• 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

How long were they held before given access to military tribunals and legal counsel?

What does that matter?

Can you point to any law giving a timeframe to a speedy trial for Islamic terrorists captured overseas or are you once again trying to give them American civilian rights?

Your horror doesn't move me.

Neither does yours move me.

Well, clearly, they aren't in favor of innate human rights.

So you can't answer the question or support your baseless accusation. Got it.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like you would prefer to talk about that instead of what an un-American bitch Liz Cheney is.

I'm sorry do you have anything to contribute other than your warped personal opinion about Liz Cheney?
 
Without delay? Do you even have a clue how long they "delayed" releasing the names?

Have you even bothered to do any research whatsoever?

Here's a clue. This has been going on for months. Only after Liz Cheney showed up on the O'Reilly Factor did they release the names.

Which means what? Can you show me the rule that requires government to disclose that information at all? The fact that they declined to release it for a period of time doesn't mean a goddamn thing.

I see you ducked the point that they work for the government and not a private firm.

What on earth are you talking about? Before they worked for the government, they were in private practice. That's exactly the same as my example. Jesus christ.

There is a big difference between fighting for your client and trying to reshape the law to fit Islamic terrorists and afford them American civilian rights.

That's the point.

To a layman who doesn't understand the law and is desperately trying to convince himself that he's right, I'm sure there's a huge difference. To people who actually know what they're talking about, zealous advocacy conducted in good faith is zealous advocacy conducted in good faith.

Look up the word. Clearly you do not know what the word means.


in·di·gent
   /ˈɪndɪdʒənt/ Show Spelled[in-di-juhnt] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
lacking food, clothing, and other necessities of life because of poverty; needy; poor; impoverished.
2.
Archaic.
a.
deficient in what is requisite.
b.
destitute (usually fol. by of).

You've got to be kidding me.

Think really hard about why that definition applies to these detainees and see if you can come up with a reason. I'll start you off:

1) Can they afford a lawyer?

edit: **** it, you're not going to answer the question so I'll just tell you:

Most lawyers do pro bono work where they provide legal services to individuals who cannot obtain counsel on their own. These are the people I'm describing when I say "indigent," which goes back hundreds of years (look really closely at your definition again). The more common term nowadays is "public defender," but that's not precisely the right word here because it's not a traditional prosecution. The point is that they are individuals who would be unable to secure legal counsel but for the work of these attorneys. I understand that you get incensed at the thought of anyone doing anything to help people that you don't like, but as you can tell from the responses by leading Republican lawyers, most rational-thinking people are able to understand the difference between providing an essential service to a client and supporting their causes.

Again, how do you know this? How do you know they are poor and have no money at all? Where is your proof?

I need proof for this? Funny, because I thought that the issue of payment was between the individuals and their lawyers. I wasn't aware that they needed to run things by you in order to get approval for the arrangement.

More importantly though, what do you care? Are you trying to say that if they were getting paid, you'd think the situation was better? In reality, you'd just be bitching about how they're selling out the country. You don't give a **** about the legal arrangement, you just want to complain about people who don't share your views on this topic.

No see its not just about representing a client. This kind of thinking is what gives lawyers such a bad name.

No, it's actually the astonishingly uninformed claims like we've seen through this thread that tend to give lawyers a bad name. It's the profession's fault that some people are incapable of separating a lawyer from the actions of their client?

You cannot pretend you hold personal morals and defend Islamic terrorists and think they can be separated.

That's one way to look at it. Of course, using your logic, anyone who ever defends anyone who did anything bad is also immoral.

The stupidity of your argument is amazing. When was the last time someone who was a mob lawyer got hired as a DOJ lawyer to go after the mob?

If the mob were represented pro bono by excellent legal minds who were public service oriented, I think it would be quite common.

There are limits to such rank hypocrisy

If only.
 
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.

When Ken Starr shows up on MSNBC then maybe we all ought to re-think the opinions we develope for all the political personalities we appose.

Think about it, Ken Starr was depicted as one of the most slimey and disgusting conservatives on the planet. But now he is an intelligent Dean worthy of consideration? He is superior to Cheney and Kristol?! How could that come to be?!?!

