About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Did Thiessen suggest DOJ lawyers are comparable to Tom Hagen?

March 09, 2010 10:37 pm ET by Adam Shah

In his March 8 Washington Post column, Marc Thiessen made a series of false and misleading attacks in an attempt to defend the witch hunt against Department of Justice lawyers who represented terror suspects in U.S. courts. One other argument Thiessen made also leaps out at me: Thiessen compares the DOJ lawyers who represented detainees to "mob lawyers." Thiessen wrote:

Would most Americans want to know if the Justice Department had hired a bunch of mob lawyers and put them in charge of mob cases? Or a group of drug cartel lawyers and put them in charge of drug cases? Would they want their elected representatives to find out who these lawyers were, which mob bosses and drug lords they had worked for, and what roles they were now playing at the Justice Department? Of course they would -- and rightly so.

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder hired former al-Qaeda lawyers to serve in the Justice Department and resisted providing Congress this basic information. In November, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Holder a letter requesting that he identify officials who represented terrorists or worked for organizations advocating on their behalf, the cases and projects they worked on before coming to the Justice Department, the cases and projects they've worked on since joining the administration, and a list of officials who have recused themselves because of prior work on behalf of terrorist detainees.

When someone uses the phrase "mob lawyers," what comes to mind? The first image that I thought of was that of Tom Hagen, the attorney (or consigliere) for the Corleone crime family in the Godfather saga. Hagen was intimately involved in the Corleones' crimes. It turns out that so-called "mob lawyers" have been convicted themselves for criminal activities. Of course, there is no evidence that the lawyers Thiessen is targeting have been involved in any criminal activity.

I don't mean to suggest that people accused of being involved in organized crime aren't entitled to an attorney. They are. And lawyers who have representing a person accused in an organized crime case should not be disqualified from joining the Department of Justice and being "put ... in charge of mob cases."

But Thiessen did not refer simply to "lawyers who represent defendants in organized crime cases"; he used the phrase "mob lawyers," with all the suggestion of criminality that that loaded term entails.

It also bears noting that The Washington Post itself has condemned the people involved in the attacks on the DOJ lawyers for acting as if those lawyers "had committed a crime:"

It is an effort to smear the Obama administration and the reputations of Justice Department lawyers who, before joining the administration, acted in the best traditions of this country by volunteering to take on the cases of suspected terrorists. They now find themselves the target of a video demanding that they be identified, as if they had committed a crime or needed to be exposed for subverting national security.

[...]

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.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by 1st Republic 14th Star (March 09, 2010 11:25 pm ET)
      7  
      I just listened to Thiessen try to make the same stupid point on The Daily Show. This guy is so obtuse I couldn't listen to him, so I changed the channel. He's clearly a congenital liar. I'll enjoy watching the Washington Post continue trying to defend hiring him for their Op-Ed page.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by leftofwhat (March 10, 2010 12:00 am ET)
        7  
        I kind of enjoyed the chat with Stewart.Thiessen was outclassed and I think he knew it.The right is falling apart piece by piece.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by princeofwheels (March 10, 2010 12:04 am ET)
        6  
        Watched the show also...this man will do anything to prove HIS point. He was coming a little agitated by Stewarts' questions.

        If anyone needs to see it, it is worth your time..this man is a typical Con writng for money. He is probably more comfortable behind his keyboard trying to destroy people. I don't think he will attempt to huck his book with any lib questioners.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (March 10, 2010 12:09 am ET)
          7  
          Stewart didn't let him talk over him . . . that's what they do. They are given their opportunity to answer a question, but when anyone makes an attempt to refute what has been said, they start talking over them. That's what Liz Cheney does. She never really says anything, but she doesn't allow anyone else to say anything, either.

          Thiessen sounded like a big baby when the show ended. Whining because he didn't get enough time to spew his crap.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by princeofwheels (March 10, 2010 1:42 am ET)
            4  
            I'm not so sure that Liz Cheney can go off script. I don't think she can hold up to good journalistic questioning. Has she ever proven herself capable without the cloak of her daddy?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by dmhack (March 10, 2010 3:39 am ET)
            5  
            Totally agree, bintx.
            He was a total whining little baby if he thought Stewart treated him unfairly. Did he think that Stewart would just sit idly by while he spewed his nonsense?
            All I saw was a chubby chickenhawk happy to let others do the heavy lifting.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Leftylib (March 10, 2010 7:29 am ET)
                 
              It's incredible to me that anyone who calls himself or herself an American would suggest that attorneys should be harrassed or ridiculed for simply representing an accused person. And that is what the detainees in Gitmo are: accused persons. These right wing nuts are comically putting the cart before the horse, in saying that the lawyers in question represented "terrorists". Many of the individuals at Gitmo have not been convicted of any crime. When they are brought to trial, perhaps they will be. But until then, they are simply "accused". That's the way it works in a free society, based upon law and justice.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by Midnight Kevin (March 10, 2010 9:40 am ET)
        7  
        John Stewart was an excellent interviewer. Thiessen felt steamrolled, and Stewart did interrupt a bit, but it was well deserved. Especially Thiessen's assertion that America was safe for 7 years with Bush, and proceeded to cite various attacks such as the USS Cole. Stewart snapped back citing London bombings, Afghanistan, Iraq (He could have included the 2004 Madrid bombing too)...

        Unlike other pundits, it seems Stewart asks the hard hitting questions and he doesn't let misinformation slip through...
        ----------------------------
        The Midnight Review
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (March 10, 2010 9:58 am ET)
          5  
          Yeah, I laughed out loud when Stewart made the comment that we weren't attacked ON AMERICAN SOIL [which is what Thiessen had said] for 7 years after the first WTC attack and Thiessen pulled out the talking points. None of those attacks mentioned by Thiessen were on "American Soil."

          Thiessen was OWNED by Stewart. He knew it, that's why he was whining.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by cmhmd (March 10, 2010 11:22 am ET)
        4  
        The funniest part was Stewart trying to get him to understand that because "A" led to "X", that if "A" hadn't happened, "X" wouldn't happen another way.

        Obviously not familiar with the parallel worlds or alternative universes idea, is he? Or, more likely, just a concrete operational thinker. Seems there was a lot of that in the Cheney administration.

        And also trying to get him to understand the concept of unintended consequences re: Afghanistan was pretty sad also.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by bilbo_dies (March 10, 2010 8:36 am ET)
      5  
      Yet Attorney General Eric Holder hired former al-Qaeda lawyers to serve in the Justice Department and resisted providing Congress this basic information.

      Ah, the little lie turned large.

      The last thing I knew, none of these lawyers ever worked for Al-Qaeda.
      Did they represent a suspect who may, or may not, have been afiliated with Al-Qaeda? Yup, pretty sure of that.

      This type of charge is a specious as arguing that a lawyer is guilty of murder, just because he represented a murder suspect in court.
      Report Abuse