About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Wash. Post's Thiessen takes attacks on DOJ lawyers -- which Post condemned -- to another level

March 05, 2010 3:10 pm ET by Adam Shah

As Glenn Greenwald and Jamison Foser have pointed out, The Washington Post suggested that right-wing attacks on Department of Justice attorneys who have represented terror suspects are based on "ignorance," "fear," and "hysteria" and published an op-ed calling the attacks "shameful," even though Bill Kristol, one of the leading proponents of the smear, writes a regular column for the Post.

But Kristol is not alone.

Marc Thiessen, a weekly columnist for the Post has not only attacked the DOJ attorneys who represented terror suspects, but has also attacked "senior partners" at law firms in which other lawyers took on such cases for allowing "work on behalf of America's terrorist enemies" to continue.

From a chapter titled "Double Agents" in Thiessen's book, Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack:

Some argue that, with the exception of [Neal] Katyal, none of these lawyers directly represented terrorists, so they should not be held responsible for the actions of other lawyers in their firms. That might be true for a junior partner. But the fact is, [Department of Justice officials Eric] Holder, [Lanny] Breuer, [David] Ogden, [Thomas] Perrelli, and [Tony] West were all senior partners at their firms at the time when these firms were deciding whether or not to accept terrorist clients. They had the power to say no and stop this work on behalf of America's terrorist enemies. They chose not to do so.

I spoke to several partners at major law firms that have chosen not to represent terrorists. None wanted to criticize their competitors on the record, but all agreed that the work would not have gone forward without the approval of Holder and his colleagues. One attorney explained that law firms pride themselves on collegiality, and if one or more partners expressed opposition, that is sufficient to kill a pro bono project. He said the reason his firm does not represent terrorists is because partners like him spoke up and made clear they opposed the firm doing such work. If such opposition could stop this work at his firm, this lawyer says, Holder could have done the same at Covington. "Eric Holder's law firm did this with the full blessing and support of Eric Holder," he says. "He's responsible for it." [Pages 257-58]

At the end of the chapter, Thiessen claimed that the attorneys who took on the cases of terror "are aiding and abetting America's enemies," which is pretty close to the constitutional definition of treason -- providing "aid and comfort" to America's enemies:

The attorneys fighting these cases -- some intentionally, others unwittingly -- are practicing what has come to be called "lawfare." They are aiding and abetting America's enemies by filing lawsuits on their behalf, and turning U.S. courtrooms into a new battlefield in the war on terror. These lawsuits tie our government in knots and make it more difficult for our military and intelligence officials to defend our country from terrorist dangers. And they undermine America's moral authority by echoing the enemy's propaganda that America systematically abuses human rights. [Page 274]

Regarding the attacks against lawyers who represented terror suspects, the Post March 5 editorial stated:

It is important to remember that no less an authority than the Supreme Court ruled that those held at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, must be allowed to challenge their detentions in a U.S. court. It is exceedingly difficult to exercise that right meaningfully without the help of a lawyer. It is also worth remembering that the Bush administration wanted to try some Guantanamo detainees in military commissions -- a forum in which a defendant is guaranteed legal representation. Even so, it took courage for attorneys to stand up in the midst of understandable societal rage to protect the rights of those accused of terrorism. Advocates knew that ignorance and fear would too often cloud reason. They knew that this hysteria made their work on these cases all the more important. The video from Keep America Safe proves they were right.

The Post also published a March 5 op-ed by Walter Dellinger, former head of DOJ's office of legal counsel and former acting Solicitor General stating that "[t]he only word that can do justice to the personal attacks on these fine lawyers -- and on the integrity of our legal system -- is shameful. Shameful." From Dellinger's op-ed:

It never occurred to me on the day that Defense Department lawyer Rebecca Snyder and Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler of the Navy appeared in my law firm's offices to ask for our assistance in carrying out their duties as military defense lawyers that the young lawyer who worked with me on that matter would be publicly attacked for having done so. And yet this week that lawyer and eight other Justice Department attorneys have been attacked in a video released by a group called Keep America Safe (whose board members include William Kristol and Elizabeth Cheney) for having provided legal assistance to detainees before joining the department. The video questions their loyalty to the United States, asking: "DOJ: Department of Jihad?" and "Who are these government officials? ... Whose values do they share?"

[...]

That those in question would have their patriotism, loyalty and values attacked by reputable public figures such as Elizabeth Cheney and journalists such as Kristol is as depressing a public episode as I have witnessed in many years. What has become of our civic life in America? The only word that can do justice to the personal attacks on these fine lawyers -- and on the integrity of our legal system -- is shameful. Shameful.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by DellDolly (March 05, 2010 3:40 pm ET)
      7  
      Wow. It's the right who are attacking these lawyers for doing what our justice system demands of them, and it's OUR side that's behaving in a treasonous way?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Kikabi (March 05, 2010 7:00 pm ET)
        5  
        And the right are the ones who claim to uphold and protect the Constitution. Yet they demonize lawyers who actually do uphold the Constitution just because they don't like the defendants.


        Report Abuse
        • Author by Conchobhar (March 06, 2010 12:33 am ET)
          2  
          Most of them, if they've read the Constitution at all, haven't gone past the 2nd Amendment.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Why_Not_Me (March 06, 2010 9:59 am ET)
            2  
            ...And only bring out the 1st when it suits them.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by dave (March 06, 2010 1:35 pm ET)
              3
            That's the only one the ACLU skips over.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by peebs755 (March 06, 2010 3:39 pm ET)
              1  
              Yeah... right.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Conchobhar (March 06, 2010 8:08 pm ET)
              1  
              That is one of the most ill-informed (to give you the benefit of the doubt) statements ever to appear here. The ACLU has for years been a lightning rod for attacks from both ends of the political spectrum, because it has defended the First Amendment rights of some of the most deservedly despised groups in the country.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by doggeddem (March 07, 2010 9:43 am ET)
                 
              I don't see the ACLU coming after you for mouthing off your ignorance. Exactly when have you been denied the freedom to show off your less than pithy blather?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by dave (March 07, 2010 11:21 am ET)
                   
                I was referring to the ACLU's stance on the 2nd...sorry for the confusion
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Conchobhar (March 07, 2010 1:00 pm ET)
                     
                  You make my point.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by dave (March 07, 2010 1:28 pm ET)
                       
                    You've made your point on the 1st, and I agree with that. Hell, they defended Limbaugh's medical records. What are your thoughts of their non defense of the 2nd? They seem to agree with the Supreme court in every matter except the 2nd.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Conchobhar (March 08, 2010 1:44 pm ET)
                         
                      I think their position is somewhat nuanced, unlike the position of the lovers of the second half of the Second Amendment. For those "originalists" who insist that the intentions of the Founders are paramount, it is a contradiction IMOP, to ignore the context in which the Constitution was written. There were laws on the books in Virginia and, I would presume, many if not all of the other former colonies, requiring every household to have a functioning firearm and specific quantities of shot and powder. The presence, in significant numbers, of peoples whose lands had been taken from them and were, strangely enough, hostile and resentful, made this necessary.
                      I think, and I would guess (I do not know) that the ACLU agrees with me, that both clauses in the amendment are vital.
                      Report Abuse
      • Author by mari2jj (March 07, 2010 4:28 pm ET)
           
        Few of these guys leading this attack parade have any concept of our constitutional guarantees. They are political first and adnerers to the constitution in a distant second. God help our country if my own Republican Party is allowed to totally undo our long tradition of fairness and constitutional law as they seem so intent on doing. As a Republican, I find these dodo-heads totally embarassing. Obviously their statements amount to a direct criticism of the Bush Presidency that made certain that detainees were tried correctly, no matter the push from guys like Yoo etc.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by neon desert (March 05, 2010 3:51 pm ET)
      4  
      I don't think it would be revisionist history to say that imbeciles like Theissen were around when Jefferson, Adams, etc. were considering the U.S. constitution. Naturally, we've never heard of them as their ignorance and short-sightedness rendered them un-noteworthy, but their presence was probably no less annoying during the formulation of the concept of "due process". Theissen can proudly take his historical place right next to them in the septic tank of history.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by thaneb (March 05, 2010 6:57 pm ET)
      2  
      One is reminded of, "If thus and such happens, the terrorists will have won." Those of Thiessen's ilk insist on adding to this list. Fortunately, in the case of attorney representation, some prominent voices on the right are repudiating this meme. Would it be that this sows the seed of a broader reconsideration of their compatriots.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by grmce (March 05, 2010 11:14 pm ET)
         
      The proposition put forward by these malicious creatures - that of accusing legal counsel of complicity in the alleged actions of their clients - is an outright attack on the right to due process of law that is, in the context of US constitutional law as well as internationally, a universal human right.

      This is very clearly the road to totalitarianism.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Cash (March 06, 2010 11:26 pm ET)
         
      Another fine example of The Post’s neo-con slant, especially on foreign policy matters (as Foser and Shah both suggest,) made the pages on Thursday, March 4. Here’s the link:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030303477.html?sub=AR

      Needless to say, the editorial presents an extremely pro-UK slant. Even more worrisome, however, is that it contains at least one factual blunder, and a host of observations that stray far from the truth. Curiously, the author is anonymous.
      #1) “…the islands…lie about 400 miles off Argentina's southern coast.” (id) The Falklands rest about 480 kilometers off Argentina’s shores. That’s 300 miles, not 400. Unsurprisingly, the author neglects to mention that they are also about 8,000 miles from English soil.
      #2) The article refers to alleged U.S. neutrality on the Falklands issue as its “traditional policy.” Yet, during the height of Argentine-British tension, the Falkland Islands War of 1982, “U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced that the United States would prohibit arms sales to Argentina and provide material support for British operations. Both Houses of the U.S. Congress passed resolutions supporting the U.S. action siding with the United Kingdom.” (wikipedia.com) Does that sound like “studied neutrality,” as the author puts it?
      3) “The weirdness lies in the fact that there is no modern history of an Argentine connection to the "Malvinas," as they are called in Buenos Aires.” (id) In fact, Argentina held control from 1820-1833, when its settlers were expelled by the British, it never relinquished its claim on the islands, it was the provider of the islands’ energy needs throughout the 70s, it constructed the first airfield there and flew its first flights, and on and on. (wikipedia) There is no “weirdness” in Argentina’s claim on the Malvinas. If there is weirdness, it’s in the UK’s stubborn claim on islands that lie so close to Argentina’s shores that they are within her continental shelf, and very nearly within her exclusive economic zone. For the record, my belief is that neither claim is “weird” per se. That’s the measured outlook on this unhappy situation in the south Atlantic, but you won’t find it in this biased, misleading editorial. If Argentina’s claim is so weird, how to explain its support by 32 nations? All other nations but the UK are silent or neutral.
      Unfortunately, the editorial has been picked up by several other news organizations. It’s all over the internet. We would be well-served to substitute real news for this bunk.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by doggeddem (March 07, 2010 9:39 am ET)
         
      So let me get this straight. These are the same pigs who for eight years insisted that to criticize the unelected president for waging an unnecessary war in Iraq, which got 4000 American GI's killed, as "aiding and abetting the enemy," are now criticizing the legitimate commander in chief. Gee, I guess we were right all along. They really do HATE America. Why isn't this traitor being locked up and sent to GITMO as an enemy combatant?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by hemustbehigh (March 07, 2010 3:24 pm ET)
           
        So let me get THIS straight:

        You're defending bad behavior with examples of other bad behavior?

        No matter how intelligent your arguement is, it's rendered invalid by those actions. However, I'm sure the current administration has a czar position available for you ;0)
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.