Obviously these characters, both right and left, are not so low as we like to paint them. We just let their staunch criticisms of our side hurt our feelings.
Either Starr is vile today, or he never was. What Cheney and Kristol say about the left is no worse than anything Kennedy ever said about Bork, or Dean about Republicans. They all go to verbal extremes in an effort to grap attention and support. It hardly seems worth getting "sick" and assuming "stupidity" is a reality.
 
No one on the right listens to her do they? I mean, she's gay... doesn't that usually disqualify you as being someone a conservative let alone a neocon would listen to?

Many neoconservatives, particularly the older ones, do tend to have a negative view of homosexuality (try to think of an incredible amount of people born before the 1970s who are not biased against homosexuality somehow). However, that does not necessarily mean that they cannot get along with or be friends with homosexuals, especially if they are not seen as flamboyant. Take Allan Bloom, for instance. If we were to consider him Neoconservative, then you have a homosexual Neoconservative political philosophy professor and famed author. Now, from many people's accounts, the man seemed to keep his sexuality kind of boxed in away from people's view. Next, for many neoconservatives, it is probably a private matter and is not entirely on their political radar, at least to write and develop an agenda around.

If you are brilliant, you stand a fantastic chance at having interesting dialog with neoconservative scholars and policy wonks.

That being said, on topic: I thought this recent development, as many other have said, was rather desperate on their part.
 
Last edited:
Somehow lawyers defending people in court has become aiding the enemy.

It's only a matter of time before people start arguing that rapists and pedophiles don't deserve a lawyer. After that, why have a trial at all? After all, they're rapists and pedophiles.

I saw forums poster American dancing with the devil!
 
Somehow lawyers defending people in court has become aiding the enemy.

It's only a matter of time before people start arguing that rapists and pedophiles don't deserve a lawyer. After that, why have a trial at all? After all, they're rapists and pedophiles.

I saw forums poster American dancing with the devil!

It's really amazing how people don't even seem to understand American values. And often those same people are the ones saying they do.
 
It's really amazing how people don't even seem to understand American values. And often those same people are the ones saying they do.

And arguing that only they are "real Americans".
 
And arguing that only they are "real Americans".

Yep, and it's funny how they actually support things the enemy wants, such as certain people having no legal representation. Then there are the talibangelists like Pat Robertson who literally agree with bin Laden that God was punishing America for its sins on 9/11.
 
And arguing that only they are "real Americans".

This is the essence of neo-cons, the extreme conservatives. Whatever they want is ok. Anybody who argues against them are not Americans. :doh What I find so amusing is that they really don't see how marginalized their off the chart views corral them in a smaller and smaller corner..

She might not be Palin, intellectually, but she is just as far out there. I'd love to see her run for any office. Watching her own party eat her up and spit her out would be great entertainment. :mrgreen:
 
Yep, and it's funny how they actually support things the enemy wants, such as certain people having no legal representation. Then there are the talibangelists like Pat Robertson who literally agree with bin Laden that God was punishing America for its sins on 9/11.

That is a sad shame and I'm utterly baffled as to how one can be a "man of God" and make the hateful statements Robertson has. Your analogy, "Talibangelist", is accurate.

It really is of great concern to me that Liz Cheney and her supporters are wiping their feet the same constitution which they are sure is being torn to shreds by Democrats.
 
This is the essence of neo-cons, the extreme conservatives. Whatever they want is ok. Anybody who argues against them are not Americans. :doh What I find so amusing is that they really don't see how marginalized their off the chart views corral them in a smaller and smaller corner..

She might not be Palin, intellectually, but she is just as far out there. I'd love to see her run for any office. Watching her own party eat her up and spit her out would be great entertainment. :mrgreen:


I agree, Cheney is just as unhinged and she is intellectually head and shoulders above Palin, but their tactics, painting all opposition as un-American and traitors, reveals a lack in their capacity to reason or they are just plain lazy. There are valid arguments and good debates to be had over our government, but they, neo-cons, choose what amounts to thugery and bullying.
 
Last edited:
No one on the right listens to her do they? I mean, she's gay... doesn't that usually disqualify you as being someone a conservative let alone a neocon would listen to?

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism]Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
This is the essence of neo-cons, the extreme conservatives. Whatever they want is ok. Anybody who argues against them are not Americans. :doh What I find so amusing is that they really don't see how marginalized their off the chart views corral them in a smaller and smaller corner.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism]Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
It's time the Republican party ceased scolding people. It isn't their place and they need to knock it off.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom