Republicans scold Liz Cheney

aps said:

Please tell me how what John Adams did was different than what Neal Katyal did. I'm all eyes.

Click to expand...

You can start off by poiting out that Adam defended actual soliders. :roll:

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.

texmaster said:

You can start off by poiting out that Adam defended actual soliders. :roll:

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.

Click to expand...

Considering I got that example from the letter written by 19 lawyers, your calling my attempt "pathetic" is meaningless to me. :rofl

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

Click to expand...

:2wave:

i dind't think you could, thanks anyway.

liblady said:

i dind't think you could, thanks anyway.

Click to expand...

We have both realized that textmaster is blinded by his hatred and have given up on expecting anything substantive from him. Cheers!

aps said:

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.

Click to expand...

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:

American said:

Ken Star did his job, and damn good job at that given the sensitivity of the issue and viciousness of attacks upon him.

Click to expand...

texmaster said:

Damn right. The guy is a hero.

Click to expand...

texmaster said:

LOL!!! So you are comparing these guys to a founding father?

Click to expand...

Yes, and so is Ken Starr who you think is a hero:


That is from the letter in the OP.

liblady said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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...

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.

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...

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?

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...

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...

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") =)

texmaster said:

If they are so "top notch" why did they hide their names?

Care to explain that?

Click to expand...

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.

RightinNYC said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ahhhhhhhhh. I knew I could rely on an intelligent answer from you. :2wave:

reefedjib said:

What is it Ken Starr did that makes his name familiar? He wasn't the lead investigator into Clinton's sex trails was he?

Click to expand...

So, how old were you when Special Prosecutor Starr was tasked with probing The Rapist President's involvement in the Whitewater scandal?

Catz Part Deux said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

So, how old were you when Special Prosecutor Starr was tasked with probing The Rapist President's involvement in the Whitewater scandal?

Click to expand...

That was mid to late 90s, right? So I was 26 - 30, but I was ignoring the hell out of politics. It was just so much noise to me.

reefedjib said:

What is it Ken Starr did that makes his name familiar? He wasn't the lead investigator into Clinton's sex trails was he?

Click to expand...

The left hate Starr because he very carefully looked into the illegal actions of their favorite President, all at the direction of that President's AG.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting spin on the events. For people who aren't partisan hacks, Holder is a very respected attorney who has spent most of his career doing good work at main Justice.

megaprogman said:

That's the guy. He started off chasing another rabbit and eventually found something to go after Clinton with for the high crime of not being a conservative republican.

Click to expand...

You mean the crime of perjury.
Yeah, damn that Starr guy all to hell, investigating the President's commission of a felony while in office.

RightinNYC said:

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.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Very few defense attorneys are going to sit down, powwow and plan out an investigative strategy with the FBI. Federal prosecutors do that all the time. You're right, it is routine for prosecutors to go into defense work (particularly white collar corporate gigs), but DOJ attorneys regularly work with federal law enforcement agencies to map out federal cases. That's different.

bill clinton was sued by HIS EQUAL, a united states citizen by name of paula jones for sexual harrassment because she says he dropped his pants in a little rock hotel room and asked her to "kiss it"

she was a STATE EMPLOYEE at the time and he was GOVERNOR of arkansas

their relationship was therefore by definition NOT equal which is the very definition of sexual harrassment

bosses (like eric massa) have NO RIGHT making comments like that to their SUBORDINATES who rightly and naturally fear the potential consequences of saying no

on the witness stand bill clinton LIED

his impeachment was NOT about sex, it was about his LYING on the witness stand

eric holder, as bill clinton's #2 at justice under janet reno, orchestrated the marc rich pardon in return for 7 figure, i believe, donations to the clinton library

mr rich was one of the top white collar criminals of his era who was forced to flee the country

his ex wife is one of the top country music songwriters in america's history and she lobbied tirelessly and futilely for years on behalf of her ex husband

until she met mr's clinton and holder, at which point the pardon went thru like very expensive peanut butter

eric holder also directed the pardon of the faln terrorists responsible for the deaths of a number of police and armed service employees

Catz Part Deux said:

I disagree. Very few defense attorneys are going to sit down, powwow and plan out an investigative strategy with the FBI. Federal prosecutors do that all the time.

Click to expand...

They obviously don't do it while they're representing the party being investigated, but my point is that the bulk of these defense attorneys have done exactly that while they were prosecutors. Similarly, the important districts rarely hire attorneys straight out of law school - they wait for them to get a few years of experience doing defense work at firms.

You're right, it is routine for prosecutors to go into defense work (particularly white collar corporate gigs), but DOJ attorneys regularly work with federal law enforcement agencies to map out federal cases. That's different.

Click to expand...

