Tuesday, March 9, 2010 - 3:11 PM

Senior senators on both sides of the aisle leveled heavy criticism Tuesday against a controversial ad put forth by Liz Cheney and William Kristol, which labeled Justice Department lawyers as the "al Qaeda 7."
The ad, paid for and produced by the group Keep American Safe, referred to the U.S. Justice Department as the "Department of Jihad," and called out Attorney General Eric Holder for hiring but not revealing the names of several attorneys who had previously worked to defend terrorism suspects. More than a dozen Bush administration era legal officials have already condemned the ad.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a member of the Senate Armed Services and Judiciary Committees, told The Cable Tuesday that the Cheney-Kristol ad was inappropriate and unfairly demonized DOJ lawyers for doing a noble public service by defending unpopular suspects.
"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."
Graham pointed out that when Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito were facing Senate confirmation, some attempted to use their client lists against them and it was wrong then too.
"I'm with Kenneth Starr on this one," Graham added, referring to a letter signed by several GOP lawyers, many of whom defended Bush-era detainee policies, condemning the "al Qaeda 7" ad.
"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," read the letter, which was organized by the Brookings Institution's Benjamin Wittes and signed by David Rivkin, Lee Casey, and Philip Zelikow, among others.
Senate Armed Service Committee Chairman Carl Levin agreed with Graham, and told The Cable that the ad was symbolic of the type of rhetoric put forth by the Cheney-Kristol group.
"They probably would have called President John Adams a terrorist too, because he defended the British soldiers who killed Americans at Bunker Hill," said Levin. "I don't think folks like that will stop at anything to attack the president and Democrats. I don't know if there are any limits to their venom.... I haven't seen any."
Even senior Republicans who agreed with the ad's criticism of Holder's appointment of the lawyers said that the ad was beyond the pale.
"An ad that says it's the Department of Jihad is over the top and unjustified," said Jeff Sessions, R-AL, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Still, Sessions said he agreed with the thrust of the ad and its overall criticisms of Holder.
"Out of the hundreds of thousands of lawyers in America, they picked seven that cut their teeth defending terrorists and put them in key positions," Sessions said. "Yes, you can defend criminals and work at the department of justice, but it says something to me about why they've been so wrong on this issue."
Terror suspects are entitled to good, strong legal representation, Sessions added.
A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, said that McConnell has not and would not use the terms "al Qaeda 7" or "Department of Jihad."
Meanwhile, Graham is still working with the White House to come up with some way to build congressional-executive agreement on the handling of suspects who the administration may want to detain indefinitely without a charge, perhaps through new legislation.
"My latest is what I've been doing for four years, trying to find legal infrastructure that will help in court, meet the needs of justice, and deal with unique issues," such as what to do about cases for suspects who have successfully filed for writs of habeas corpus but who still are too dangerous to release, Graham said.
Levin said he was not directly involved in the negotiations over detainee policy but planned to meet with the White House soon. He said he wasn't sure if the president needed any additional specific legal authorities to hold prisoners indefinitely, beyond what's provided for in the Geneva Conventions.
"I leave it up to the executive branch to decide where people are tried and what they're tried for," Levin said.
Sessions said he was not on board with Graham's proposal and Senate Armed Services Committee ranking Republican John McCain, R-AZ, said the ball was in the administration's court, not Congress's.
"You have to have an overall policy," said McCain. "They have not developed one; they have been all over the map."
But Graham emphasized that there needs to be a legal basis for indefinite detention that can be defended as a policy coming from the American people through Congress, not just as an executive decree.
"If you're worried about what people think about America, you should," Graham said. "We're a nation at war, but we have to fight the war within our value system."
"Neither Senators Graham nor Levin offers any defense for Eric Holder's attempts to stonewall the public as to the identities of the al Qaeda lawyers working at the Justice Department," said Michael Goldfarb, advisor and spokesman for the group. "Senator Graham is working with the administration to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay and Keep America Safe opposes those efforts."
The GOP lets the Cheney family and similar wing nuts (i.e. Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh) do their dishonest dirty work. Then they pretend to disavow the dishonest nastiness knowing full well the damage to their opponents credibility has been done.
I'm wondering whether there is the slightest chance that Ms. Cheney would have participated in this line of attack without her father's knowledge and approval.
The former Vice President certainly has the same right to participate in policy discussions as any other American citizen, and there isn't any formal requirement that he do so personally rather than through his daughter. My point is that the media's treatment of Ms. Cheney -- both with respect to the "Keep America Safe" front group and to her periodic appearances on political talk shows -- appears to assume that she is speaking for herself rather than as her father's agent. The absence of any disagreement whatever between the two on any subject would seem to render that assumption open to more question than it has received.
In competition to be Napolean ....
this is Orwellian...here a nation with nuclear weapons appears to generating another generation of Animal Farm competitors seeking to win the ultimate zero sum game.
Josh, I'd like to hear what your colleague Kori Schake over at Shadow Government has to say about all of this, given that she worked on the McCain campaign with Michael Goldfarb, Keep America Safe's spokesman.
Even then he used to mock other people on the communications staff for not supporting waterboarding. In fact, he once joked that if the CIA conducted public sessions of torture and execution, he "would be out in front of the stadium scalping tickets."
What do we need Lindsey Graham for?
Really, what does he bring to the table? How many Republican votes does he influence? Why on earth does Rahm insist we need Lindsey Graham to close Guantanamo?
But mostly I'd like to hear Lindsey Graham explain what he means by, "...what to do about cases for suspects who have successfully filed for writs of habeas corpus but who still are too dangerous to release." Why does he think they are too dangerous to release if a court has examined the charges against them and determined there is no basis for prosecution there? This is what Rahm says, and seems to be what Obama says. Why don't they explain what they mean? Exactly what makes them decide that certain of the detainees are dangerous? And why has it been so hard for them to tell us?
Giving Rivkin a platform=stupid
Early in the show, you aptly mocked Beck for essentially being punked by inviting Massa on his show to self-damaging effect.
Then, you were hoist on your own petard by bringing rightwing-stooge Rivkin on, assuming al he'd do would be to excoriate Liz Cheney when he instead hijacked the RM forum to draw the outrageous parallel between lawyers defending the Constitution by defending those accused of "terroism" to torture-apologist (actually, torturer) Yoo. Of course, no critical response was forthcoming, providing a suitably absurd frame with the introduction of Rivkin's relentless attacks on the Obama administration as a kind of bona fides.
What a joke.
Would it make sense to hire mob lawyers to run the organized crime section of the Justice Department? Or hire lawyers for the environmental lobbying groups to run the EPA? Oh wait, they are already doing that.
Nothing against these lawyers, and I'm sure they may do good work in some government agencies. But they should NEVER be allowed anywhere near the policy decision-making for terrorist prosecutions.
So you're comparing, for example, the JAG officers who defended detainees to mob lawyers? That's about the most wrong headed-analogy I've ever heard. Let alone the gross misrepresentation that just by defending someone as their lawyer, you automatically agree with them and would like to see their goals come to pass.
I, for one, think a government that hires smart people who've competed on different sides of important issues, then puts them in the same department and asks them to work out the best, dare I say, most fair-and-balanced, way to deal with the issue - that's a government with which I wouldn't mind living.
"In a speech to the Mile End Group at the House of Lords, Lady Manningham-Buller said: “The Americans were very keen that people like us did not discover what they were doing.”" Times 10 March 2010
This is the stain that Dick Cheney and that which he bred seeks to hide. In their fear and incompetence, they became cowardly. Like Adam and Eve after the sin, they have sought to hide and cover - first by hiding in a bunker and now by spouting toxic smoke.
The real threat to our security
Constitutionalists of all stripes are missing a great opportunity to effectively demolish the pro torture, pro imperial aggression camp (of which Frau Cheney is an oozing enthusiast). The policies of torture, detention without trial and military aggression against weaker states IS A THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. The illegal actions of Dick Cheney's DC cabal imperil American families. As evidence, one can site multiple official US intelligence sources, as well as commonsense. Cheney is himself a physical coward who hid in an underground bunker. He trembled like toddler who couldn't find his mommy.
He needs to be called out for cruelty, cowardice and criminal behavior. To the extent the American people turn their backs on him and his cohorts, and demand that they be held accountable in a court of law -- to that precise extent, we will be protecting ourselves from the blowback that their criminal and barbaric behavior invites as a simple matter of cause and effect.
So when they say that people who uphold the constitution demnad the rule of law, the comeback should be clear and direct: the lawless actions of Cheney and company threaten America. We should take a principled and constitutional stand. Obama is never going to win with a Cheney-lite position. He needs to go on the offensive as a defender of constitutional order and respect for the law. That is the best way to take these bastards on. What should then follow is a series of robust investigations leading to prosecutions. That will keep the bastards busy. A principled stand is not only Obama's best hope of restoring decent governance in the US. It's his only hope.
(11)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE