An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right

Liz Cheney’s Skewered View

Those of us fortunate not to be lawyers at least have some perception that it is their duty to provide legal counsel to people we consider scumbags.

With that thought in mind, I wonder what Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol were thinking when they produced an ad criticizing Attorney General Eric Holder for hiring at least nine attorneys who defended accused terrorists at Guantanamo Bay prison.

Kristol, in his infamous cherubic face and innocent childlike demeanor, explained:

“The main issues in the debate have been whether Congress and the public are simply entitled to know who these lawyers are, and the question of whether former pro bono lawyers for terrorists should be working on detainee policy for the Justice Department.”

The ad refers to the lawyers as the “al qaeda 7″ and Holder’s office as the “Department of Jihad.” If Keep America Safe, which produced the ad, wanted to catch the public’s attention, it certainly succeeded.

A growing list of 19 attorneys, some conservatives working for the George W. Bush administration, complained the Web ad was “shameful.”

I am not gloating that Kristol and Liz Cheney, the former vice president’s daughter, were in effect bitch slapped by their peers. Rather, I wanted to know from the deepest recesses of their bowels what they were out to prove.

I refused to take the easy road by repeating the garble espoused by Fox News stable of talking horses. I did discover someone named John Hawkins writing for Rightwing News. Quoth he:

Would you want a mob lawyer working at the DOJ? How about someone who specialized in getting rapists off the hook? How about Lynne Stewart, who represented Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and aided him in carrying out terrorist attacks? Are there any Lynne Stewart types working at the DOJ? Nobody knows and that’s the point Liz Cheney is making.

Hawkins concludes:

Under Obama, people like John Yoo who worked to help protect America from attacks are the bad guys while lawyers who defended terrorists are hired and shielded at the DOJ. That tells you a lot about just how backwards the priorities of the Obama Administration are when it comes to the war on terror.

Sorry, Mr. Hawkns, I don’t follow the same dots as you to determine the Obama administration is weak on terror because of seven attorneys out of — What? Tens of thousands? — in the Department of Justice.

Because of pressure from the news cycle producing mass hysteria, Holder did provide the names of the al qaeda 7 last week to Fox News.

Apparently the mastermind behind most of this is a chap named Marc Thiessen, author of “Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack” He is promoting the book with a series of op-ed articles, one of which drew the nation’s attention in the Washington Post.

The book tour landed him a spot on “The Daily Show With John Stewart” Tuesday night and he got skewered. Here’s an excerpt The Huffington Post wrote on the show:

Thiessen’s basic argument is that you should consider the lawyers who represent detainees to be “al Qaeda lawyers,” regardless if the detainees are innocent or guilty or if the truth reveals a lack of connection to al Qaeda. His response to the proud tradition of providing vigorous defense to unsympathetic defendants — in the manner established by John Adams — is to indulge in what Matt Yglesias calls “an epic hair-splitting gambit.” And he continued to do the same hair-splitting in his insistence that the Gitmo detainees have not been “accused” of anything, so the attorneys who represent them are not performing a Constitutional duty — rather, they are traitors.

In Thiessen’s own words written for Wapo:

…Attorney General Eric Holder hired former al-Qaeda lawyers to serve in the Justice Department and resisted providing Congress this basic information. In November, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Holder a letter requesting that he identify officials who represented terrorists or worked for organizations advocating on their behalf, the cases and projects they worked on before coming to the Justice Department, the cases and projects they’ve worked on since joining the administration, and a list of officials who have recused themselves because of prior work on behalf of terrorist detainees.

Holder stonewalled for nearly three months. Finally, two weeks ago, he admitted that nine political appointees in the Justice Department had represented or advocated for terrorist detainees, but he failed to identify seven whose names were not publicly known or to directly answer other questions the senators posed. So Keep America Safe, a group headed by Liz Cheney, posted a Web ad demanding that Holder identify the “al-Qaeda seven,” and a subsequent Fox News investigation unearthed the names. Only under this public pressure did the Justice Department confirm their identities — but Holder still refuses to disclose their roles in detention policy.

…Yet for raising questions, Cheney and the Republican senators have been vilified. Former Clinton Justice Department official Walter Dellinger decried the “shameful” personal attacks on “these fine lawyers,” while numerous commentators leveled charges of “McCarthyism.”

Where was the moral outrage when fine lawyers like John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Jim Haynes, Steve Bradbury and others came under vicious personal attack? Their critics did not demand simple transparency; they demanded heads. They called these individuals “war criminals” and sought to have them fired, disbarred, impeached and even jailed. Where were the defenders of the “al-Qaeda seven” when a Spanish judge tried to indict the “Bush six”? Philippe Sands, author of the “Torture Team,” crowed: “This is the end of these people’s professional reputations!” I don’t recall anyone accusing him of “shameful” personal attacks.

The standard today seems to be that you can say or do anything when it comes to the Bush lawyers who defended America against the terrorists. But if you publish an Internet ad or ask legitimate questions about Obama administration lawyers who defended America’s terrorist enemies, you are engaged in a McCarthyite witch hunt.

This argument smacks of playground standards — If you can do it, so can I.

Among high-profile conservatives knocking down the Cheney-Kristol-Hawkins-Thiessen argument is Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, who I think said it best:

“I’ve been a military lawyer for almost 30 years, I represented people as a defense attorney in the military that were charged with some pretty horrific acts, and I gave them my all,” said Graham. “This system of justice that we’re so proud of in America requires the unpopular to have an advocate and every time a defense lawyer fights to make the government do their job, that defense lawyer has made us all safer.”

This story seems to have legs and would hope Liz would stand up and apologize. Perish the thought. She’s a Cheney, a chip off the old blockhead. Never back down is the backbone in her DNA. Fine. On this issue, she’s wrong and her credibility sinks deeper into the political mud.



11 Responses to “Liz Cheney’s Skewered View”

  1. Hey just because she and her weak, cowardly puppy pack is standing in the mud doesn't mean they are going to be submerged, unless someone is willing to punch them deeper down into the mud. Which is why the no-nonsense, no-excuses, no-how and no-buts responses from many Americans is not so much heartening as a big relief.

    There are limits to how far shamelessness can get you, even in this day and age.

  2. DdW says:

    Well quoted and well said, Jerry.

    Next thing we may see from the Cheney camp is an ad titled “The Supreme Jihadists,” referring to Democratic Supreme Court Justices who have have views on torture, our system of justice, etc., that are slightly different from theirs.

    BTW, I notice Kristol and Hawkins do not vilify the Conservative judges, legislators, commentators, etc., whjo have condemned the Cheney ad….

  3. keelaay says:

    What a shameless partisan hack. Cannot stand her. I would say she wouldn't have a job without Daddy Warbucks… but she takes demagoguery to such a new,cunning, and spiteful low, that she's clearly in a league of her own.

  4. gcotharn says:

    The TV ad was unfair to the lawyers when it asked whose values the 7 unnamed lawyers share, and when it called them “the Al Qaeda 7.”

    Beyond that, everyone is overlooking two legitimate points:

    1. the public has a right to know who the 7 lawyers are, yet AG Holder was withholding that information;
    2. the public has a right to know what what role the 9 terrorist lawyers are playing vis a vis detainment policy, yet AG Holder is still withholding that information.

    Americans have a right to this information. AG Holder is not fulfilling the duties of his office.

    Liz Cheney's group's ad crossed over a line of fairness: violated the principle of reciprocity which is variously expressed as the Golden Rule, the Silver Rule, et al; yet and still: the goal of Liz Cheney's ad, i.e. to increase pressure to such extent that AG Holder would disclose the names of the 7 lawyers, was a noble goal which was successfully accomplished.

    In this matter, if we're going to criticize – even excoriate – Liz Cheney over unfairly harsh characterization; it's only proper that we point out the AG Holder is not fulfilling the responsibilities of his important office, and thus is not properly serving the American people. Holder's misdeeds are more significant, yet receive, so far as I can see, zero acknowledgement in this blog.

  5. gcotharn says:

    Addressing Mr. Remmer's question: “Rather, I wanted to know from the deepest recesses of their bowels what they were out to prove.”

    Americans ought be able to know the backgrounds and previous public statements of the 9 terrorist lawyers, ought be able to know what role they are playing vis a vis detainment policy, so that Americans can judge if each of the lawyers seems appropriate for the role they are playing inside the Justice Dept. It's possible that many voters would not approve of the background or of the past statements of some of these 9 lawyers. On the other hand, if AG Holder has appropriately appointed lawyers with excellent backgrounds into proper responsibilities, voters would approve. Points scored for AG Holder, and, by extension, for Pres. Obama. Either way: democracy = put the info out there where it belongs. Holder ought be proud of his work; ought eagerly embrace scrutiny of what he considers excellent work by his department.

  6. kathykattenburg says:

    Or, put slightly differently, she has learned from the best.

  7. keelaay says:

    Here, here. A chip off the ol' block.

  8. imavettoo says:

    Addressing Mr. Remmers' question: “Rather, I wanted to know from the deepest recesses of their bowels what they were out to prove.”

    Addressing your postings it is obvious you pulled this from the deepest recesses of your bowels.

  9. NotFullyBaked says:

    Further, comparison of the “DOJ Nine” with the likes of John Yoo, Jay Bybee, et al., in that game of “if you can do it, so can I” sets up another false equivalency, of which Thiessen if famous (if not infamous). The point being that the “DOJ Nine” have not been accused of violations of the laws, the treaties, or the Constitution of the United States, whereas those others . . . have.

    And yes, Lizzie is a Cheney, and so will not back down, I agree.

  10. merkin says:

    All of this would be a serious concern were it not for this.

    Is there anyone who has taken anything Bill Kristol has said in the last five years seriously? It has been a slam dunk for longer than that to bet on the exact opposite of any position he has taken. His father, Irving, famously asked if Bill would ever tire of being wrong.

    And is there anyone who has ever taken anything Liz Chaney has said seriously, ever? What is the basis of her authority on anything. Genetics, passed down through DNA from her Dad?

  11. gcotharn says:

    Merkin,

    Who cares about authority? The issues are about true vs false, good vs bad, better vs worse. For instance, Not Fully Baked argues that Thiessen is setting up a false equivalency, i.e. Not Fully Baked is addressing what is true vs what is false. Those are the questions we are interested in.

© 2003-2011 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Mode Equity