I do not personally believe that a lawyer who had served as counsel for a Guantanamo detainee ought to be excluded from public office. After all John Adams defended Captain Thomas Preston, the officer in charge of the British patrol implicated in the Boston Massacre. It didn’t appear to hurt his career.
But Bill Burk and Dana Perino have a good point:
Congress is entirely within its rights to know who advises the attorney general on matters of national security — not so these people can be driven out of government or to shut them up, but so the public knows who is helping shape policy. What legitimate grounds could there be in a democracy to hide from the public the identities or responsibilities of political appointees? Because Keep America Safe might put up another ad? Please.
We wrote a piece yesterday about Supreme Court briefs Holder signed onto in 2004 and 2005 supporting Jose Padilla. Holder failed to disclose these briefs as he was required to during his confirmation hearings, and the Department of Justice has admitted this. As we discussed, the briefs provide a roadmap to many of Holder’s current policies, but one of them is also notable for admitting there might be trade-offs between protecting the individual rights of suspected terrorists and protecting national security, which Holder denies (as does the president) now that he’s atop the Justice Department.
We expect most people would agree that Holder’s policy views are very relevant to how he operates as a public official. So are those of the political appointees he chooses to surround himself with. We suspect many of them believe, as Holder did in his brief, that there is some level of risk we should be willing to bear to protect the rights of suspected terrorists. There’s no reason to think that this is anything other than an honestly held view. But how much risk they are willing to take is a legitimate topic for public debate.
I earnestly await the undoubtedly forthcoming exposé from the New York Times revealing the identity of those lawyers who represented al Qaeda detainees.
Because of the “peoples’ right to know,” and so forth.
Update: I’ll be damned.
During his confirmation last year, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. failed to notify the Senate that he had signed several briefs urging courts to reject President George W. Bush’s claim that he had the power to imprison an American citizen as an “enemy combatant,” the Justice Department acknowledged Thursday.
“The briefs should have been disclosed as part of the confirmation process,” said Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman…
“Are we expected to believe that then-nominee Holder, with only a handful of Supreme Court briefs to his name, forgot about his role in one of this country’s most publicized terrorism cases?” asked Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona.
And Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, said the opinions in the briefs “go to the heart of his responsibilities in matters of national security.”
“This is an extremely serious matter,” he said, “and the attorney general will have to address it.”
The comments opened a new chapter in a controversy over the Obama administration’s hiring of lawyers who had worked on detainee-related litigation.
In the New York Times, of all places.
Huh.
“Earnestly” awaiting is good.
“Holding my breath waiting” not so much in this case.
Unless Lex thinks he looks good in purple.
VX, I think you’ve gone beyond the pale…
Pale comes much later.
Virgil only get’s pale when he’s a fifth and a third into a quart…
Those who buy in quart or liter quanties are wusses. I buy in 1.75 liter quanties. Boss.
I’ll report this weekend if the Fort Hood Class 6 carries Barbancourt. Diet Tonic (gotta watch the girlish figure), Haitian Rum, and a few limes can make one forget about such trivialities as this. Thanks, VX, for leading me to one of the few vices I hadn’t found by my own quite able self.
Anyone know if the Barbancourt building escaped the recent revitalization effort in Haiti?
Even if the NYT does not publish the exposé, the L.A. Times or even WAPO will.
We can still thank what is left of American capitalism for the dregs of our free press and a modicum of related competition.
What would our lawyerly friends here predict these counsels would do if called upon to represent a Gitmo defendant, said defendant confidentially admits he was guilty but wanted them to plead not guilty for him (and there was reason to believe the evidence was weak enough to get him off)? Would they honor their client’s request?
And if said criminal confessed to methods that circumvented existing national security protocols, would these counsels later share their client’s confidential info with the government so as to beef up security? Or would they keep silent – on account of their priorities to their clients? Just wonderin about QM’s earlier comment that “99%” give the other 1% a bad name.
The problem is not that they represented terrorists. The problem is that htese terrorists have JAG lawyers already assigned, the the prosectutors are also JAG lawyers. These antiamerican lawyers had no obligation to insert themselves into these cases, it not the equivalent of John Adams representing the Brits in the Boston Massacre. The wanted to take the side of enemies of all civilized people.
That’s close, but not quite it. If private citizens want to represent the rights of accused terrorists, so be it.
But for the Attorney General to ignore, repeatedly, requests from Congress to identify those POLITICAL APPOINTEES who volunteered to represent terrorists is wrong. The Senate has right and duty to provide advise and consent for political appointees, and to do so must have accurate information about said appointees. Why is AG Holder trying to withhold information?
John Adams represented soldiers in uniform who believed they were following the customs of the day. They represented the Crown and the British Army. They were not members of al Queda and – as far as I know – never sawed peoples heads off for sport.
And Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, said the opinions in the briefs “go to the heart of his responsibilities in matters of national security.”
“This is an extremely serious matter,” he said, “and the attorney general will have to address it.”
And this is the only thing that matters. Holder failed to disclose critical information. However I have no confidence that how he “addresses it” will be ethical.
Holder, “addressing it” is one thing. The other is what the Obama transition team knew, and when they knew it. If they didn’t know he signed these briefs, then they are incompetent and incomplete in their vetting. If they did, and didn’t have a problem making him the chief law enforcement officer of the nation, then that is quite another, much more serious matter. Either way, we deserve to know.
This is the best distinction I have seen on why the “John Adams” analogy is not appropriate:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/03/the_al-qaeda_seven_arent_like_john.html
As a retired prosecutor, I have long observed that those who represent radical clients too often subscribe to their philosophies. Attorneys have the right to represent whomever they wish, but they have no right to a high-level government job involving national security.
I’m rather curious as to why we would be dependent on Mr. Holder to reveal this information. Surely the signatories to Supreme Court briefs are public record? Why, then, did not the media reveal this?
O.K., I suspect the same thing you do. But then I ask why the Judicial Committee’s staff didn’t uncover this? Where were they?
Seeing to the transparency, no doubt.