Options
Whose Values?
· Friday, March 12, 2010
Liz Cheney has stirred up a hornet's nest. The former vice president's daughter now runs a group called Keep America Safe, which last week released a video questioning the "values" of Obama Justice Department lawyers who once represented clients detained at Guantanamo for terrorist activities. Cheney's group claims that Attorney General Holder has hired nine such lawyers, including the principal deputy solicitor general, Neal Katyal, but has refused to identify most of them. "Who are these government officials ... whose values do they share?" the group asks. Now, Cheney is being accused of McCarthyism and even some conservatives are criticizing her.
The main line of attack against Cheney rests on the principle that everyone accused of a crime has the right to legal representation. The critics say it's unfair to tar lawyers with their clients' crimes if the system is to work properly. Even a child molester deserves competent defense, and few would accuse the lawyers who represented such men of sharing their clients' values. Fair enough -- as far as it goes. But leaving aside for the moment the gaping hole in this argument -- namely, that Guantanamo holds enemy combatants, not common criminals -- the analogy still doesn't work.
Imagine that we aren't talking about the Obama Justice Department, or even terrorism. Let's say the year was 2001 and the Justice Department was looking for a deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights. The job was important but not high enough up the food chain to require Senate confirmation, and the sitting AG decided in his own discretion to hire a talented lawyer who had previously represented the White Citizens Council or the Ku Klux Klan in a racial discrimination case or two for the job.
Then let's assume that the same AG appointed a lawyer who once represented the Genovese crime family to work in the organized crime division, another who represented companies with histories of wanton pollution to join the environmental and natural resources division, and others who'd defended clients accused of domestic abuse to work in the office of violence against women.
Somehow, I can't imagine The New York Times or Washington Post jumping to defend these choices, no matter how fine the legal skills of the hypothetical Justice Department hires. In fact, I'd expect the media to raise questions about the AG's judgment and motives, and rightly so.
All criminal defendants have the right to counsel, but not all lawyers have the right to be hired by the U.S. government. DOJ lawyers represent the United States, and lawyers who have chosen to represent enemy combatants -- even if they do so solely to challenge a point of law -- should, at the very least, not be at the top of the hiring list. Such representation might not be an automatic disqualifier in every single case, depending on the circumstances, but how is it that not one, or even two, Guantanamo attorneys ended up at DOJ, but nine? This suggests a pattern and practice by the attorney general that is highly disturbing.
We'd have a right to question what the attorney general was thinking even if the lawyers in question were defending common criminals. But it's important to remember here that the Guantanamo detainees are combatants who've been picked up on the battlefields of the War on Terror. Granted, those battlefields are less geographically defined by front lines than in a traditional war. But the individuals involved are for the most part soldiers nonetheless. How is it that Holder didn't recognize the inherent conflicts in hiring attorneys who had defended these combatants against the United States to now zealously defend the United States against them and their compatriots?
Cheney and her group are asking an important question. Whose values does the Obama Justice Department represent? There is nothing sinister in challenging the attorney general to explain his choices -- and if the media weren't so blinded by their own biases, they'd have broken the story before Liz Cheney did.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Constitutional Scholar Dr. Alan Keyes reads The Patriot Post: "The Patriot recalls the noble tradition of our Founders. 'Publius' would have admired and endorsed The Patriot Post, as do I." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Arnold Ahlert: CPAC Braces for Union & Occupier Chaos
- Michael Reagan: A Little More Heat
- George Will: GOP's Murky Rhetoric on National Defense
- Larry Elder: Aren't Republicans Supposed to Be Colorblind?
- Thomas Sowell: The Anti-Romney Vote
- Ann Coulter: Plutocrat Dems Attack Romney as 'Richie Rich'
- Burt Prelutsky: Was Idi Amin Smarter Than Martha Stewart?
- L. Brent Bozell: The Secular Media vs. Religious Liberty
- R. Emmett Tyrrell: The Delousing of a Movement
- Jonah Goldberg: Liberals are the True Aggressors in Culture Wars
- Cal Thomas: Fudging the Numbers
- Michael Barone: GOP Must Convince Young People It's the Party of Options
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!























TJS
The core issue is granting Constitional rights to terrorists, and most lawyers advocate that grant. The Supreme Court decisions on this matter were strictly on a party-line basis - liberals have fabricated Constitutional rights for terrorists.
The justice department, being now managed by hard-core leftists, has installed staff who support Constitional rights for terrorists. Those attorneys advocated for their clients from a position of political belief, and now they will drive that sort of belief into the management of the dept. of justice.
The American people are overwhelmingly opposed to Constitional rights for terrorists. This topic is a good example of the need for the political movement to overturn unpopular court decisions. Federal judges ought not to have lifetime tenure, ought to have 10 year terms, and ought to be forced to retire at age 65. Some federal circuit courts should be purged.
Posted March 12, 2010 at 11:23:17 AM
HaveYouConsidered
Our founders wrote our US Constitution with the express principle of equality Under The Law. Additionally, they concluded that a monarchy should not exist in our new nation. This article seems to advocate that "values" should be a consideration for legal officers. I disagree. Is this not the exact reason stated for the conservative opposition to Sotomeyor? I would like to point out that the ability to "disappear" people from around the globe, and hold them secretly, and indefinitely without charges being brought is the ultimate power of a monarch. Get "enemy combatant" Defined, Codified, and then pass a law which prohibits the behavior. This is the only way to assure that any subjectivity is curtailed. Subjectivity is anathama to our constitutional system.
Posted March 14, 2010 at 11:55:20 AM