Guantanamo and the lawyers

If defense attorneys end up sharing the guilt with their defendants, regardless even of the result, how is anyone supposed to be defended in this legal system? I guess what Liz Cheney wants is a kangaroo court that will convict everyone she doesn't like. I'll admit that would be awfully convenient for Liz Cheney. She'll have to hope no-one ever accuses her of anything, because I'm not sure there will be many good defense lawyers in her ideal world...

g cross, that's good to know thanks. i think sparkleby is entitled to a more authoritarian sounding pen name. the name as it is now gives off more a vibe of someone who lives in Hollywood, and got a tricked out Bentley for her 16th birthday and tweets alot on a gem-encrusted cell phone.

@ ccusa: "@sparkleby: I wrote my post before yours, so unless you're the author of the blog [...]"

FYI, sparkleby *is* actually the author of the blog, though the pen name is not particularly allusive to this fact so you'd have no reason to know :-)

Thanks for the good laugh.
The American public is no longer buying the narrative about the Gitmo attorneys answering the Constitution’s call in order to protect “our values.” Many of the terrorists represented by these volunteers have already returned to the jihad against America. Some of them have already committed more mass murders (or "struggle for freedom against tyranny and oppression" for you mindless terrorist sympathizers and Obots). Others are now in top positions, planning operations against our troops and our homeland. With that in mind, preaching about “the rule of law”, or more accurately “the rule of lawyers”, doesn’t seem like a very convincing argument. Liberals will revert to their usual nonsensical arguments, I'm sure; "Yes, but...Dick Cheney!Dick Cheney!"

@sparkleby: I wrote my post before yours, so unless you're the author of the blog, I think you mistakenly identified my post as a comment on what you wrote. So I couldn't seem to think anything about your use of any particular word, unless the laws of time and how we experience time have changed!

I was intending to comment on the blog author's second to last paragraph (the "mighty edifice of American corporate law is built on the foundational belief that the most unsavory clients are entitled to expert defense..."). I think that's bunk, and reflects the blog author's anti-corporate feelings (probably feelings that were cause at least in part by the health care debate, since he references health insurance companies).

I re-read your post and you clearly say something a bit different, basically that people tend to strongly defend a principle only when their interests (financial or otherwise) align with that principle being true. You're probably right, but it's a bit of a cynical view of human nature. I guess we can both agree that it's at least possible for a person to defend the principal without an interest at stake, and solely by virtue of the truth of the principal itself.

@Cýur de Lion: I don't think there is confusion as to the fact that the attorneys were in private practice. I think the confusion is that there is something nefarious about a private practice attorney being brought in to consult on a case that presents very difficult legal questions. Attorneys can be criticized for doing this, because of who the client is, but I think its a mistake if that criticism is categorical. If the attorney does a bad job at representation, or acts in a way during that representation that is odd, then the attorney can be criticized. But if there's none of that kind of present, and the attorney represented his clients interest but was cooperative with the system and helped things get decided, presenting the best possible case for his client each step of the way, then the attorney has done a public service.

@ T.V.: "I'm not saying I agree with them. I just think there's a coherent worldview in which a person can believe that accused terrorists have the right to competent counsel, and that they can be water-boarded for information."

That is a fair point, and you did a good job of explaining how that worldview could reasonably work.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

"The ACLU of Nevada works in a wide array of areas, from LGBT issues to immigration and criminal justice. Contrary to popular belief, the ACLU of Nevada is not a liberal organization. It is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to preserving civil liberties and civil rights. The ACLU of Nevada has written amicus briefs in political cases brought by conservatives and liberals alike. The ACLU of Nevada was the first ACLU affiliate to support an individuals constitutional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment."

Eric: Not sure what “group of conservatives” you are referring to? Most here (especially M.S.) seem to be reflexive Cheney-bashers.

The ACLU leans Left, and Left only. My progressive advocate friends (and I have a lot of them) are embarrassed by the hypocrisy of their purely ideological focus. The ACLU doesn’t just represent difficult clients, it represents those whose politics it agrees with, except for the occasional Aryan Nation nut thrown in for spite.

Apropos of the current topic, the ACLU was involved in one of most disgusting affairs you never heard about – the covert photographing of CIA agents (some in front of their homes) and showing those photographs to their Gitmo terrorist clients. I would sincerely like to know if any of the Holder appointees were involved in this truly awful act. Interesting how invasion of privacy is suddenly okay with the ACLU when done (by themselves!) on the terrorists’ behalf.

And finally, let us not forget Lynn Stewart, who not only represented terrorists, but collaborated with them. She sits in jail, but (of course) the ACLU is still there to advocate for her. Maybe she could join the DOJ as well?

At issue is disclosure of lawyer’s past practice and credentials. If a rape victim looking to hire a lawyer, he/she should be able to ask if the lawyer had zealously defended a rapist (and maybe got him off on a technicality?). Justice department lawyers are hired by tax payers, so need to disclose if they were zealously defending terrorists merely a couple of month ago.

The mention of the ACLU causes me to wonder what this group of conservatives think of that organization and its general policy of zealous representation of unpopular clients.

T.V., if I take it correctly from your post that you're an Illinois-based law student possibly interested in working with the ACLU, one of my best friends since the late 80s is an attorney with the Chicago ACLU. If you feel alright trusting me with your pseudonym and want to contact me at my first initial and last name on gmail, I'd be glad to make an introduction.

There seems to be a misperception that the lawyers in question are or were military attorneys providing mandated legal advice to terrorists and suspects. This turns out to be untrue. Earlier last week, the seven Justice Department officials who, prior to being brought to DOJ by the Obama administration, provided legal services to terrorists and terrorist suspects, including Osama bin Laden's driver, John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla were identified. The names of two other such lawyers were already known. The DOJ has confirmed these names and they were mostly, if not all, in private practice.
It is entirely appropriate to criticize these lawyers who defend terrorists and terrorist suspects. Contrary to what some in the media would like us to believe, these lawyers have no professional obligation to represent terrorists and terrorist suspects. They did so by choice and this choice is fair game for criticism.

Shout out to my friends in Amsterdam: Go Geert Wilders!!!

M.S. Cityless,
My admittedly anecdotal experience is that people have this ideal of zealous representation before they actually represent a client. Maybe 1L students are just trying to convince other 1L students because they anticipate the many unsavory clients they might one day represent, but I don't think that's quite right.

If anything, I think the work of representing unsavory clients can itself be a draw: I've held the ACLU in high esteem for many years, and wouldn't mind working for them for a few years post-graduation, precisely because they represent often unpopular minorities.

I can only partially agree with your take on politics: what exactly do abortion foes gain from their activism? Or environmentalists? Or the ACLU? People can be motivated by their financial interests, and they can be motivated by their ideals. Sometimes they work in tandem, sometimes they are in direct contradiction (see, e.g., rich liberals who vote for a larger government and more social services, and poor conservatives who vote for the opposite).

I've used this quote before, but I think it's so insightful as to be worth repeating:

"[Hitler] has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all ‘progressive’ thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security, and avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues. The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won’t do. Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings don’t only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flag and loyalty-parades…. Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a grudging way, have said to people ‘I offer you a good time,’ Hitler has said to them ‘I offer you struggle, danger and death,’ and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet."

- George Orwell

g cross,
While I can understand the impulse to call them hypocrites, I think there's a strong case for considering the ability of an accused terrorist to retain counsel more important and fundamental than the right to be free from water-boarding. Without counsel, what exactly could the accused do about being tortured anyway? Or about being indefinitely detained? Rights are non-existent if they can't be vindicated.

It would also be consistent for these people to think that accused terrorists should be water-boarded and the like for information, but that they should also have competent lawyers who will keep any information produced during torture from being used at trial. They want the information to stop possibly-upcoming terrorist attacks, and to catch other terrorists. They aren't torturing to get evidence for trial.

I'm not saying I agree with them. I just think there's a coherent worldview in which a person can believe that accused terrorists have the right to competent counsel, and that they can be water-boarded for information.

You missing a significant point here, which is concerns over conflict of interest. Of course Rivkin shouldn't be tarnished by representing the Clinton Foundation. But wouldn't we want to know about it if he is put in a position where he is expected to opine on them?

The second, smaller point is that Holder refused to release information on who at DOJ has these conflicts of interest. Stonewalling at the open Obama admin? Horrors!

The most devastating attack against Ms. Cheney is to simply describe her work as amateurish.

I mean, why stop there? If a doctor/fireman/police officer saves the life of a man suspected of being a terrorist, is he pro-terrorist?

It's not even fair to describe her ideology on this issue as "conservative" in this case. Her attack line has no ideological roots in American political thought, in either party. The right to representation by legal counsel, without holding the legal counsel responsible for his client's accused deeds, is so fundamental that it goes beyond ideology.

For lack of a better term, Liz Cheney is just being stupid in this case.