It's honestly not that different. First, as I mentioned above, there is a huge overlap between the two groups. In fact, I'd wager than more than 90% of the US Attorneys have spent some time working as defense counsel. Second, 90% of the job of being a prosecutor or defense attorney is knowing how the system works, what is or is not permissible, etc. If you're working on one side, you necessarily know how the other side operates. As a defense attorney in these cases, you know the exact rules that the other side has to follow, what types of material they can or cannot use, how much coordination they can have with investigators, who they can share their information with, etc. Similarly, as an AUSA, you know exactly who the other side is representing, who they're in a joint defense agreement with, what their argument is, etc. In addition, both sides generally know what the other side's end goal is and what they're going to do next in order to get there.

In order to be a good defense attorney of this caliber, you have to know exactly how the AUSA's do their job. In order to be a good prosecutor, the same is true. 90% of great defense attorneys would (and do) make great prosecutors and vice versa.

RightinNYC said:

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

Click to expand...

Okay, fine.

Fine, Holder dismissed the charges on a civil suit against thugs who used deadly weapons to intimidate white voters away from a polling place in a predominantly black neighborhood.

The next question is, outside of the fact that Holder is either a racist or a political hack, and not in the least bit concerned with upholding the law, is why criminal charges weren't filed. So was Holder a racist for not insisting criminal charges be filed, or is he a racist for simply dismissing the case out of hand after the defandants defaulted by not appearing for trial?

That's the real issue. Try to stay focused on what's important next time.

The Prof said:

eric holder, as bill clinton's #2 at justice under janet reno, orchestrated the marc rich pardon in return for 7 figure, i believe, donations to the clinton library

mr rich was one of the top white collar criminals of his era who was forced to flee the country

his ex wife is one of the top country music songwriters in america's history and she lobbied tirelessly and futilely for years on behalf of her ex husband

until she met mr's clinton and holder, at which point the pardon went thru like very expensive peanut butter

eric holder also directed the pardon of the faln terrorists responsible for the deaths of a number of police and armed service employees

Click to expand...

On that last...you forgot to mention that the release of the FALN terrorists was helpful to a certain carpetbagging wannabe-Senatorette from New York, who gained Hispanic votes thereby.

Whenever you're discussing the Clinton Whitehouse, or the Red Queen Herself, always look for the money trail and the corruption trails. They're always there somewhere.

Catz Part Deux said:

That's an interesting spin on the events. For people who aren't partisan hacks, Holder is a very respected attorney who has spent most of his career doing good work at main Justice.

Click to expand...

He's well respected by the New Black Panther terrorists.

Not by anyone who cares about the United States and wishes to reverse the growth of corruption in government.

reefedjib said:

That was mid to late 90s, right? So I was 26 - 30, but I was ignoring the hell out of politics. It was just so much noise to me.

Click to expand...

So you have no excuse for not remembering what happened, and now you want to pretend you understand it.

Well, your "understanding" lacks substance. The president of the United States committed perjury to avoid the establishment of a pattern of behavior that would cause him to lose a politically damaging lawsuit that would leave him open to prosecution for sexual assualt.

Perjury is a felony.

Clinton also has a past history of rape. Several women have lodged complaints against him, at least one while he was a Rhodes Scholar at Cambridge.

So the rapist was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

He was not impeached for bestiality, ie, letting a pig suck on his tool.

He was not impeached for adultery, since his behaviors were most juvenile.

He was impeached for committing a felony.

He later paid a fine and was disbarred for his crime.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Okay, fine.

Fine, Holder dismissed the charges on a civil suit against thugs who used deadly weapons to intimidate white voters away from a polling place in a predominantly black neighborhood.

The next question is, outside of the fact that Holder is either a racist or a political hack, and not in the least bit concerned with upholding the law, is why criminal charges weren't filed. So was Holder a racist for not insisting criminal charges be filed, or is he a racist for simply dismissing the case out of hand after the defandants defaulted by not appearing for trial?

Click to expand...

I think there are plenty of problems with Holder's actions, and feel that this incident is one of the most concerning. I don't think it's necessarily a race thing, as people at his level tend to place politics above race, but it definitely sounds like politics were involved.

That's the real issue. Try to stay focused on what's important next time.

Click to expand...

It was a pretty fundamental error. A prosecutor can't just tell the judge to release someone after a conviction has been entered.

aps said:

Considering I got that example from the letter written by 19 lawyers, your calling my attempt "pathetic" is meaningless to me. :rofl



:2wave:

Click to expand...

I knew you couldn't debate your laughable comparison.

Is this what you do when you can't defend your position? You run away and pretend the comparison you made never existed?

I gave you real facts in the enormous differences between the two lawyers and you didn't even have the courage to confront it.

At least I know your debating style for future arguments.

RightinNYC said:

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?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, what position did they accept? A public or private one? :roll:

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.

Click to expand...

Did you try to change the law they were being prosecuted under?

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.

Click to expand...

Indigent clients. Get this guy. Boy you really are a lawyer. You think these Islamic terrorists are needy and impoverished?

This isn't about even defending American civilian criminals. Its about defending Islamic terrorists and trying to force the government to try them under the same rights you and I face and you think there isn't a difference?