine

    This is completely different from representing White Supremacists.
    What about it is so different though? In both cases, you're agreeing to represent a party that would otherwise be unrepresented in order to ensure that they're receiving justice.

    As to the argument that it's different because the military trials have different standards of evidence - that doesn't really work, because the bulk of this legal representation was performed in the civilian courts.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #144
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,915

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    What about it is so different though? In both cases, you're agreeing to represent a party that would otherwise be unrepresented in order to ensure that they're receiving justice.

    As to the argument that it's different because the military trials have different standards of evidence - that doesn't really work, because the bulk of this legal representation was performed in the civilian courts.
    It's different because the grievances I cited, would help a Presidential administration obtain global political goals; the conviction of terrorists that will then,indirectly, justify the detention of those prisoners (which they had been harshly criticized for) and then additionally, the treatment of those prisoners. White Supremacists do not rise to that level, politically, not even close.

    Could you please cite an article supporting your assertion the bulk of representation was performed in civilian courts? I can find no source for that on my own.

    that doesn't really work, because the bulk of this legal representation was performed in the civilian courts.
    Last edited by Gina; 03-15-10 at 11:19 AM.

  5. #145
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    It's different because the grievances I cited, would help a Presidential administration obtain global political goals; the conviction of terrorists that will then,indirectly, justify the detention of those prisoners (which they had been harshly criticized for) and then additionally, the treatment of those prisoners. White Supremacists do not rise to that level, politically, not even close.
    So you're saying that it's okay to provide pro bono legal services to terrorists because it helps thwart the Bush administration's political goals, but it wouldn't be okay to provide pro bono legal services to white supremacists because they're not important?

    Could you please cite an article supporting your assertion the bulk of representation was performed in civilian courts? I can find no source for that on my own.
    I'm not sure what type of article you're expecting - this is common knowledge. >95% of that representation occurred in the civilian system. Think of every single case you've ever heard of involving terrorists - that was heard in the civilian system. Every single big name case that these people worked on was heard in the civilian system.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  6. #146
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    The best argument I've heard so far for why the substance of her criticism is correct:



    Still don't know that it holds water, but it doesn't seem like as one-sided of a debate as it initially does.
    I still don't think it holds water. Cheney's attack is predicated on the idea that a defense lawyer automatically agrees with or sympathizes with their client. That's absurd and wrong.

    Throwing "pro bono" into the white supremacist lawyer thing is a subtle way of sounding like that lawyer is doing it out of sympathy. But that's not necessarily true either. It could be, but it doesn't mean they do. And there's no reason to think these Justice lawyers sympathize with terrorists either. They are being attacked just for the fact that they defended them, with the underlying implication being that only terrorist sympathizers would do so, or nobody should.

  7. #147
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    I still don't think it holds water. Cheney's attack is predicated on the idea that a defense lawyer automatically agrees with or sympathizes with their client. That's absurd and wrong.
    An attack on a lawyer who volunteered to represent white supremacists would be predicated on the same thing, but I think that attack would be treated differently.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  8. #148
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    An attack on a lawyer who volunteered to represent white supremacists would be predicated on the same thing, but I think that attack would be treated differently.
    You're probably right.

  9. #149
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,915

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    So you're saying that it's okay to provide pro bono legal services to terrorists because it helps thwart the Bush administration's political goals, but it wouldn't be okay to provide pro bono legal services to white supremacists because they're not important?
    In a manner of speaking, yes, (bolded portion) because Bush administration was violating the rule of law in order to obtain their goals. They wanted to admit hearsay evidence and not give access to the names of those who would testify against the accused, as I cited, in order to accomplish their goals. Kangaroo courts, if you will. So, again, in a manner of speaking, it's fine by me to thwart political goals of a President when the means used are not in keeping with the rule of law.

    Further, as I quoted before:

    Cutting against this analysis is the argument that lawyers often defend even unpopular and unlikeable clients in order to preserve an important principle. In that well-worn narrative, lawyers bravely stand against the tide of popular opinion to vindicate a principle, not to help a particular client.

    From your source: http://volokh.com/2010/03/09/more-on-liz-cheney/

    I think these lawyers were doing just that (the bolded portion).

    As far as the White Supremacists, I never said they weren't important, they just are not equivalent (at this time anyway) to prosecuting terrorists in the desire to meet a global political goal.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I'm not sure what type of article you're expecting - this is common knowledge. >95% of that representation occurred in the civilian system. Think of every single case you've ever heard of involving terrorists - that was heard in the civilian system. Every single big name case that these people worked on was heard in the civilian system.
    Not to my common knowledge. I haven't come across those facts, though I started with your link and clicked around on various other links in the articles and used search terms I thought would yield the answer. If 95% of the cases these lawyers worked on, every single big name case involving terrorists, were held in civilian courts, that might be an interesting discussion for another thread, in light of the castigation of Holder and Pres. Obama for planning to try KSM and 4 others in civilian courts.

  10. #150
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    In a manner of speaking, yes, (bolded portion) because Bush administration was violating the rule of law in order to obtain their goals. They wanted to admit hearsay evidence and not give access to the names of those who would testify against the accused, as I cited, in order to accomplish their goals. Kangaroo courts, if you will.
    Or military tribunals, as they've existed for hundreds of years.

    So, again, in a manner of speaking, it's fine by me to thwart political goals of a President when the means used are not in keeping with the rule of law.

    Cutting against this analysis is the argument that lawyers often defend even unpopular and unlikeable clients in order to preserve an important principle. In that well-worn narrative, lawyers bravely stand against the tide of popular opinion to vindicate a principle, not to help a particular client.
    I think these lawyers were doing just that (the bolded portion).
    Again, this distinction makes no sense. You're saying that it's okay when a lawyer volunteers his time to defend a terrorist because its serving some broader legal principle, and as a result, that's somehow different than the white supremacist case. In reality, when a lawyer volunteers his time to defend any indigent defendant, he's doing so in service of a broader legal principle. In most contested criminal cases, there are serious issues of criminal procedure and constitutional liberty at stake. If the suits were civil suits regarding free speech, the same concerns would apply. Generally speaking, lawyers don't take cases pro bono unless there is a broader legal principle at stake. You can't just say "oh, well the principles at issue in the terrorist's cases are somehow more important," because they're absolutely not.

    As far as the White Supremacists, I never said they weren't important, they just are not equivalent (at this time anyway) to prosecuting terrorists in the desire to meet a global political goal.
    How are things like the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment as applied to US citizens less important than a disputed question over jurisdiction as applied to foreign terrorists?

    Not to my common knowledge. I haven't come across those facts, though I started with your link and clicked around on various other links in the articles and used search terms I thought would yield the answer. If 95% of the cases these lawyers worked on, every single big name case involving terrorists, were held in civilian courts, that might be an interesting discussion for another thread, in light of the castigation of Holder and Pres. Obama for planning to try KSM and 4 others in civilian courts.
    You're confusing two different things. The uproar re: trying these terrorists in civilian courts involves formal criminal prosecutions. That's not where most of this representation has taken place. Most of the representation in question is in cases filed in the civilian courts by the attorneys on behalf of the clients.

    Rumsfeld v. Padilla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Rasul v. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Al Odah v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Boumediene v. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    etc.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •