• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans scold Liz Cheney

Catz Part Deux said:
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???
Click to expand...

These lawyers likely are top notch. The fact that Hamdan won his case in the Supreme Court--jeez, who wouldn't want that lawyer representing Hamdan on our side? He now has an understanding of the mentality of these terrorists and the arguments that terrorists will make.
 
aps said:
These lawyers likely are top notch. The fact that Hamdan won his case in the Supreme Court--jeez, who wouldn't want that lawyer representing Hamdan on our side? He now has an understanding of the mentality of these terrorists and the arguments that terrorists will make.
Click to expand...

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. :shrug:
 
Catz Part Deux said:
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. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Trust me, you're preaching to the choir. I could never be a defense attorney because my conscience wouldn't be able to stand it. Ever.

I see your point. I'm just not worried that this raises safety concerns for the US.
 
texmaster said:
Remember, Holder is a defense attorney from the one law firm with the most lawyers who have defended terrorists in the United States.
Click to expand...

Liz, is that you? :roll:
 
aps said:
Trust me, you're preaching to the choir. I could never be a defense attorney because my conscience wouldn't be able to stand it. Ever.

I see your point. I'm just not worried that this raises safety concerns for the US.
Click to expand...

Meh. I'm torn. I don't want us to go so far to the left that we undermine our ability to respond to future acts of terror. I think that the Bush administration went way over the line in detaining people without access to legal counsel. On the other hand, I don't want us to swing things so far in the other direction that, for instance, federal cases are compromised.

What I worry about is the fact that the federal law enforcement agencies have to go through Justice prosecutors to authorize wiretaps, search warrants, etc. You can see how important it is for those prosecutors to be truthworthy and reliable, because otherwise, we endanger the federal agents who are working the cases.

It's my moderate nature. I get nervous whenever I feel us swinging too far to one side or the other.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
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???
Click to expand...
why do you think these attorneys are not top notch?
 
liblady said:
why do you think these attorneys are not top notch?
Click to expand...

They may be top notch...as defense attorneys. But prosecution requires different skills. They may not be top notch prosecutors based upon their background and experience. Further, they are not going to be trusted to the extent that a former local prosecutor would be by the law enforcement partners they'd need to work with.

The main role of federal DOJ is prosecution and law enforcement. Don't forget that.
 
texmaster said:
Why? Because she refused to let the Obama administration keep their lawyer list anonymous?

Yeah! How horrible for her to make sure the lawyers' names are actually known!
Click to expand...

Whomever disagrees gets to be disparaged apparently. Liz Cheney won't shut up and she won't get in line with the Progressive ideology, so the frustrated name calling begins. Cheney has her right to voice her opinion like everyone else. Lawyers are bottom of the barrel to begin with (sorry - but they just are) and is there a potentially paranoid point to Cheney's concern that these defense lawyers now work as prosecutors for the WH? Yes a small one, but there's no meat to back it up. But it does feed the paranoia and conspiracy theorists - nothing that the 8 years of Bush didn't have at the hands of liberal activists, progressive nuts and most of the main stream media. It's just par for the course calling someone a bitch because you disagree... weak and lacking credibility in spades. All too predictable and consistent.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Meh. I'm torn. I don't want us to go so far to the left that we undermine our ability to respond to future acts of terror. I think that the Bush administration went way over the line in detaining people without access to legal counsel. On the other hand, I don't want us to swing things so far in the other direction that, for instance, federal cases are compromised.

What I worry about is the fact that the federal law enforcement agencies have to go through Justice prosecutors to authorize wiretaps, search warrants, etc. You can see how important it is for those prosecutors to be truthworthy and reliable, because otherwise, we endanger the federal agents who are working the cases.

It's my moderate nature. I get nervous whenever I feel us swinging too far to one side or the other.
Click to expand...
their representation of detainees does not make them untrustworthy or not reliable. and in fact, i think their values are to be commended rather than maligned.

and who better to work for the DOJ, than those who have a pretty intimate knowledge already?
 
aps said:
Ahhhh, I can tell that those of you who are arguing this point do not understand the advantages that hiring someone who was once on the other side has in these kind of circumstances.
Click to expand...

No but I'm not naive enough to believe they can turn around and go the other way that easy.

It goes both ways. Many prosecutors go on to be defense lawyers and vice versa. These lawyers have a unique perspective.

I could switch sides in my job and make a killing. I just choose not to.
Click to expand...

I know its hard but this isn't about you.
 
liblady said:
their representation of detainees does not make them untrustworthy or not reliable. and in fact, i think their values are to be commended rather than maligned.

and who better to work for the DOJ, than those who have a pretty intimate knowledge already?
Click to expand...

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.
 
texmaster said:
No but I'm not naive enough to believe they can turn around and go the other way that easy.
Click to expand...

Why would I think you would understand? I bet every other lawyer on here would agree with me.
 
liblady said:
their representation of detainees does not make them untrustworthy or not reliable.
Click to expand...

Actually yes it does.

and in fact, i think their values are to be commended rather than maligned.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? They are defending terrorists. Remember, the guys who are killing our civilians and soldiers?

and who better to work for the DOJ, than those who have a pretty intimate knowledge already?
Click to expand...

Ignorance must be bliss. Do you have any evidence at all these guys will actually not still fight for the same terrorists they did in their "old" jobs?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
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.
Click to expand...

Especially if they plan to switch hit and work for the DA.
 
aps said:
Why would I think you would understand? I bet every other lawyer on here would agree with me.
Click to expand...

No evidence to believe it at all but you accept it anyway. I wish I could be that naive.
 
texmaster said:
No evidence to believe it at all but you accept it anyway. I wish I could be that naive.
Click to expand...

Okay. :2wave:

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." That's quite a statement, coming as it does from perhaps the most underappreciated great man in American history.

Key Figures in the Boston Massacre Trial
Click to expand...
 
texmaster said:
Actually yes it does.



Are you kidding? They are defending terrorists. Remember, the guys who are killing our civilians and soldiers?



Ignorance must be bliss. Do you have any evidence at all these guys will actually not still fight for the same terrorists they did in their "old" jobs?
Click to expand...
ah......please post some objective proof of their untrustworthiness.
 
liblady said:
ah......please post some objective proof of their untrustworthiness.
Click to expand...

Explain why they covered up the names if they are so proud of them first. I've already asked this question and am still waiting for an answer.
 
texmaster said:
LOL!!! So you are comparing these guys to a founding father?

Wow. That glass tower is certainly exclusive :D
Click to expand...

Please tell me how what John Adams did was different than what Neal Katyal did. I'm all eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom