« Great Expectations and The American Dream
The Free Falling Fortunes of Eric Massa: More Allegations, Bombs on Beck »
Marc Thiessen Defends McCarthyist Witchhunt Against DOJ Attorneys Who Formerly Defended Accused Terrorists
From his Washington Post column:
Some defenders say al-Qaeda lawyers are simply following a great American tradition, in which everyone gets a lawyer and their day in court. Not so, says Andy McCarthy, the former assistant U.S. attorney who put Omar Abdel Rahman, the “blind sheik,” behind bars for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. “We need to be clear about what the American tradition is,” McCarthy told me. “The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused — that means somebody who has been indicted or otherwise charged with a crime — a right to counsel. But that right only exists if you are accused, which means you are someone who the government has brought into the civilian criminal justice system.” The habeas lawyers were not doing their constitutional duty to defend unpopular criminal defendants. They were using the federal courts as a tool to undermine our military’s ability to keep dangerous enemy combatants off the battlefield in a time of war.
The reasoning here is muddled on so many levels it makes the head spin. First, you’ve got the circular logic: Guantanamo was created in the first place because the Bush administration wanted a legal black hole where U.S. law and constitutional protections did not apply (they thought), and where they could indefinitely detain, without charges or trial or anything resembling due process, anyone they decided to label a “terrorist” or an “enemy combatant.” So basically, Thiessen’s argument is that the right to legal counsel does not exist for Gitmo detainees because the government has created an alternate universe for them outside the protections of the U.S. legal system so that the protections of the U.S. legal system will not apply to them.
And then there are the assumptions Thiessen sets up which he can then use to make his faulty conclusions: The detainees at issue are “dangerous enemy combatants” who were “captured on the battlefield” engaging in “war” against the United States. Never mind that by far the greater number of individuals held at Guantanamo over the last decade were not captured on any “battlefield,” were not engaged in acts of terrorism when captured, and indeed in many cases ended up at Guantanamo because the U.S. military paid local warlords and tribal leaders thousands of dollars for bodies they could say were “terrorists.”
To the question of why the Washington Post would compromise its journalistic standards by giving valuable column space to someone who writes such dishonest, contemptible tripe, Glenn Greenwald’s answer is that these actually are their standards:
So any lawyer who represents accused Terrorists and argues that the Government is violating constitutional limitations in its Terrorism policies is — all together now — an “al Qaeda lawyer” (even if those detainees were innocent, as most were). Worse, these “al Qaeda lawyers” — which includes large numbers of long-time members of the U.S. military — are “undermining our military’s” efforts to keep us safe. That sounds like treason to me. It’s great to see the leading newspaper in the nation’s capital serving as the primary amplifying force for this McCarthyite smear campaign. Does it get any more reckless and repugnant — or primitive and stunted – than that? Does The Post have any standards at all?
The answer to that last question is a resounding ”yes”; Thiessen is promoting their standards. That’s exactly why Fred Hiatt hired him and Bill Kristol (and why they fired their one vocal opponent of torture and other Bush crimes, Dan Froomkin) — because they knew exactly this would happen and wanted it to happen. It makes it very hard to do anything but cheer when one reads things like this about the Post. Personally, I would never root for a newspaper to go out of business, but The Washington Post does far, far more harm than good, and it does that deliberately.
43 Responses to “Marc Thiessen Defends McCarthyist Witchhunt Against DOJ Attorneys Who Formerly Defended Accused Terrorists”
So the guy is slated to be the #2 in the Taliban was released from Gitmo. LASHKAR GAH, Afghanistan — A man freed from Guantanamo more than two years ago after he claimed he only wanted to go home and help his family is now a senior commander running Taliban resistance to the U.S.-led offensive in southern Afghanistan, two senior Afghan intelligence officials say. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/abdul-…
Just sayin.
KK, are you old enough to remember the real McCarthy, or was your headline another audience grabber.
Either way this McCarthy, IMHO, is a much better guy, and if he is like Joe McCarthy than you are like Lindsay Lohan.
I used to say the US is better than this, but anymore I have to wonder. Welcome to neo-America, land of elastic values. Maybe not so neo though…
Kathy is on the warpath again. That is a sign of health on this site. That is good.
That is a sign of health on this site.”
I expect a scorched earth deluge of rhetorical meanderings and logistical gymnastics, which she has mastered (oh, and a skewering or two).
Kathy,
It's not your fault you told the truth about Theissen, despite his defenders jumping on the thread. Lawyers step forward all the time to defend the rights of the least of least, do it pro bono and do it when no charges are pending. To pretend that lawyers only are allowed to protect rights when charges are pending is a departure from reality. The only difference is that once charges are filed, the lawyers get paid from the public defense fund.
Equating lawyers with the clients they represent is like equating a doctor to a terrorist if s/he provides medical treatment to one.
The bit on WaPo I disagree with. A good paper presents all points of view…even those as scurlous as Thiessen's…if for no other reason than to expose the scurilousness of them. Of course, I do the WaPo crossword every morning so I may be biased.
“a scorched earth deluge of rhetorical meanderings and logistical gymnastics … and a skewering or two”
Let's see.
Hey, Kathy! Are the Democrats going to complete their fiasco and make 2010 look a lot different than 2009? They're threatening to be mighty pathetic at this time, making many of you so uptight.
Health care “reform” = MOSCOW. Back to where you started in 2009, suitably humiliated!
(Hold it up to a mirror to appreciate it fully!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Minard.png
________________________________
Too funny. Do you read your own stuff?
It worked.
It made me laugh. For that I owe you.
whether Miranda is given or not.”
I'm for Carmenizing them instead.
No one likes a lawyer 'till you need one….
Kathy the point of the post isn't lost on me. Glenn Greenwald's assessments are usually painfully on-track.
Really, what should Americans expect in regard to the Cheney/Daughter-Liz machine and the fallout with related criticisms (including her recently defended criticisms above,) other than polar and fanatic defense and politicization of any and all things related to “enhanced interrogation,” civil versus military trials, and the status of legal definitions of detainees. I mean we otherwise would be talking about potential administrative war crimes..
This “terrorist-coddling” canard sure takes the attention away from whether or not we can discuss, as a nation and as Americans, if we condone torture and if we value basic human rights (in any situation, even war) and if we are willing to live a principle or become (as JSpencer says,) “the land of elastic values.
Well done duck! Btw, my ex-wife's name was Carmen, and trust me, you don't want to be “Carmenized”
dduck, that was funny. carmenized.
also to all here: dont attack the writer please. Carry on at your best debatesquerie as usual. Ok. Thanks.
dr.e
“Equating lawyers with the clients they represent is like equating a doctor to a terrorist if s/he provides medical treatment to one.”
Not quite logical. Just .02. Some lawyers can be equated characterologically with some of the clients they represent, for certain. Some docs are foes or operatives in war who definitely would make judgment calls extraneous to what we understand as 'the oath.' Here, the Co Supreme Court fines and often enough sends to State AG for trial, lawyers found to have been acting criminally… in concert with, or with regard to one or more convicted felon they represented at one time or another.
I get your point about 'many' lawyers, nonetheless.
dr.e
As you know, dr. e, I used to represent accused murderers facing the death penalty. I'd hate to be equated with many of those clients, including serial killers. Though I have been equated by some, including name calling, being thrown into a park bench outside a courthouse and several death threats. Based on my experience equating lawyers with those they represent has risks of danger.
If a lawyer engages in a criminal conspiracy with a client, s/he is not acting as a lawyer, but as a criminal. I've seen that too. Not all lawyers are true to their oath and some are downright dishonest, like any profession, but the majority take their roles in the justice system seriously, giving best zealous representation.
I like that differentiation of a lawyer not acting as a lawyer but as a criminal
As for you, ok, that does it. We send you the impenetrable super duper high end bubble wrap armor. Nothing bad should ever happen to you. You're one of the good guys, for sure
dr.e
Well, I once had a sheriff's deputy deliver a bullet proof vest to my hotel room, but no one ever offered me super duper high end bubble wrap armor. Would have made a good picture for the scrap book.
Not old enough to remember him, no. I was born in 1950. But what does that have to do with condemning McCarthyism now? Who do you mean by “this McCarthy”?
Jeez, DLS, you really throw me off when you say something nice to me.
But no purple prose, because you've got that covered.
Equating lawyers with the clients they represent is like equating a doctor to a terrorist if s/he provides medical treatment to one.
Well, I'm sure the Torquemada wannabes would object to that, too.
How about carmelized?
I used to know an attorney who specialized in death penalty cases. (I am not 100% sure, but I think, that this attorney specifically represented individuals who had already been convicted of murder, in the sentencing phase. He represented them after they had been convicted and before they were sentenced.)
I knew this attorney fairly well (he and his wife were members of my synagogue), and I never felt anything but admiration and the deepest respect for his willingness to defend people few others would touch.
I think that sometimes people tend to conflate the legal meaning of the word “defend” with the colloquial meaning — as in, “My teacher accused me of cheating on the test when I didn't, and my best friend tried to defend me.” The two meanings are not the same.
Thank you so much for that comment, Kathy. Most people do understand, though few “admire”. Several other people who comment here have also been involved in death penalty work in other capacities and their participation should also be recognized. The lead attorney is the tip of the iceburg in these cases. It is the team of investigators, mitigation experts, psychologists, psychiatrists, forensics experts, law clerks, DNA and other experts who make it possible to do it right. They take almost as much heat, and get little of the credit. My best memories are of the wonderful people who had the courage and committment to work on my teams.
Conor Friedersdorf rips apart the WaPo and Thiessen for his garbage:
http://theamericanscene.com/2010/03/08/why-self…
The lead attorney is the tip of the iceburg in these cases.
Oh, of course. I knew that, I just didn't think to say it.
One thing I haven't mentioned here (just didn't come up) is that I have a degree in paralegal studies. I didn't end up working as a paralegal, but I loved the course of study. I did well in it, too. So, point being that I know from my own personal experience how absorbing and interesting the law can be.
I was serious as well about hoping you get to see Powell's Books someday.
(Also Strand, 13th & Broadway, if you're in or near NYC metro, but Powell's is even better. It's the Mecca of books and book lovers.)
Who do you mean by “this McCarthy”?”
A. McCarthy
“This is the most unheard of
thing I've ever heard of.”
Source: Joseph Mccarthy
We're still waiting to see you wearing the hat, Kathy.
(The hat? Kat needs a hat. A Che Guevara-style beret, pink, red, or black. Autographed by H. Chavez, even)
http://beretandboina.blogspot.com/2009_04_01_ar…
I was serious as well about hoping you get to see Powell's Books someday.
I have no idea where or when you said that, but I appreciate the sentiment nevertheless. I would love to visit Powell's Books — and Portland in general. Visiting the Strand is much more in the realm of possibility for me, since I live in an inner ring suburb of NYC, one block from a bus that goes into Manhattan. I have been to Strand's in the past, but not for a very, very long time.
I'm sorry, dduck, but your reply here does nothing to tell me what you meant when you wrote, “Either way this McCarthy, IMHO, is a much better guy, and if he is like Joe McCarthy than you are like Lindsay Lohan.”
I know I can be a bit dense at times so humor me, okay? Explain to me, in a simple English declarative sentence (or two, as needed) what you are trying to tell me.
And I am waiting to see you wearing a tee shirt picturing Joe McCarthy with the words, “Bring back Tailgunner Joe.” Or even better, “Nuke the Department of Jihad.”
what you are trying to tell me.”
Blunt version: You associated A. McCarthy with J. McCarty. J was a terrible man and I am saying A does not belong in the same breath. And, I was saying that Lohan is much worse than you as a headline writer/maker. Please don't ask me again
Blunt version: You associated A. McCarthy with J. McCarty. J was a terrible man and I am saying A does not belong in the same breath.
Okay, thank you, dduck. I can now be honest with you, and tell you that, although I wasn't sure, I suspected this was what you meant. I didn't let on, because believe it or not I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Now that you've confirmed this is what you meant, I'll just ask you. You are under the impression that the reason I compared Andy McCarthy to Joe McCarthy is because the former has the same last name? Are you serious? Really?
No, dduck. No. No. I compared Andy McCarthy to Joe McCarthy because the former is behaving like Joe McCarthy. Obviously, he doesn't have Joe McCarthy's powerful platform — he's a former prosecutor and a hack writer at a hack right-wing rag mag, not a U.S. Senator — and thank God for that. But he IS engaging in McCarthy-like attacks on the Department of Justice.
By the way, dduck, I also condemned Marc Thiessen for McCarthyism, too, and Liz Cheney, and Bill Kristol, on this same matter. Their last names aren't McCarthy. How do you process THAT?
How do you process THAT?
You want to equalize them, fine.
“Want” has nothing to do with it, except in the sense that I want to tell the truth as I see it. If you don't agree that demanding that the DOJ name all their attorneys who did did pro bono legal work on behalf of detainees at Guantanamo, and/or that Congress should start investigating the DOJ to find out if there are lawyers there with these “radical and dangerous” ideas, and who they are, and what they did then and what they're working on now — if you don't agree that all this is McCarthyism redux, then make your substantive argument why you don't agree.
Or, you can continue to take the easy way out by telling me I “want to equalize them.”
“I have no idea where or when you said that,”
BOOK REVIEW thread…
“but I appreciate the sentiment nevertheless.”
You seem like a fellow reader.
“I would love to visit Powell's Books — and Portland in general.”
You'd love it! Thriving urban liberal culture (made my brother snarl all the time). Light rail — MAX! You seem like the kind to understand — it's the sister city of Pittsburgh, too — hills, rivers, skyline at the riverfront, bridges galore. (even at least one by Lindenthal) There's also been high-rise combo business and residential development recently. And Powell's, of course.
If you're lucky you can also do the reverse of what I did often to visit from Seattle — take the Cascades Talgo to Seattle and back.
http://www.talgoamerica.com/series6-amtracCasca…
Head on up to Vancouver if you can, too.
* * *
“Visiting the Strand is much more in the realm of possibility for me, since I live in an inner ring suburb of NYC, one block from a bus that goes into Manhattan. I have been to Strand's in the past, but not for a very, very long time.”
I enjoyed it when I got to go there. (2-3 times — an open parking space right by the doors every time! Unreal.)
EARTH FIRST!
We'll log the other planets later.
Interesting — thanks, DLS.
And, yes I will take the easy way out. No sense trying to debate with a a closed mined person who knows only black and white and little else. Please don't bother to respond- I dare you- in your dictatorial mom mode. Again, I predict you will be unable to resist a retort. The sign of an obsessive person.
-You win if you DON'T take the bait.
Ah, so if I respond, I am confirming your conclusion that I am “a closed-minded person who knows only black and white and little else.” And if I don't respond, then I confirm the wisdom of your advice to “not take the bait.”
So here you are, dduck, a third way — I will call you out, and decline to take the bait, at the same time.
I will call you out, and decline to take the bait, at the same time.”
Please take your pail and shovel and leave the sandbox.