Fox News personalities accuse DOJ of sympathizing with terrorists
Numerous Fox News personalities have accused the Department of Justice (DOJ) of sympathizing with terrorists, citing reports that nine DOJ attorneys had previously represented or advocated for terrorism suspects in their private practices. Monica Crowley and Steve Doocy accused the lawyers of being "terrorist sympathizers" and being "sympathetic" to terrorists, respectively, and Michelle Malkin asked whether the DOJ has "jihadis' best interests at heart."
Fox News figures suggest DOJ lawyers sympathize with terrorists
Fox & Friends co-host Doocy wonders if DOJ lawyers are "sympathetic to the Al Qaeda cause." During the February 22 edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy stated: "At least nine of President Obama's appointees to the Department of Justice have either represented Gitmo detainees -- they were their attorneys -- or advocated for Gitmo detainees." The Fox & Friends discussion continued:
DOOCY: And this is extraordinary. Debra Burlingame, whose brother was killed on 9-11, says, "It's like they're bringing Al Qaeda lawyers inside the Department of Justice."
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): Senator [Chuck] Grassley [R-IA] said, "Hey, I'm just curious, Attorney General Holder. Who is -- who are your appointees, and what are their backgrounds?" It took them three months to get this memo back. And when it's all said and done, five defended Gitmo detainees and four -- what's the term they used?
ALISYN CAMEROTA (guest co-host): Amicus brief. I think it means "friend of the court." They filed a brief on behalf of them.
KILMEADE: So, you would say, advocate in their cause.
CAMEROTA: Well, yes. Or you could also say this is -- these are just defense attorneys doing their job. You know, defense attorneys don't shy away from doing the hardest cases of mafiosos or suspected terrorists or mass murderers. In some ways, that's what they went to school for.
DOOCY: Right, but --
CAMEROTA: They believe in giving them defense. That's what they would say --
DOOCY: Sure.
CAMEROTA: -- and that's what Eric Holder has said. He says, "Look, we'll be able to gain from their expertise when they come inside the Department of Justice. Who knows what's going on in Gitmo better" --
DOOCY: Right.
CAMEROTA: -- "than these people?" So, that's the argument on the other side.
DOOCY: And you -- and the argument continues, you know, if they represented these guys, are they sympathetic to the Al Qaeda cause?
Fox News contributor Crowley says DOJ is "relatively stocked" with "terrorist sympathizers." During the February 23 edition of America Live, Crowley stated, "[I]t seems that we have a DOJ that is relatively stocked with what could be assumed to be terrorist sympathizers, because if you think enough of these Guantánamo Bay detainees to represent them, what does that tell you about where these people are coming from?" Host Megyn Kelly subsequently stated, "[Y]ou can argue that's what you get paid to do. Argue both sides," and asked, "Is there evidence here of the couple he -- we know of, they're true believers. They're not soulless lawyers. They actually believe that these terrorist suspects down in Gitmo are the wronged parties." Crowley responded:
Exactly right. We're talking about some very far-left activists here who have taken on the cause of these Guantánamo Bay detainees as a cause célèbre, as a legal cause célèbre.
Fox News contributor Malkin suggests DOJ has "jihadis' best interests ... at heart." During the February 25 edition of Fox & Friends, Malkin stated, "It raises all sorts of conflicts of interest questions, and, more importantly, national security questions." She continued: "I think that the American people have a right to know whether the people who are working for them in the government are people who have the jihadis' best interests, and not our best interests, at heart." Doocy responded that the attorneys would probably say they are not sympathetic to the terrorism suspects.
The Fox Nation: "Department of Jihad?" The Fox Nation featured the headline "DOJ: Department of Jihad?" and linked to an Investor's Business Daily editorial. The IBD editorial stated:
The Justice Department employs nine lawyers previously involved in the defense of terrorist detainees. This is a colossal conflict of interest. Just whose side are they on?
From The Fox Nation, accessed February 25:
Yes, applying the Constitution to Terrorist can be a Burden.
Because America stands for Truth & Justice even when it Hurts.
To be an American means to stand for something even while the Terrorist treat us like Dirt.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Hmmm. I thought they were entitled to representation, even in a military tribunal. So they are sympathetic to jihadists because they followed American law and represented someone who was accused?
Hmmm. I thought they were entitled to representation, even in a military tribunal. So they are sympathetic to jihadists because they followed American law and represented someone who was accused?
Great example. John Adams didn't just mouth platitudes about U. S. principles and values. He acted on them and brought them to life and made them really meaningful. And so does any defense attorney giving representation to those we find hateful.
I am just not following the logic of my (former) party.
The likes of Doocy, Camarota, Crowley, Malkin and many others publicly state or at a minimum suggest that that the DOJ and the Obama administration in general are symapathizing with the terrorists. We heard claims like this for years during the Bush/Cheney tenure from across the spectrum of right wingers against anyone who would question the tactics or motives of those prosecuting "the war on terror"
It would seem to me that these claims themselves would actually give aid and comfort to the enemy! Similarly, would not the tactics used and the war crimes committed greatly fuel the propaganda machine of the enemy? Why would that not constitute providing material support to Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations? - Violations of US law.
Simplistic or realistic?