* News * World news * United States Liz Cheney accused of McCarthyism over campaign against lawyers

[Peikko 1,575]

Liz Cheney and her organisation have called lawyers who acted for accused terrorists the "al-Qaida seven". Photograph: Cliff Owen/AP

Not long after the Twin Towers fell, ####### Cheney declared the death of more than two centuries of American tradition. "It will be necessary for us to be a nation of men, and not laws," he said.

The then vice-president did his best to follow through by riding roughshod over the constitution and international laws by promoting torture, indefinite detention without trial and support for secretive military tribunals in which defendants were stripped of many of their rights.

Now Cheney's daughter, Liz, has taken up the cudgel by heading what some are describing as a McCarthyite campaign to purge the government of lawyers who dared to defend men, and even a child, accused of terrorism. The lawyers drew particular ire by sometimes defeating in court the Bush administration's attempts to declare itself beyond the law.

Liz Cheney and her organisation, Keep America Safe, have dubbed lawyers who acted on behalf of accused terrorists, and who now work for the department of justice, the "al-Qaida seven". The group has rebranded the justice department the "department of jihad".

Liz Cheney, who trained as a lawyer and served as a deputy assistant secretary of state in the same administration as her father, is backed by some Republican members of congress, relatives of 9/11 victims and parts of the conservative press who have accused the lawyers, some of whom worked pro bono, of "coddling" and "abetting" terrorists.

Keep America Safe – whose mission statement says the current administration is "unwilling to stand up for America" – has recently launched a television attack advert questioning the loyalty of the targeted lawyers and sinisterly asking: Whose values do they share?

But the assault has prompted an unexpected backlash from some former Bush administration lawyers and officials who have joined liberal critics in denouncing the campaign as unAmerican and violating the principle that even the most unpopular defendant is entitled to a lawyer.

People for the American Way, a liberal pressure group, accused Liz Cheney of using fear and smear tactics.

"Character assassination, attacks on loyalty, guilt by association ... they are textbook McCarthyism," it said. "What makes this cowardly political attack all the more outrageous is that the lawyers in question were asked by the Bush administration to represent the detainees."

The targets of Keep America Safe's campaign include the deputy solicitor general, Neal Katyal, who represented Osama bin Laden's driver, Salim Hamdan, in a case that led the supreme court to declare the Bush administration's original plan for military tribunals to be unconstitutional.

The campaign against Katyal is in part led by the conservative Weekly Standard, whose editor, Bill Kristol, is a board member of Keep America Safe. The magazine attacked Katyal over his courtroom description of Hamdan as a "simple driver" and for demanding that the accused man's constitutional rights be protected. It accused the lawyer of being unable "to tell the difference between us and our terrorist enemies".

The assault has also focused on an assistant attorney general at the justice department, Tony West, who defended John Walker Lindh, an American captured fighting with the Taliban, and Jennifer Daskal, another justice department official who previously worked for Human Rights Watch against the Bush administration's detention policies.

Daskal has been attacked for describing a 15 year-old detainee, Omar Khadr, as a child soldier. "Khadr is a terrorist, not a soldier ... We regularly try 15-year-olds for crimes as adults in America," said the Weekly Standard.

The campaign is in part driven by a broader attempt to portray Barack Obama as soft on terrorism because of his intent to close the Guantánamo Bay detention centre and his plan to give accused terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, a civilian trial.

But the attempts to portray the Obama government as riddled with fifth columnists has drawn stinging criticism from some prominent conservatives, including former officials in the last Bush administration.

Nineteen former officials and lawyers – including Kenneth Starr, the former solicitor general and independent counsel who investigated Bill Clinton, and George Bush's former acting attorney general, Peter Keisler – described the attacks on the lawyers as "shameful" and as undermining the struggle against terrorism.

"As attorneys, former officials, and policy specialists who have worked on detention issues, we consider these attacks both unjust to the individuals in question and destructive of any attempt to build lasting mechanisms for counterterrorism adjudications," the letter said.

"The American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams's representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston massacre." In 1770, John Adams, who went on to become the second US president and one of the most influential of the founding fathers, defended eight British soldiers who were accused of killing five innocent civilians during a riot.

The letter denounced what it said was the maligning of the lawyers "who have taken honourable positions on contested questions" and the demanding of a uniformity of views among those who serve in government that will not benefit the country.

Starr told MSNBC that the lawyers deserved to be commended not criticised.

"This was very unwise and really an out-of-bounds characterisation and challenge to good, honourable lawyers," he said. "It's very important for lawyers to be willing to take on unpopular causes to make sure that power is checked, that there are, in fact, arguments being advanced on behalf of those who have been subjected to governmental power."

Other Bush administration officials have come to the defence of the lawyers including the former solicitor general, Ted Olson, who told Politico that representing unpopular defendants is "in the finest tradition of the profession".

But he said that he wished some of those now critical of Keep America Safe had spoken out on behalf of lawyers in the defence and justice departments who wrote the legal advice defending waterboarding of terrorist suspects.

Liz Cheney's tutor at the University of Chicago law school, Richard Epstein, has joined the criticism and expressed bafflement at the position taken by his former pupil.

Keep America Safe has responded to the criticism by saying that lawyers who defended alleged terrorists could now be deciding policy toward the same people. "The American people have a right to know who in the department of justice is setting policy regarding detention of terrorists and related national security issues," the groups director, Aaron Harison, told ABC news.

"Lawyers in private practice have the right to volunteer pro bono to defend terrorists. However, membership in the legal profession does not immunise a person from questions or criticism of their prior actions."

Link

[Ali G. 37]

She is correct. How utterly stupid that terrorist be defended in the same manner, with the same rights, as an American citizen...

It just illustrates that numerous folks still think the threat of terror is some sort of fabricated joke concocted by folks with a hidden agenda.

Of course you cannot do anything in America without some reference to the Constitution or the founding fathers. The British empire wanted their territory back, they didn't want jihad or to kill as many Americans as possible. Huge difference there.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Booyah

[Dan J 277]

She is correct. How utterly stupid that terrorist be defended in the same manner, with the same rights, as an American citizen...

It just illustrates that numerous folks still think the threat of terror is some sort of fabricated joke concocted by folks with a hidden agenda.

Of course you cannot do anything in America without some reference to the Constitution or the founding fathers. The British empire wanted their territory back, they didn't want jihad or to kill as many Americans as possible. Huge difference there.

Why are some people so adamant about following the laws, but quick to dismiss them when they become inconvenient?

[Danno 1,228]

I've seen these attacks on Liz Cheney but not the clip of her offending words...... anyone know which speech it was that cause so many ruffled feathers?

[Peikko 1,575]

At a guess I would suspect it is because they don't understand the consequences of tampering with the judicial system. The system works well because everyone is treated equally under it. As soon as you weight it one way or another, it breaks. However, some people do not seem to understand that. I

In the same way, most would be horrified if they really understood, for example the evidence that is required to ensure conviction in a murder trial, they would want the process to be simplified to allow for the conviction of the 'guilty'. Luckily, those who are in places of influence are rarely as simplistic in their understanding, although obviously, some are not.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Why are some people so adamant about following the laws, but quick to dismiss them when they become inconvenient?

i think the same thing every single time an illegal immiration thread pops up on VJ.

[Danno 1,228]

QUOTE (Dan + Gemvita @ Mar 11 2010, 02:24 PM)

Why are some people so adamant about following the laws, but quick to dismiss them when they become inconvenient?

i think the same thing every single time an illegal immiration thread pops up on VJ.

[Dan J 277]

i think the same thing every single time an illegal immiration thread pops up on VJ.

Most people who acknowledge that the immigration system is broken are not advocating illegal immigration, but instead suggesting changes to the law to fix problems and address needs.

In this case, and cases like it, there are people who are advocating getting rid of constitutionally protected right to a fair trial. For no reason other than its inconvenient.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I've seen these attacks on Liz Cheney but not the clip of her offending words...... anyone know which speech it was that cause so many ruffled feathers?

Since it seems so challenging to operate google, here you go:

ZIxg7LmlEQg

[Ali G. 37]

Most people who acknowledge that the immigration system is broken are not advocating illegal immigration, but instead suggesting changes to the law to fix problems and address needs.

In this case, and cases like it, there are people who are advocating getting rid of constitutionally protected right to a fair trial. For no reason other than its inconvenient.

Why is it broken? Because it does not allow for illegal aliens to enter as they see fit. What is broken is the half-baked law enforcement and punishment for those hiring or using them.

[Ali G. 37]

Why are some people so adamant about following the laws, but quick to dismiss them when they become inconvenient?

There is a massive difference between charging someone for a petty crime to dealing with someone abroad, who has the sole intention of killing as many people as they possibly can.

The other thing is, when did the United State's legal system gain the power to prosecute for actions carried out from a foreign country?

An act against the country should be handled as such - by means of military court. Had this terrorist stolen a bagel in NYC, by all means prosecute him using the local legal system. I am certainly not interested allowing some disingenuous lawyer, that is more interested in pushing their ideology, than in the actions of this person. Too many criminals have already been freed back into society because of technicalities and the actions of such scumbag lawyers. We don't need to give terrorists the same luxury.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Booyah

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Meet the DOJ Lawyers Who Defended Terrorist Detainees

As the controversy heats up over the DOJ lawyers who once represented, or advocated on behalf of, al Qaeda and Taliban members, it is worth taking a quick look at their body of work.

Neal Katyal is now the principal deputy solicitor general. Previously, Katyal was a law professor and represented Salim Hamdan before the Supreme Court. The finding for Hamdan: The court ended up throwing out the military commission system as it was first established by President Bush. Congress then had to reauthorize the military commissions.

Katyal’s defenders have been quick to advocate on his behalf, claiming he is talented lawyer. Maybe so, but let’s look at his handling of the Salim Hamdan case, which was a victory for his client.

Hamdan is an admitted bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden. He swore allegiance to his master and faithfully served him from 1996 to 2001 -- as al Qaeda was plotting multiple acts of terror, including the September 11 attacks.

Katyal has called Hamdan a "simple driver." But Hamdan was not a "simple driver." He was captured with two SA-7 shoulder-fired missiles in his trunk while driving to a battlefield in Afghanistan. (See below.) Moreover, only the most trusted al Qaeda personnel would be allowed to serve bin Laden for so long -- protecting the terror master as he plotted to kill thousands of civilians.

Another one of the DOJ lawyers who has advocated on behalf of detainees is Jennifer Daskal, who was a human rights activist. It is not clear why Daskal’s résumé qualifies her for a position working on detainee legal questions.

One of the detainees Daskal advocated for is Omar Khadr -- who allegedly threw a hand grenade that killed an Army medic. Another one of the DOJ lawyers named in recent press accounts worked on behalf of Khadr for a time as well.

Prior to joining the DOJ, Daskal was one of the human rights lawyers who openly urged President Obama to stop the military proceedings against Omar Khadr, calling him a “child soldier.”

Khadr was neither a child, nor a soldier, at the time he reportedly killed an Army medic. Khadr comes from a known al Qaeda family dedicated to Osama bin Laden. He was trained in al Qaeda camps and served a senior member of al Qaeda. There is even a video of Khadr manufacturing and placing IED's in Afghanistan. Khadr is a terrorist, not a soldier.

Prior to joining the DOJ, Daskal was one of the human rights lawyers who openly urged President Obama to stop the military proceedings against Omar Khadr, calling him a “child soldier.”

Khadr was neither a child, nor a soldier, at the time he reportedly killed an Army medic. Khadr comes from a known al Qaeda family dedicated to Osama bin Laden. He was trained in al Qaeda camps and served a senior member of al Qaeda. There is even a video of Khadr manufacturing and placing IED's in Afghanistan. Khadr is a terrorist, not a soldier.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/meet-d...orist-detainees

That the detainees should be able to obtain enthusiastic and competent council should not be of concern, the contrary would be more so. However, the staff that AG Holder has selected indicates how the Obama administration wants to defend the Nation: Peoples court, drum circles and peace rallies.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I move that the word "philistine" be taken out of the dictionary and replaced with "cheney".

[Danno 1,228]

Since it seems so challenging to operate google, here you go:

ZIxg7LmlEQg

Thats it?

It's interesting that people are more concerned about what a private citizen does than the AG.

Who are the 7 people hired and why the secrecy?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Thats it?

It's interesting that people are more concerned about what a private citizen does than the AG.

Who are the 7 people hired and why the secrecy?

They are afraid of Tea Partier's burning crosses on their front lawns?