• 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!

Att'y general failed to give legal briefs to Senate

justabubba said:
have we lost confidence in him because of his incompetence or his dishonesty?

does that really matter - we have lost confidence in him. or if you have not, please indicate why you would still believe someone so negligent should remain as our senior law enforcement official
Click to expand...

I haven't lost confidence in him. People make mistakes. I'd like to hear his explanation before I condemn him for this one mistake.
 
Erod said:
What about an Attorney General filling the department of justice with a stable full of terrorist-defending attorneys?

Does that pass your smell test?
Click to expand...

Careful, if you keep that up someone is apt to confuse you with Liz Cheeney. :lol:
 
Charles Martel said:
Might we have taken this precedence and asked him what he was going to do with Gitmo detainees? Should he have stated then that he planned on offering them lawyers and civilian courts....would that have affected the process?
Click to expand...
what does padilla have to do with gitmo?
 
Charles Martel said:
Might we have taken this precedence and asked him what he was going to do with Gitmo detainees? Should he have stated then that he planned on offering them lawyers and civilian courts....would that have affected the process?
Click to expand...

You mean like Bush did? You mean like our justice system dictates?

Interesting how this is such a big deal to rightees, AS IF it is a change in course.
 
he ASSURED the american people that if ksm and his ilk were brought before the likes of lance ito and acquitted they would never walk american streets free

never mind that he's PRE CONVICTING the guy, like nixon did with manson, kinda undermining the entire purpose of showing the world america at its best

obama has done the same, even going so far as to predict a DEATH SENTENCE for the mirandized murderer

and yet, typically, no surprise, here in this padilla brief holder is arguing the exact opposite of what he swore to before leaky leahy's judiciary

and it's certainly not just one thing with holder

like i said:

there's ksm, moved here, moved there

there's holder's laughable inability to answer little lindsey graham's gradeschool queries

there's the abject, humiliating failure over gitmo---NINETY senators, which would include (by simple arithmetic) at least FIFTY dems

there's the mirandizing mutallab without even making A PHONE CALL to napolitano and brennan

(that also made for some very embarrassing testimony on the expensive blue carpet upstairs)

there was the idiot claim on the day after christmas that the SYSTEM WORKED in the skies over detroit

no, it's a lot more than one thing with this fool

he should NEVER have been appointed, not after waco, not after marc rich, not after faln

but obama is in his own little world on these things, some ivory towered world, some ivy covered walled world

ie, completely out of touch with normal massachusettans

for example---WHEN'S THE LAST TIME YOU HEARD MENTION OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTION OF THE CIA FOR TORTURE?

why can't YOU name the special prosecutor

mr starr became FAMOUS, mr fitzgerald became FAMOUS

holder's a complete disgrace, obama should OFF him

but he won't

which, as a very partisan opponent of the president, i say---PROSIT!

party on, progressives

your party is imploding
 
Last edited:
LOL at the reference to Lance Ito. LOL
 
The Prof said:
there's the mirandizing mutallab without even making A PHONE CALL to napolitano and brennan
Click to expand...

This exposes the right's whacko attitude on reality. The FBI acted according to law, according to their procedures. They got the guy. They followed our laws. They got tons of intel from this guy without using torture. Imagine that!

He was treated just as the shoe bomber was. Did you complain about his arrest? Hell no. Why not? Because your boy, dubya, was prez then. He too was arrested and the city of Boston was ready to try him in a civilian court. He plead guilty and was shipped off to a federal prison. No cries of outrage, only success.

Your hypocrisy is too funny to be taken seriously. :2wave:
 
j-mac said:
Man! The more that this corrupt Obama organization is checked into, the more they operate like a criminal enterprise. I say we need Special Prosecutors for the whole bunch.


j-mac
Click to expand...

The AG hasn't done it's job for administrations now. What makes you think that Obama would be any different? The AG is a political seat now, it was supposed to be removed enough from the system to provide oversight; but that's not how it's used.
 
justabubba said:
this situation speaks to the AG being half assed at best, if not dishonest

do those who lean to the republican side believe that the disclosure of these briefs would have resulted in a different confirmation decision? if so, why?
Click to expand...

Very unlikely, as it doesn't look like any of the positions that he advanced in those briefs were really that different than positions he's stated before. That's why I said that it's hard to impute bad faith, but it's still very odd.

ADK_Forever said:
Roberts was being confirmed for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Holder: Attorney General. Slight diff.
Click to expand...

In that their job is different? Yes. In terms of the importance of their past legal positions? Not at all.

Contrary to the right's desire, not every mistake is a conspiracy. I don't think he actually argued any of these before SCOTUS. He signed a brief. Who knows how those were collected to be handed over before his confirmation. He could have been assured they would be in the pile and then a secretary didn't put one pile on top of the other.
Click to expand...

Again, you don't really seem to understand how important an amicus brief is. This is not something that you do all the time, so you just happen to forget about it. If the average person who filed a dozen amicus briefs was handed a form asking him to list them all, not only could he do so by memory, but he could probably also explain each case in detail. The idea that he forgot seven of them (and that none of the people helping him put this together remembered either) strains credulity.

I see he gets no credit for coming forward with the mistake.
Click to expand...

Because he didn't.
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
dennis blair disagrees with you

RealClearPolitics - Politics - Jan 20, 2010 - Intel chief says Christmas bomb case mishandled

of course, hig wasn't up and running at the time, obama's director of natl intel told lieberman's homeland security

and the admin wasn't prepared for the apprehension of would-be bombers WITHIN our borders, only overseas
Click to expand...

OMG, some procedural mistakes were made. Names not matched. Run for the hills! :roll: In the end they got exactly what they wanted to get. So what are Repubs complaining about? Anything they can. They're like a bunch of bitchy little girls whining that the wind blew over their tea party (pun intended!).

If the guy got away THEN you could cry for a reason. If the guy had lots of intel that only came out after another bomb went off THEN you could whine. But, none of that happened.

You guys can't even allow yourselves to applaud when something this serious is dealt with efficiently and effectively so that more Americans are not put at risk.

Pathetic and un-American.
 
Question: are these briefs part of the public record? If so, I find the likelihood of intentional misconduct low, since you have to know they will be found. Would not eliminate the possibility, but I think it significantly lowers it.

It almost certainly should be looked into, and if it was intentional, he should be gone. If not, and was just incompetence, then he should get his incompetence publicized.
 
ADK_Forever said:
OMG, some procedural mistakes were made. Names not matched. Run for the hills! :roll: In the end they got exactly what they wanted to get. So what are Repubs complaining about? Anything they can. They're like a bunch of bitchy little girls whining that the wind blew over their tea party (pun intended!).

If the guy got away THEN you could cry for a reason. If the guy had lots of intel that only came out after another bomb went off THEN you could whine. But, none of that happened.

You guys can't even allow yourselves to applaud when something this serious is dealt with efficiently and effectively so that more Americans are not put at risk.

Pathetic and un-American.
Click to expand...

tell it to blair, napolitano and brennan
 
Redress said:
Question: are these briefs part of the public record? If so, I find the likelihood of intentional misconduct low, since you have to know they will be found. Would not eliminate the possibility, but I think it significantly lowers it.
Click to expand...

Yes, which is why it's odd that nobody helping him prepare for confirmation found them and equally odd that nobody opposing his confirmation found them until now.
 
RightinNYC said:
Again, you don't really seem to understand how important an amicus brief is. This is not something that you do all the time, so you just happen to forget about it. If the average person who filed a dozen amicus briefs was handed a form asking him to list them all, not only could he do so by memory, but he could probably also explain each case in detail. The idea that he forgot seven of them (and that none of the people helping him put this together remembered either) strains credulity.
Click to expand...

The truth of the matter is that YOU don't know why those briefs weren't turned over. For someone who likes to portray that you know and care so much about the law you don't seem very interested in giving him the benefit of the doubt or at least wait until you hear what happened in lieu of no evidence to support your condemnation of him.

Because he didn't.
Click to expand...

Please keep up with the rest of us. I already admitted I missed that point. :doh
 
RightinNYC said:
Yes, which is why it's odd that nobody helping him prepare for confirmation found them and equally odd that nobody opposing his confirmation found them until now.
Click to expand...

I had not even thought of the second part, but it's actually a pretty good point. Do you know if there is anything really remarkable about the briefs?
 
but i don't have any pull, silly

obama's director of natl intel, secretary of homeland security and natl security adviser do

or, at least, they should
 
ADK_Forever said:
The truth of the matter is that YOU don't know why those briefs weren't turned over.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I said in the first response to this thread. Read plz.

Redress said:
I had not even thought of the second part, but it's actually a pretty good point. Do you know if there is anything really remarkable about the briefs?
Click to expand...

Nothing that I can tell, other than that they deal with relatively high profile cases.

edit: Here's the closest thing I could find

Two former Bush administration officials said the brief’s acknowledgement that accused terrorists could go free if their cases were heard through the normal judicial process contradicted Holder’s public statements justifying the FBI’s reading Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the alleged underwear bomber, his Miranda rights. They also pointed out that Holder had not called the brief to the attention of the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings.

“Now that Holder is attorney general, he no longer acknowledges the risks to national security of treating terrorists as criminals,” the two former Bush officials, Bill Burck, a former deputy White House counsel, and Dana Perino, the former White House Press Secretary, wrote. “Holder could never admit that now, of course.”
Click to expand...

Holder under fire for Padilla brief - Kasie Hunt - POLITICO.com

That makes it sound a little more problematic, though it's still not exactly a smoking gun.
 
it's not a smoking gun

it's just one more sign of incompetence, dishonesty and a rather extremist bent concerning terrorism
 
The Prof said:
it's not a smoking gun

it's just one more sign of incompetence, dishonesty and a rather extremist bent concerning terrorism
Click to expand...

These hired people in the justice department took on these terrorist defense cases PRO BONO! These are terrorists who do not even have citizens rights to our court system. They're enemy combatants.

That makes me very, very nervous. Where do these folks' sympathies lie?
 
they're radical extremists and jihadist-symps

but they won the last election, they control the senate bigtime

we're just gonna have to be patient

i hope you don't live in ny or any of our other big metros

the admin is doing a whole lot more damage to itself and the party in power than they're gonna do (hopefully) to innocent americans

everyone sees what's going on

hang in

there's something about tv---it's easy to lie on tv once, twice

it's impossible three times

americans watch too much tv, they can see thru, always, in time

it's more about body language than words

it's undeniably clear WHO ERIC HOLDER IS, briefs or no briefs

even massachusetts sees

ask ms coakley

don't worry about it---we got em

politically, they are ours

security wise, that's different, keep your fingers crossed
 
Hatuey said:
Most of the left doesn't care about non stories. :shrug:
Click to expand...

And yet you cared enough to read the posts and comment on how unimportant it was...

Just sayin...
 
Erod said:
These hired people in the justice department took on these terrorist defense cases PRO BONO! These are terrorists who do not even have citizens rights to our court system. They're enemy combatants.
Click to expand...

Those terrorists were "in" our judicial system. This was begun under Bush. As a defendant they have a right to a quality defense. Our Constitution grants certain rights to anybody in this country, citizen or not. Lawyers who defend such defendants should be applauded, not chastised. :roll: If that bothers you just think of them as defending our country, our constitution.

Calling those criminals "enemy combatants" raises their status to that of a soldier. They are not soldiers. They do not deserve that level of respect. Calling them enemy combatants was Bush-Cheeney wordsmithing to try to put terrorists into military tribunals. It didn't work.

We didn't look at Timothy McVeigh as an enemy combatant. We tried him as a criminal. What he did was just as bad as what these "terrorists" are doing, if not worse.

That makes me very, very nervous. Where do these folks' sympathies lie?
Click to expand...

If you educate yourself with the bigger picture it might help you to feel better about those who defend your country knowing that they will win no medals for their trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom