Page 6 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 191

Thread: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

  1. #51
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    Please tell me how what John Adams did was different than what Neal Katyal did. I'm all eyes.
    You can start off by poiting out that Adam defended actual soliders.

    Did you miss that?

    And from your own link:

    More detailed records exist for the Soldiers' trial, which commenced on December 3. Adams presented evidence that blame for the tragedy lay both with the "mob" that gathered that March night and with England's highly unpopular policy of quartering troops in a city. Adams told the jury: "Soldiers quartered in a populous town will always occasion two mobs where they prevent one." He argued that the soldier who fired first acted only as one might expect anyone to act in such confused and potentially life-threatening conditions. "Do you expect that he should act like a stoic philosopher, lost in apathy?", Adams asked the jury. "Facts are stubborn things," he concluded, "and whatever may be our inclinations, or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

    So we have 2 soliders who opened fire on a mob because they were afraid.

    Now lets look at who Katyal has defended:

    Neal Katyal is now the principal deputy solicitor general. Previously, Katyal was a law professor and represented Salim Hamdan before the Supreme Court. The finding for Hamdan: The court ended up throwing out the military commission system as it was first established by President Bush. Congress then had to reauthorize the military commissions.

    Katyal’s defenders have been quick to advocate on his behalf, claiming he is talented lawyer. Maybe so, but let’s look at his handling of the Salim Hamdan case, which was a victory for his client.

    Hamdan is an admitted bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden. He swore allegiance to his master and faithfully served him from 1996 to 2001 -- as al Qaeda was plotting multiple acts of terror, including the September 11 attacks.

    Katyal has called Hamdan a "simple driver." But Hamdan was not a "simple driver." He was captured with two SA-7 shoulder-fired missiles in his trunk while driving to a battlefield in Afghanistan. (See below.) Moreover, only the most trusted al Qaeda personnel would be allowed to serve bin Laden for so long -- protecting the terror master as he plotted to kill thousands of civilians.

    It is troubling that Katyal would dismiss the seriousness of an al Qaeda agent’s record out of hand.

    Katyal has made some other questionable comments about Hamdan and the military commissions as well. In a piece for Slate in December 2007, Katyal started off by lamenting the fact that Hamdan was not being tried in a regal Washingtonian court, but instead in a “rickety courtroom at Guantanamo.” Katyal then compared Hamdan to your average green-card holder in America. Of the military commissions he wrote:

    These trials are not “equal justice”: For the first time since equality was written into our Constitution, America has created one criminal trial for “us” and one for “them.”The rules for the Guantanamo trials apply only to foreigners—the millions of green-card holders and five billion people on the globe who are not American citizens. An American citizen, even one who commits the most horrible and treasonous act (such as the detonation of a weapon of mass destruction), gets the Cadillac version of justice—a criminal trial in federal court. Meanwhile, a green-card holder alleged to have committed a far less egregious offense gets the beat-up Chevy: a military commission at Guantanamo. Before that commission, that noncitizen will have few of the very rights America has championed abroad, and he can be sentenced to death.


    Meet the DOJ Lawyers Who Defended Terrorist Detainees | The Weekly Standard

    So, you are comparing British soldiers who fired on a mob out of fear with Islamic terrorists who have no problem killing as many people as possible in the name of their religion.

    And Adams was not trying to change the law to allow murderers who aren't even from this country to be tried as American civilians would be. Really think Adams would have supported that?

    Your lack of values and ethics and the pathetic attempt at equating the two incidents is really disgusting here.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  2. #52
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    You can start off by poiting out that Adam defended actual soliders.

    Did you miss that?

    And from your own link:

    More detailed records exist for the Soldiers' trial, which commenced on December 3. Adams presented evidence that blame for the tragedy lay both with the "mob" that gathered that March night and with England's highly unpopular policy of quartering troops in a city. Adams told the jury: "Soldiers quartered in a populous town will always occasion two mobs where they prevent one." He argued that the soldier who fired first acted only as one might expect anyone to act in such confused and potentially life-threatening conditions. "Do you expect that he should act like a stoic philosopher, lost in apathy?", Adams asked the jury. "Facts are stubborn things," he concluded, "and whatever may be our inclinations, or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

    So we have 2 soliders who opened fire on a mob because they were afraid.

    Now lets look at who Katyal has defended:

    Neal Katyal is now the principal deputy solicitor general. Previously, Katyal was a law professor and represented Salim Hamdan before the Supreme Court. The finding for Hamdan: The court ended up throwing out the military commission system as it was first established by President Bush. Congress then had to reauthorize the military commissions.

    Katyal’s defenders have been quick to advocate on his behalf, claiming he is talented lawyer. Maybe so, but let’s look at his handling of the Salim Hamdan case, which was a victory for his client.

    Hamdan is an admitted bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden. He swore allegiance to his master and faithfully served him from 1996 to 2001 -- as al Qaeda was plotting multiple acts of terror, including the September 11 attacks.

    Katyal has called Hamdan a "simple driver." But Hamdan was not a "simple driver." He was captured with two SA-7 shoulder-fired missiles in his trunk while driving to a battlefield in Afghanistan. (See below.) Moreover, only the most trusted al Qaeda personnel would be allowed to serve bin Laden for so long -- protecting the terror master as he plotted to kill thousands of civilians.

    It is troubling that Katyal would dismiss the seriousness of an al Qaeda agent’s record out of hand.

    Katyal has made some other questionable comments about Hamdan and the military commissions as well. In a piece for Slate in December 2007, Katyal started off by lamenting the fact that Hamdan was not being tried in a regal Washingtonian court, but instead in a “rickety courtroom at Guantanamo.” Katyal then compared Hamdan to your average green-card holder in America. Of the military commissions he wrote:

    These trials are not “equal justice”: For the first time since equality was written into our Constitution, America has created one criminal trial for “us” and one for “them.”The rules for the Guantanamo trials apply only to foreigners—the millions of green-card holders and five billion people on the globe who are not American citizens. An American citizen, even one who commits the most horrible and treasonous act (such as the detonation of a weapon of mass destruction), gets the Cadillac version of justice—a criminal trial in federal court. Meanwhile, a green-card holder alleged to have committed a far less egregious offense gets the beat-up Chevy: a military commission at Guantanamo. Before that commission, that noncitizen will have few of the very rights America has championed abroad, and he can be sentenced to death.


    Meet the DOJ Lawyers Who Defended Terrorist Detainees | The Weekly Standard

    So, you are comparing British soldiers who fired on a mob out of fear with Islamic terrorists who have no problem killing as many people as possible in the name of their religion.

    And Adams was not trying to change the law to allow murderers who aren't even from this country to be tried as American civilians would be. Really think Adams would have supported that?

    Your lack of values and ethics and the pathetic attempt at equating the two incidents is really disgusting here.
    Considering I got that example from the letter written by 19 lawyers, your calling my attempt "pathetic" is meaningless to me.

    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.

    In Letter, Ken Starr and Other Conservatives Chide Liz Cheney - Law Blog - WSJ

  3. #53
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    i dind't think you could, thanks anyway.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  4. #54
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    i dind't think you could, thanks anyway.
    We have both realized that textmaster is blinded by his hatred and have given up on expecting anything substantive from him. Cheers!

  5. #55
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,850

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    Have I missed this subject matter elsewhere on this message board? When both the right and the left attack the former Vice President's daughter, I am surprised that no one here has posted about this.

    Liz Cheney makes me sick, and I am glad that people who served under Bush I and Bush II agree that her attacks are out of line. When Ken Starr shows up on Keith Olbermann, that says a lot about Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol's stupidity.



    I hope her stupid group "Keep America Safe" loses credibility as a result of her foolish statements.
    I'm glad to see there are sane people left in the GOP. Liz's reckless and McCarthyistic attacks on these lawyers, who are doing a job in the finest tradition of American values is beyond the pale.

    Of further significance is Ted Olson's condemnation:

    “I of course think it’s entirely appropriate for members of the legal profession to have provided legal services to detainees,” Olson told POLITICO. “It is a part of the responsibility of lawyers and in the finest tradition of the profession to represent unpopular persons who are caught up in the criminal justice system or even in the military justice system. I think that people who do so, do so honorably,” said Olson, whose arguments before the Supreme Court helped win the presidency for George W. Bush in 2000.





    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Ken Star did his job, and damn good job at that given the sensitivity of the issue and viciousness of attacks upon him.
    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Damn right. The guy is a hero.
    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    LOL!!! So you are comparing these guys to a founding father?
    Yes, and so is Ken Starr who you think is a hero:

    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.

    That is from the letter in the OP.


    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    yes, it's a necessary role. let's remember that everyone who goes on trial isn't guilty. there's nothing immoral about these people doing their jobs.

    Indeed and those who do are seeing that justice is done. If we are a nation of laws, everything should be done to see our laws are properly enforced and we aren't running kangaroo courts.

  6. #56
    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 Catz Part Deux View Post
    Exactly. For one thing, we need the prosecutors in federal DOJ to be top notch. They have to work closely with the federal law enforcement agencies, sharing sensitive information on cases. They need to have a strong prosecution background. They need to be the best of the best.

    Is this seriously the best we can do???
    What makes you think that these people aren't the best? The type of lawyers who take these cases aren't your average sleazebag criminal defense attornies - they're highly respected litigators from some of the best law firms in the country who take them on as pro bono cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Remember, Holder is a defense attorney from the one law firm with the most lawyers who have defended terrorists in the United States.
    No, Holder was a federal prosecutor for 8 years, then appointed to a judgeship by Reagan where he served for 5 years, then stepped down to be the US Atty in DC for 4 years, then became the Deputy Atty General where he worked for 4 years, then went into private practice at one of the best law firms in the country where he did corporate law, regulatory work, and white collar matters for 7 years, before he became Attorney General.

    How you think that can be summarized as "defense attorney from the one law firm with the most lawyers who defended terrorists" is beyond me. Covington is a great place to work, and by no means some leftist hellhole (any more so than another law firm). Know who else worked at Covington? Sen Kit Bond (R-MO), Michael Chertoff, and John Bolton. Are they terrorist-lovers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    On the other hand, is he going to have a specific viewpoint on the issues that he is likely to attempt to encode into policy?

    Here's one of my biases...I have an engrained distrust of defense attorneys.
    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    There are plenty of experienced prosecutors out there who have intimate knowledge of these cases and would walk into the job on Day 1 with automatic credibility with their law enforcement partners.
    At this level, defense attorneys are essentially interchangeable with prosecutors. One of the most common career paths is to work at a law firm for a few years, spend a few years at a US Atty's office as a prosecutor, and then go back to the firm and become a white collar defense partner. Many of those partners periodically go back to work as prosecutors or judges depending on who appoints them. I know a dozen or so people who have followed that path, and if I'm lucky, I will as well.

    (so aps, the answer to your question is "yes") =)

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    If they are so "top notch" why did they hide their names?

    Care to explain that?
    Because they didn't want people to start making idiotic claims about how they love terrorists simply because they chose to take on unpopular pro bono cases?

    I've worked on cases involving crack cocaine sentencing, habeas appeals, capital punishment, etc. Do I like the clients? Not usually. Do I think they're good people? Not usually. Do they deserve competent representation? Of course.

    Saying that a lawyer who volunteers his time to help indigent clients must support their actions is like saying that someone working at a soup kitchen is a supporter of drinking in public and being homeless.
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 03-09-10 at 01:57 PM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #57
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    What makes you think that these people aren't the best? The type of lawyers who take these cases aren't your average sleazebag criminal defense attornies - they're highly respected litigators from some of the best law firms in the country who take them on as pro bono cases.



    No, Holder was a federal prosecutor for 8 years, then appointed to a judgeship by Reagan where he served for 5 years, then stepped down to be the US Atty in DC for 4 years, then became the Deputy Atty General where he worked for 4 years, then went into private practice at one of the best law firms in the country where he did corporate law, regulatory work, and white collar matters for 7 years, before he became Attorney General.

    How you think that can be summarized as "defense attorney from the one law firm with the most lawyers who defended terrorists" is beyond me. Covington is a great place to work, and by no means some leftist hellhole (any more so than another law firm). Know who else worked at Covington? Sen Kit Bond (R-MO), Michael Chertoff, and John Bolton. Are they terrorist-lovers?





    At this level, defense attorneys are essentially interchangeable with prosecutors. One of the most common career paths is to work at a law firm for a few years, spend a few years at a US Atty's office as a prosecutor, and then go back to the firm and become a white collar defense partner. Many of those partners periodically go back to work as prosecutors or judges depending on who appoints them. I know a dozen or so people who have followed that path, and if I'm lucky, I will as well.

    (so aps, the answer to your question is "yes") =)



    Because they didn't want people to start making idiotic claims about how they love terrorists simply because they chose to take on unpopular pro bono cases?

    I've worked on cases involving crack cocaine sentencing, habeas appeals, capital punishment, etc. Do I like the clients? Not usually. Do I think they're good people? Not usually. Do they deserve competent representation? Of course.

    Saying that a lawyer who volunteers his time to help indigent clients must support their actions is like saying that someone working at a soup kitchen is a supporter of drinking in public and being homeless.
    Ahhhhhhhhh. I knew I could rely on an intelligent answer from you.

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    What is it Ken Starr did that makes his name familiar? He wasn't the lead investigator into Clinton's sex trails was he?
    So, how old were you when Special Prosecutor Starr was tasked with probing The Rapist President's involvement in the Whitewater scandal?

  9. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    For the record, I like Eric Holder. Before he worked for a private firm, he had a long and distinguished career at main Justice.

    This is what I agree with:



    I don't believe that detainee lawyers should be drafting detainee policy.
    You're talking about the Eric Holder, who, after obtaining the convictions of a couple of thugs who were guilty of voter intimidation (of white people at a predominantly black district) summarily dismissed the CONVICTIONS before sentencing, either because the thugs were black or because one of them was an elected Democrat.

    In either case, Holder is scum not fit to clean a stable, let alone be Attorney General of the United States of America.

  10. #60
    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 Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You're talking about the Eric Holder, who, after obtaining the convictions of a couple of thugs who were guilty of voter intimidation (of white people at a predominantly black district) summarily dismissed the CONVICTIONS before sentencing, either because the thugs were black or because one of them was an elected Democrat.
    That's not even remotely close to what happened.

    1) It was a civil case, so there was no "sentencing"
    2) There were no "convictions," nor was there a judgment
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 6 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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
  •