Latest Conservative Smear Calls Justice Dept. Lawyers Terror-Sympathizers

By
Friday, February 26, 2010 at 5:38 pm

In the latest bit of brazen slander from the right, Republican Senators are trying to invent a scandal about Justice Department lawyers who — horror — represented Guantanamo detainees. You know, provided the representation that the Rehnquist and Roberts Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled those detainees are entitled? And which even the military commissions provide for? Instead, there’s this McCarthyite tactic of calling Justice Department lawyers the “Gitmo Nine,” a name that oh-so-cleverly suggests that those lawyers were themselves detained at Guantanamo. From the Washington Times:

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa is rightly unhappy that the Justice Department won’t divulge the names of the nine Justice Department lawyers who directly represented suspected-terrorist detainees, or their cases. Grassley identified two himself, Neal Katyal (an aside: Katyal is a very impressive guy and very charming and level-headed) and Jennifer Daskal.

There’s absolutely nothing “hidden” about this; it’s a pure smear job. Daskal, a former Human Rights Watch attorney, is so committed to hiding her representation of Guantanamo detainees that it’s on her Wikipedia page. And Katyal, the deputy solicitor general whom even this Washington Times bottom-feeder has to concede is a talented attorney, very publicly represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan and took his case to the Supreme Court, which promptly struck down the first phase of the military commissions. There is not a shred of a legitimate issue here, just pure innuendo.

Grassley knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s taking one of the strengths of the American justice system — the fact that everyone is entitled to legal representation — and implying that it’s unseemly. It’s a testament to the weakness of his character that he will never forthrightly accuse these attorneys of what he’s implying — sympathy with accused terrorists — in a way that they could refute. What a pathetic excuse for a man. Those of us in the media have an obligation to call this smear campaign what it is.

Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter


Comments

33 Comments

uberVU - social comments
Trackback posted February 26, 2010 @ 6:06 pm

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TWI_news: Latest Conservative Smear Calls Justice Dept. Lawyers Terror-Sympathizers http://bit.ly/cqX4Z9...


Diane1976
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 8:53 pm

The Republicans are disreputable. The only question is why Obama keeps trying to reason with them and appeasing them. Why does he do that? Why doesn't he fight them? I'd rather see him and the Dems go down fighting, if that's what it comes to. It least it would show they stand for something.


Latest Conservative Smear Calls Justice Dept. Lawyers Terror … | All Topics Blog
Pingback posted February 27, 2010 @ 12:18 am

[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today on&nbsp Here’s a quick excerpt &nbspIn the latest bit of brazen slander from the right, Republican Senators are trying to invent a scandal about Justice Department lawyers who — horror — represented Guantanamo detainees. You know, provided the representation that the … [...]


Ski Club Snowcast epsiode 172 | Pro Sports World | Skiing Leisure Knowledge
Pingback posted February 27, 2010 @ 5:14 am

[...] Latest Conservative Smear Calls Justice Dept. Lawyers Terror … [...]


MEI Online: Students: Universities and Research Institutions | Petroleum Engineering Addict
Pingback posted February 27, 2010 @ 11:59 am

[...] Latest Conservative Smear Calls Justice Dept. Lawyers Terror … [...]


In the Crosshairs » Blog Archive » Juicebox Mafia TweetFight- RACIST!
Pingback posted February 27, 2010 @ 12:30 pm

[...] troglodyte, haters just seconds away from throwing on a sheet and string some darkies up. Here is Spencer’s piece spluttering at the outrageous outrage. There’s absolutely nothing “hidden” about this; it’s [...]


PJ
Comment posted February 28, 2010 @ 6:07 pm

Once again, the loony liberals lie through their teeth. Obama/Holder freed the men responsible for bombing the USS COLE, and freed some of the worst terrorists in GITMO, who have already made their way BACK into terrorists groups overseas — just in time to set off bombs; prevented the families of 9/11 victims from suing Saudi Arabia, the home to 15 of the 19 hijackers, and directed the military to read Miranda rights to enemy combatants on a foreign battlefield who have no Constitutional rights, whatsover.

It is called, TREASON, and speaking out against TREASON is not a smear.


justanamercican
Comment posted February 28, 2010 @ 10:22 pm

These detaines are not American citizens so they do not have constitutional rights. They need to to be tried in Military courts.


justanamerican
Comment posted February 28, 2010 @ 10:23 pm

What do they stand for?


Endgame
Comment posted March 2, 2010 @ 3:00 pm

Oh noez, teh librul fasschhuts want to kill U.S Americans because of ACORN and Bill Ayers who share dorm rooms with teh tarrirristss!

Help me Glen Beck! We surround them!


Steven
Comment posted March 2, 2010 @ 4:08 pm

Really? Terrorists at Gitmo? And here I thought they were “enemy combatants” who had never received a trial. If you are accused of some horrific crime, can we just assume you're as guilty as they are, in lieu of all that “due process” crap?


Serenity - an expedition - “astonishingly nasty” indeed – mccarthyites | Serenity… an expedition
Pingback posted March 2, 2010 @ 4:20 pm

[...] campaign led by Senator Chuck Grassley to impugn DOJ appointees who represented Gitmo detainees. Ackerman: You know, [the lawyers who] provided the representation that the Rehnquist and Roberts Supreme [...]


Scott
Comment posted March 2, 2010 @ 4:30 pm

Interesting. Say, did Bush/Cheney ever free anyone from Guantanamo who then went on to attempt acts of terror?


raincntry
Comment posted March 2, 2010 @ 5:52 pm

Sorry but that's not how our criminal justice system works. We regularly prosecute and convict non-us citizens of crimes, as does every country on the earth. You may also notice, since you claim some sort of constitutional knowledge, that the 5th Amendment, the one that mandates due process says “No person”, not citizen. Similarly, the 6th Amendment, which discusses criminal trial procedures, makes absolutely no distinction between citizenship either.

Now, since the Constitution sets out how our government works, and you're all about Constitutional Rights, then trying these men in criminal courts as outlined by the Constitution is what we should do.

Now, you can argue that we should amend the Constitution to ensure it only applies to citizens. You may be right that it should only be applied that way.

However, don't claim that the accused don't have a right to a trial. When you do, you just sound like another moron making claims about the Constitution without actually reading the document.

You know, you should read it, you may learn something.


Right Wing Employs McCarthyite Tactics To Smear DoJ Lawyers As Terrorist ‘Abettors’ And ‘Coddlers’ | Global Stump
Pingback posted March 2, 2010 @ 6:36 pm

[...] “McCarthyite tactics,” the crack investigative squad at the Washington Times has undertaken the task of [...]


Cheney Wants Names Named | Global Stump
Pingback posted March 2, 2010 @ 6:39 pm

[...] campaign led by Senator Chuck Grassley to impugn DOJ appointees who represented Gitmo detainees. Ackerman: You know, [the lawyers who] provided the representation that the Rehnquist and Roberts Supreme [...]


Shade Tail
Comment posted March 2, 2010 @ 8:52 pm

All people have Constitutional rights. The Constitution is not a list of what people are allowed to do, it is a limit on what the government is allowed to do. The government is mandated to give *all* people due process, regardless of (lack of) citizenship.

Understand the Constitution before you talk about it.


Right Wing Employs McCarthyite Tactics To Smear DoJ Lawyers As Terrorist ‘Abettors’ And ‘Coddlers’ | Pure Politics
Pingback posted March 2, 2010 @ 9:03 pm

[...] “McCarthyite tactics,” the crack investigative squad at the Washington Times has undertaken the task of [...]


Gerald Vandergrift
Comment posted March 2, 2010 @ 9:37 pm

Are the names of the 9 lawyers known? If not, why not?


Scott
Comment posted March 2, 2010 @ 9:48 pm

Some of them are, but why are you interested in knowing? So that we can start harrassing them for doing their jobs? I don't understand what the compelling need is, frankly.


cathiefromcanada
Comment posted March 3, 2010 @ 12:29 am

They should be proud of what they are doing. And they should throw it back in the faces of their critics. The Bar Association or MoveOn or the ACLU should take out a full page ad in the Washington Post titled “I'm proud to support the American Constitution by defending people accused of crimes, including the Gitmo prisoners” and have it signed “The Gitmo 900″ and get every lawyer they can find to climb on board, including every lawyer in the Obama administration and the Justice Department, and firms across the country


McCarthyite Tactics : Delaware Liberal
Pingback posted March 3, 2010 @ 6:35 am

[...] campaign led by Senator Chuck Grassley to impugn DOJ appointees who represented Gitmo detainees. Ackerman: You know, [the lawyers who] provided the representation that the Rehnquist and Roberts Supreme [...]


Ted the Slacker
Comment posted March 3, 2010 @ 8:25 am

Hopefully this can be called what it is – trutherism. There is no fundamental difference between 9/11 trutherism, or the birthers, and a campaign premised on the idea that DoJ appointees are in league with terrorists.


dB
Comment posted March 3, 2010 @ 1:47 pm

Um, aren't Cheney-Grassley setting themselves up for a major slander suit, here? I mean, they're attacking people who know their way around a courtroom.


KingCranky
Comment posted March 3, 2010 @ 7:16 pm

Why do you wish to appease “freedom hating terrorists” by shredding our Constitution?


dmac
Comment posted March 4, 2010 @ 5:04 am

It is Ackerman who is doing the smear here. He no where quotes Grassley. The Wash Times article he linked to only said the Grassley was “rightly unhappy”, but didn't quote Grassley as to why he wanted the names released. Ackerman invents a motive–that Grassley thinks representing terrorists is unseemly and those who do so are in sympathy–despite no evidence that is his concern. Moreover, Ackerman ignores the issue that the Wash Time link raises as the issue with these lawyers:
“the extent of the recusals raises questions about whether the attorney general has enough unbiased advisers around him to have made good judgments about how to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other detainees”

If you follow all the links to the supposed smear-mongers, you'll find nothing that hints at suspecting these lawyers to be sympathetic to the terrorist cause. What you will find is a worry that these lawyers are so biased toward the law enforcement approach to processing these terrorists that they will ignore the intelligence gathering needs.


dmac
Comment posted March 4, 2010 @ 5:23 am

You're right that non-citizens have constitutional rights. But justanamerican is right that the terrorists should be tried in military commissions. See the link in the article to the Hamden case (which Ackerman touts as striking down military commissions). Under the Military Commissions Act 2006, Hamden was tried and convicted by military commission.

Unlawful enemy combatants should be held for interrogation and intelligence gathering first, and then tried under military commissions. At least in my amateur opinion.


dmac
Comment posted March 4, 2010 @ 10:04 am

It is Ackerman who is doing the smear here. He no where quotes Grassley. The Wash Times article he linked to only said the Grassley was “rightly unhappy”, but didn't quote Grassley as to why he wanted the names released. Ackerman invents a motive–that Grassley thinks representing terrorists is unseemly and those who do so are in sympathy–despite no evidence that is his concern. Moreover, Ackerman ignores the issue that the Wash Time link raises as the issue with these lawyers:
“the extent of the recusals raises questions about whether the attorney general has enough unbiased advisers around him to have made good judgments about how to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other detainees”

If you follow all the links to the supposed smear-mongers, you'll find nothing that hints at suspecting these lawyers to be sympathetic to the terrorist cause. What you will find is a worry that these lawyers are so biased toward the law enforcement approach to processing these terrorists that they will ignore the intelligence gathering needs.


dmac
Comment posted March 4, 2010 @ 10:23 am

You're right that non-citizens have constitutional rights. But justanamerican is right that the terrorists should be tried in military commissions. See the link in the article to the Hamden case (which Ackerman touts as striking down military commissions). Under the Military Commissions Act 2006, Hamden was tried and convicted by military commission.

Unlawful enemy combatants should be held for interrogation and intelligence gathering first, and then tried under military commissions. At least in my amateur opinion.


“The First Thing We Do, Let’s Kill All The Lawyers” « Around The Sphere
Pingback posted March 8, 2010 @ 9:13 pm

[...] attorneys who represented Guantanamo detainees are sympathetic to al-Qaeda, a brazen slander that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) put forward last week against such DOJ officials as Neal Katyal and Jen…. Rushing to their defense is retired Air Force Col. Morris Davis, the chief prosecutor of the [...]


Cheney Wants Names Named « Hindgrindr
Pingback posted March 11, 2010 @ 3:45 pm

[...] campaign led by Senator Chuck Grassley to impugn DOJ appointees who represented Gitmo detainees. Ackerman: You know, [the lawyers who] provided the representation that the Rehnquist and Roberts Supreme [...]


Dante’s casino - Kerendian and Associates Knowledge
Pingback posted March 22, 2010 @ 4:18 pm

[...] GOP thinks should be a scandal, is that lawyers in the Department of Justice have been trying to uphold our American system of justice – which you’d think would be a good thing, but Grassley is pushing the meme that they [...]


adawakeman42
Comment posted June 15, 2010 @ 3:25 am

It is a real shame to see lawyers so often misunderstood like this.I know some respectable lawyers in Washington DC who I have spoken with about such matters. A terrorist still has the right to a fair trail, otherwise we might as well just throw justice in the garbage disposal.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.