About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fox continues "shameful" attacks on DOJ lawyers who defended terror suspects

March 05, 2010 11:06 am ET — 125 Comments

Fox & Friends again attacked the Department of Justice for hiring lawyers who previously represented terror suspects or supported their legal arguments. But as a FoxNews.com article has noted, Bush administration lawyers also represented Guantánamo Bay detainees before working for the Justice Department, and several past Bush and Clinton DOJ officials have called these attacks "shameful" and "wrong."

Fox & Friends attacks DOJ lawyers who have defended terror suspects

Carlson: "It's almost like it was a job requirement to have defended" a terrorist. On the March 5 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson said of the Justice Department lawyers, "It's almost like it was a job requirement to have defended a" terrorist. She then asked, "Seriously, when somebody finally exposes this, this is trouble, is it not?"

Kilmeade: "What should we know when nine Department of Justice lawyers ... were involved in advocating for Al Qaeda terrorists?" During the March 5 Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade asked guest Andrew McCarthy of National Review Online: "What should we know when nine Department of Justice lawyers are involved -- they're hired right now -- were involved in advocating for Al Qaeda terrorists when they were at Gitmo before they got this job, when President Bush was in the White House." McCarthy replied, in part: "Well, obviously I think the fact that they voluntarily represented America's enemies is something to be very concerned about if they're now in the position of making counterterrorism policy."

But as Fox has previously reported, Bush DOJ also hired lawyers who represented terror suspects

March 3 FoxNews.com article: "Obama Administration is not the first to hire lawyers who represented or advocated for terror suspects." In a March 3 article about lawyers currently working for DOJ who previously represented terror suspects or supported their legal arguments, FoxNews.com reported that "[t]he Obama Administration is not the first to hire lawyers who represented or advocated for terror suspects." From the FoxNews.com article:

A day after a conservative group released a video condemning the Justice Department for refusing to identify seven lawyers who previously represented or advocated for terror suspects, Fox News has uncovered the identities of the seven lawyers.

The names were confirmed by a Justice Department spokesman, who said "politics has overtaken facts and reality" in a tug-of-war over the lawyers' identities.

[...]

The Obama Administration is not the first to hire lawyers who represented or advocated for terror suspects.

Pratik Shah, an assistant to the Solicitor General hired by the Bush Administration, was part of the WilmerHale team that put together arguments for the Boumediene v. Bush case.

Trisha Anderson, an adviser in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel who was also hired by the Bush Administration, was previously an attorney at Attorney General Eric Holder's former firm, Covington & Burling, where she helped represent 13 Yemeni detainees.

Varda Hussain, an attorney hired in 2008 with the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, was an associate with the Washington-based firm Venable when she helped represent three Egyptians being held at Guantanamo Bay.

"Varda has spent over 500 hours in the past year fighting to bring due process to our clients," a firm newsletter said in 2006.

Former Bush, Clinton officials criticize attacks on DOJ lawyers as "shameful," "wrong," "outrageous," "cheap shots"

Former head of OLC Walter Dellinger slams attacks on DOJ lawyers as "shameful." In a March 5 Washington Post op-ed, Walter Dellinger, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration, wrote 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.

Former Bush administration official Peter D. Keisler reportedly says it's "wrong" to attack DOJ lawyers . The New York Times reported on March 4 that former Bush administration official Peter D. Keisler, "who led the Bush administration's courtroom defense against lawsuits filed by Guantanamo detainees is denouncing attacks on Obama administration appointees who previously helped such prisoners challenge their indefinite detention without trial." The article further stated:

Peter D. Keisler, who was assistant attorney general for the civil division in the Bush administration, said in an interview that it was "wrong" to attack lawyers who volunteered to help such lawsuits before joining the Justice Department.

"There is a longstanding and very honorable tradition of lawyers representing unpopular or controversial clients," Mr. Keisler said. "The fact that someone has acted within that tradition, as many lawyers, civilian and military, have done with respect to people who are accused of terrorism -- that should never be a basis for suggesting that they are unfit in any way to serve in the Department of Justice."

Mr. Keisler spoke out one day after the Justice Department confirmed a Fox News report naming nine political appointees who had worked on detainee litigation before to joining the government. The department had declined to identify seven of those officials in response to a request by congressional Republicans.

Former Bush lawyer John Bellinger calls attacks "inappropriate" "cheap shots." On the March 4 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, during a report discussing the attacks on DOJ lawyers, former Bush administration lawyer John Bellinger said, "I think those sorts of cheap shots, suggesting that a lawyer who is simply defending a client somehow shares those views, are -- really are inappropriate." Bellinger also stated, "John Adams represented Tories who were accused of treason back in the revolution. This is the sort of work that we ought be applauding and not attacking."

Former military commissions prosecutor under Bush Col. Morris Davis reportedly calls attacks "outrageous." The Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman reported on March 2 that Air Force Col. Morris Davis (Ret.), who served as a chief prosecutor for the Office of Military Commissions during the Bush administration, called the attacks on the DOJ lawyers "absolutely outrageous." Referencing recent attacks on DOJ officials Neal Katyal and Jennifer Daskal, Morris reportedly said, "It is absolutely outrageous ... to try to tar and feather Neal and Jennifer and insinuate they are al-Qaeda supporters." From Ackerman's Washington Independent post:

"Neal in particular was and is one of the sharpest and hardest-working attorneys I've known in the 27 years I've been practicing law," said Davis, who supervised prosecutions at Guantanamo from 2005 to 2007. "It is absolutely outrageous for the Cheney-Grassley crowd to try to tar and feather Neal and Jennifer and insinuate they are al-Qaeda supporters. You don't hear anyone refer to John Adams as a turncoat for representing the Brits in the Boston Massacre trial." Davis, of course, opposed Katyal on the famous case of Guantanamo Bay detainee Salim Ahmed Hamdan's habeas corpus rights -- a case that Katyal won in the Supreme Court, striking down the first iteration of the military commissions. "He was the epitome of professionalism, and I can't say that about a lot of the folks involved" in the commissions, Davis continued.

"If you zealously represent a client, there's nothing shameful about that," said the retired Air Force colonel. "That's the American way."

Former Bush lawyer Reginald Brown calls attacks "beyond a cheap shot." According to a March 4 Washington Post article, former Bush lawyer Reginald Brown stated, "It's beyond a cheap shot to suggest that a lawyer is an al-Qaeda sympathizer because he advocates a detainee's position in the Supreme Court."

Wash. Post, CNN legal analyst criticize attacks on DOJ

Washington Post: "Attacks are an effort to smear the Obama administration and the reputations of Justice Department lawyers." A March 5 Washington Post editorial called the attacks on the DOJ lawyers "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." The editorial continued, "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."

CNN legal analyst Bloom: "We should not be conducting a witch hunt into what people as attorneys did before they came to the DOJ." During the March 5 edition of The Situation Room, CNN legal analyst Lisa Bloom stated: "We shouldn't be conducting a witch hunt into what people as attorneys did before they came to the DOJ. If you want to ask them what their values are, whether they are loyal to the policies that they are working on, fine. But who they represented in their past lives as attorneys is entirely irrelevant."

Attorney assisted in detainee case at request of DOD

Dellinger: DOD official requested assistance in detainee case. In his March 5 Washington Post op-ed, Dellinger detailed "the story of one of those" DOJ lawyers who came to represent detainees at the request of Bush Department of Defense officials:

In June 2007, I was at a federal judicial conference when I received an urgent message to call the Defense Department. The caller was Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler, a uniformed Navy officer who had been detailed to the Office of Military Commissions. As part of his military duties, Kuebler had been assigned to represent Omar Khadr, a Guantanamo detainee who was to be tried before a military commission. Kuebler told me that the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed that day to review the case of another detainee who had been a part of the same lower court proceeding as Khadr. Because Kuebler's client had not sought review at the Supreme Court, this situation raised some complex questions of court practice with which Kuebler was unfamiliar. Kuebler's military superior suggested he call me and ask whether I could assist him in analyzing the applicable Supreme Court rule.

It was a Friday night. I called Karl Thompson, a lawyer at my firm who had previously been a Supreme Court law clerk, and asked whether he could look into the question over the weekend. I told Thompson that the military lawyers assigned to these cases had a very burdensome workload and that it seemed that Kuebler could really use our help. Even though Thompson was extremely busy with other work at the firm, he said he would somehow find time for this as well.

Over the next several months, Thompson (in addition to his other firm work) provided assistance to Kuebler and his Defense Department colleague in their briefing before the Supreme Court and, in Khadr's case, the lower courts. Khadr's case raises important questions, including the legal status of juvenile detainees (he was 15 years old at the time of capture). In 2009, Thompson left our firm to join the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.

Thompson's assistance to the military officers who had been assigned to Khadr's case seemed to me to be not only part of a lawyer's professional obligation but a small act of patriotism as well. The other Justice Department lawyers named in this week's attack came to provide assistance to detainees in a number of ways, but they all deserve our respect and gratitude for fulfilling the professional obligations of lawyers.

Fox & Friends has previously suggested DOJ lawyers sympathize with terrorists

Doocy wondered if DOJ lawyers are "sympathetic to the Al Qaeda cause." During the February 22 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy stated of the Justice Department lawyers, "And the argument continues, you know, if they represented these guys, are they sympathetic to the Al Qaeda cause?"

Malkin suggested DOJ has "jihadis' best interests ... at heart." During the February 25 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Michelle 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.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (March 05, 2010 11:13 am ET)
      8 1
      These people cannot fathom how it's possible to be motivated by something other than rigid political ideology...because every thing they say or do is motivated by blind ideology.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 12:45 pm ET)
        1 7
        Obviously you are refering to the islamo-fascist-terrorists...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by John Paradox (March 05, 2010 12:47 pm ET)
          3  
          AKA Fox News.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (March 05, 2010 2:17 pm ET)
          6 2
          There is no such thing as an islamofascist . . . it's a made up term which by its nature is a contradiction.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by trelan1701 (March 06, 2010 9:19 pm ET)
              1
            I dunno, it more or less fits. Islamic rule using a extremely rigid interpretation of holy law that suppresses all forms of dissent (including other, more liberal, interpretations of scripture) using violence while seeking to expand through war.

            Seems a fairly accurate description of what the hard core radicals want.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by progressivevoicedaily (March 05, 2010 11:16 am ET)
      14 1
      This blows me away. Our entire system is set up to make sure their is justice for ALL. The right wing is getting very scary, actually starting to act like the very thing they claim to be against. They want to control the way we think. To suggest that someone may be sympathetic because they defended someone ensuring a fair trial is beyond the pail. So if a laywer defends a child molester he's cleary a supporter of NAMBLA??? Or a lawyer who defends cops accused of police brutality, are they suggesting those lawyers would be supportive of the police beating people up?? Get real...the American people are starting to see all of this for what it really is.....RACISM!!!!!!!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (March 05, 2010 12:09 pm ET)
        9 1
        Like I've said before, they are the traitors here. They reject findings by our own US Supreme Court if they don't like the decision. They think that the standards we have set in the past, like not torturing, don't matter, when they do. They can't understand how the USA not torturing is about how WE should behave, not at all about how those terrorist organizations might behave. They don't get how it hurts the USA when we ignore those standards we should uphold.

        Standards like all persons tried by the USA are innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! Even if we "know" they're guilty, they're still entitled to the best defense they can get. To protect the rights of everyone, we need to give those rights to everyone!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by marco21 (March 05, 2010 12:13 pm ET)
          10 2
          Totally agree. The right wing have certainly earned their nickname, the American Taliban. They're against the democratic process and our justice system and they have a "news" network spreading propaganda and lies, actively working against the President of the United States.

          Treason, anyone?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 12:54 pm ET)
          1 7
          Now just wait one second. Didn't you, dolly, strongly object to the most recent Supreme Court decision striking down the illegal law preventing corporations from exercising their right to free speech as outlined by the first amendment???

          Didn't like that decision huh?, Objected huh? You have NO CLUE what torture is. NONE.

          BTW - they are entitled to the BEST defense they can PAY for. Other than that they SHOULD get run of the mill public defenders like the rest of us..

          _troll - just thought I'd save you the trouble of starting down that diversionary road...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (March 05, 2010 1:46 pm ET)
            6 1
            You have NO CLUE what torture is. NONE

            Torture is specifically defined in the laws that prohibit it.

            I recommend that you read up on it.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 1:57 pm ET)
              2 9
              And just what proof is there that "torture" ever happened under Bush... None...
              Report Abuse
              • Author by bintx (March 05, 2010 2:22 pm ET)
                8 1
                Actually, you are incorrect [how unusual]. They have admitted using waterboarding. Waterboarding is recognized as torture by the laws of this country. People have been prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned IN THIS COUNTRY for the crime of waterboarding/torture. The last time it was prosecuted was by the Reagan DOJ. It is also universally considered torture by the international community.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 8:20 pm ET)
                  2 8
                  Waterboarding IS not and NEVER has been torture... I have been waterboarded, didn't like but NOT torture... back up your claim that it is or was "illegal"... not true....
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by dkylep (March 05, 2010 10:10 pm ET)
                    9  
                    No, you haven't been water-boarded. Because if you had, you'd have realized the fact that it is torture.
                    Under International Law, specifically the Geneva Conventions and The United Nations Convention against Torture, both of which the United States has signed. In the case of the Geneva Conventions it is a high contracting party, which means that the government in America agrees that they are required by their own law to enforce the provisions.

                    Perhaps you're referring to the Bybee Memo? The one that the Yoo authored and Bybee signed? The one that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, medical experts in the treatment of torture victims, intelligence officials, military judges, and American allies, as well as the United Nations all agree is legally defective. The one that the head of the OLC, Jack Goldsmith, said were legally defective and had to be withdrawn? You're going to claim that all those people are wrong? That the Geneva Conventions are wrong?

                    Oh, yeah, about the claim that waterboarding isn't and hasn't ever been torture:

                    The airmen who participated in the Doolittle Raid in WWII were asked to testify at the trials of their Japanese captors for War Crimes. In the list of war crimes submitted in the case, waterboarding was classified by the judges in the case as 'torture by application of water.' I suppose that those judges (including the U.S. ones) were wrong? It must never have happened that they classified waterboarding as torture, hmm? Or maybe the airmen testifying were all lying, right? That's your answer? What they experienced wasn't actual waterboarding?
                    According to Chase Neilson, one of the airmen,

                    "Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again... I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death."

                    Hmm. Waterboarding. Damn. So much for the claim that waterboarding hasn't ever been considered torture, right?

                    Well, maybe you can say that more recent examples show that waterboarding isn't torture, right, since it's been shown that is actually HAS been considered as torture, by United States justices no less (as well as the rest of the world and the high contracting signatories to the Geneva Conventions).

                    In the Vietnam war the process was designated as illegal by U.S. generals. When the Washington Post produced a photo of an American participating in the waterboarding torture of a North Vietnamese captive (Jan. 21, 1968) the soldier was court-martialled within a month. Hmm. Maybe later in history it won't be considered torture, right OTP?

                    A texas sheriff was convicted and sent to prison in the 1980s (I can't remember his name at the moment, I think it was 'James' something) for using waterboarding to force confessions from people. Whoops, right OTP? Illegal again.

                    In it's 2005 report on Tunisia, the United States recognized waterboarding as torture. Guess when it's Tunisia doing it, it must be okay to refer to it as such, right OTP?

                    On May 16, the U.N.C.A.T. demanded the U.S. stop their "ill-treatment" of prisoners, since such treatment violated international law.

                    The US Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that, contrary to what the Bush administration advocated, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to all detainees in the war on terrorism and as such the Military Tribunals used to try suspects were violating the law. The Court reaffirmed that those involved in mistreatment of detainees violate US and international law.

                    Damn, right OTP. So what's that about not having 'proof' or 'evidence'?

                    You're a jackass, and an ignorant and evil one to boot. You happily condemn other human beings to what has ALWAYS been classified as torture, both historically and recently.

                    Post again jackass. Demonstrate your utter lack of empathy and intelligence so that I can rip your errors (I'd call them 'opinions' but that would indicate that you had some thought behind them, which you don't) apart again.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by marco21 (March 05, 2010 5:59 pm ET)
                5 2
                And just what proof is there that "torture" ever happened under Bush... None... ---OTP

                Why does the right wing constantly mock our country by playing ridiculous games like "What torture?" when the evidence to the contrary is irrefutable.

                Will you guys please take our nation seriously.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 9:16 pm ET)
                  2 6
                  Proof, it'ds one of those things you left-wing nuts never care about.... Never....
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by dkylep (March 05, 2010 10:13 pm ET)
                    5  
                    Go ahead and respond to the post above then. Please. Apparently you are so ignorant that you neglected to do basic research about your topic. You simply took your jackboot marching orders from the nice little Republithug talking points on Becky's show, Blimpaugh's show, and Fox News in general.

                    "Proof"; it's something you ignore because it doesn't fit your little fascist jackboot marching music.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (March 06, 2010 2:01 pm ET)
                      4  
                      And he attempted a very lame attempt at lying and telling us he had been waterboarded. Is OTP Sean Hannity?
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (March 06, 2010 8:34 am ET)
                    3  
                    When presented with facts you respond like a child with insults. You appear irrational. Dkylep don't hold your breath for a response this is just another nut with a computer and keyboard trying to silence the voices in its head.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by dkylep (March 06, 2010 10:27 am ET)
                      3  
                      No, you're likely right there Congero. He won't respond again. Beyond enraging that some little punk who thinks that politics is about his chosen party 'winning' can denigrate the sacrifices and hurt suffered by people I'm familiar with personally.

                      I suppose I'm a lesser person for admitting it, but I'd love for OTP to actually get some of the treatment he's so blithely advocating for others. Then he can have the joy of having some little rat's ass saying that what he suffered wasn't really torture and listen to somebody who is willingly ignorant.

                      What a way to cheapen the sacrifices made by those who've fought to prevent such things in our world OTP; you remain intentionally ignorant, all because you want your precious political party to seem 'right'.
                      Report Abuse
          • Author by Reinhard (March 05, 2010 5:00 pm ET)
            5 1
            The Constitution gives corporations the right to free speech? Huh, silly me! So I guess that whole right-wing mantra about the Constitution being about INDIVIDUAL rights is nonsense? Please cite the section of the Constitution wherein the rights of Corporate entities is discussed.I have a copy of the Constitution right here, ready to look it up.

            The lawyers representing many of these people are doing so for free. It's called PRO-BONO and as a member of the bar, all lawyers are supposed to do pro-bono work. But right wingers wouldn't know about helping their fellow man. They only care about themselves, IMHO.

            P.S. Why do you hate America? I mean, you could always take the advice of your brethren and Love it or Leave It.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 8:28 pm ET)
              1 6
              Boy, you are a flippin idiot. Corporations are made up of INDIVIDUALS, just like labor unions... INDIVIDUALS duh?? what country you from.... AND they have the RIGHT to free speech whether YOU like it or NOT.... So your clever little "love it or leave it is just right on... don't let the door hit you in the rear on your way out...

              Well, I think it's interesting that the "pro-bono" bleeding heart anti-America lawyers choose to help terrorists instead of the everyday person, down on his luck... get real... Most conservatives are more likely to help people in REAL need and leave the fascist-terrorist to the run of the mill public defenders.

              Attack, spin, attack, spin. that's all you folks can do, attack, spin
              Report Abuse
              • Author by MoMoll (March 06, 2010 1:07 pm ET)
                   
                Does the littel guy in a Corporation have a say? NO! They arrive with pink slips, saying, "Your fired!". So where do you get the idea that corporationds are made of individuals? It's the CEO and TOP managers who make the money OFF the backs of the 'Grunts". Without the worker "Bees" the "Queeen" (i.e. CEO, would starve). This id not liberalism or socialism, it's a FACT.
                Henri Ford realised (WAY BACK) that traeting his workers right would mean they had the money to buy his cars, so the company would prosper. Presently, with trading on commodities, etc. companies don't care about those who help pay thier salary! THE WORKERS!
                Get a life!
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Johaely (March 06, 2010 5:33 pm ET)
                1  
                Just because corporations are made of individuals doesn't mean it is an individual. it'll be just like calling a hive a bee, because its made by individual bees.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 06, 2010 9:18 pm ET)
                    2
                  SCOTUS says otherwise.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Johaely (March 07, 2010 9:59 am ET)
                    1  
                    The SCOTUS also allows women to get abortions.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (March 07, 2010 2:14 pm ET)
                       
                    No, the US Supreme Court did NOT say that corporations are individuals. They said that they can be treated like individuals in some circumstances.

                    You're a doofus who can't understand that simple difference it appears.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by Tinytony (March 07, 2010 12:49 am ET)
                   
                Do you realize that with your position all the government would have to do is accuse someone of being a terrorist and they are held without in process to determine if the accusations is true?
                Report Abuse
      • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 12:47 pm ET)
        2 7
        oh no, I mostly agree with you, HOWEVER pulling out the race card is, lets just say not smart...
        Report Abuse
          • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 1:57 pm ET)
            1 7
            proof from above - Get real...the American people are starting to see all of this for what it really is.....RACISM!!!!!!!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by progressivevoicedaily (March 05, 2010 2:57 pm ET)
              6 1
              I'm willing to bet you haven't got many friends OTP.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 8:29 pm ET)
                1 4
                OK, take you up on that one progressivevoicedaily, more PROJECTION, well I do feel sorry for you....
                Report Abuse
            • Author by progressivevoicedaily (March 05, 2010 3:01 pm ET)
              5 1
              It's pretty sad when it has to come to a 31 year old white male in Northern Illinois calling out the racism for what it truly is. Unfortunately I have nut jobs just like you in my family I have to deal with too. You may think your all inclusive and "love everyone like the good christian you are", but your more than willing to forward the racist joke about Obama, or monkeys or whatever the hell else amuses you. I just call it like I see it, and I'm willing to bet If I saw OTP it wouldn't be hard to call that out either.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 8:34 pm ET)
                1 2
                Well tell me, just what is racism, whatever YOU don't like.. I can't help it if your family is full of nut jobs... That is YOUR problem.

                I am not, and never have been christian. So that just shows you exactly how much you know. For that matter I'm not republican either....

                And which racist jokes have I ever told, forwarded? You clearly are PROJECTING..

                I bet you can't even NAME the RACES.. you have a very active imagination, aka the "race" card, pull it when you got nothing better, over and over again... Try something REAL for once...
                Report Abuse
          • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 1:59 pm ET)
            1 4
            You my friend obviously have the left-wing nutter definition of racism... You pulling out the card doesn't show or prove anything, yelling louder and long, same.... PROJECTION is more like it...
            Report Abuse
          • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 2:01 pm ET)
            2 4
            I guess that just proves it, all you can do is be obscene in response... YOU are the PROJECTING racist.... RACIST....
            Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (March 05, 2010 2:22 pm ET)
          3 2
          I wouldn't be questioning other folks' intelligence, OTP.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 8:35 pm ET)
            2 3
            I'm glad you wouldn't question other folks intelligence, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on...
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 05, 2010 2:41 pm ET)
        3 8
        It wouldn't surprise me if Holder and Obama were NAMBLA supporters. WHo knows what is inside their sick twisted minds?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Johaely (March 05, 2010 6:06 pm ET)
          6 1
          Says so the guy who joked about Harry Reid beating his wife.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Conchobhar (March 05, 2010 8:00 pm ET)
          2 2
          "It wouldn't surprise me," if BJF was a serial killer. "Who knows what is inside (his)sick, twisted mind?"

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Conchobhar (March 06, 2010 12:13 am ET)
            1  
            Assuming, BJF, that you posted the thumb down, how does it feel to be the target of a completely irresponsible, unbased (though biased) smear?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 06, 2010 9:17 pm ET)
                1
              I didn't post thumbs down. It doesn't bother me at all because I don't take you seriously.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Conchobhar (March 07, 2010 1:31 pm ET)
                1  
                I've got no problem with that, having seen what you do take seriously.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (March 07, 2010 2:15 pm ET)
                 
              OTP is a serial thumbs downer who has several sockpuppet identities where he'll go through and repeatedly thumb down some posts.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (March 05, 2010 11:29 am ET)
      7 1
      This is so stupid. Their arguments are completely ridiculous. It's kind of like saying that a criminal defense attorney who represents folks accused of murder approves of murder. STUPID and dangerous.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 8:40 pm ET)
        1 1
        NO, not even close... The question is WHY do the "high powered" lawyers get called in to defend the fascist-terrorists while the little guy gets stuck with the "public defender"... Why exactly do the fascist-terrorist trials cost so dang much... hint - high priced defense attorneys that WE pay for....

        It's a sick system that overlooks the little guy, and defends the fascist-terrorists with all we got.... SICK.

        and binty, who exactly said "This is so stupid. Their arguments are completely ridiculous. It's kind of like saying that a criminal defense attorney who represents folks accused of murder approves of murder."?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by trelan1701 (March 06, 2010 9:41 pm ET)
             
          It's called "high profile". Lawyers live for stuff like that, it can make a reputation. Not necessarily a big public reputation but one in the law community. Think of it as padding your resume with serious cases.

          Who would you rather have as a future judge? A rabid partisan or someone so even handed they'll defend any client to the best of their ability regardless of personal distaste. Someone who picks and chooses which laws apply or someone who enforces the law across the board?

          I know I'd want someone that can put their passion aside and make a clear headed ruling. Wouldn't you?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Reinhard (March 05, 2010 11:44 am ET)
      7 1
      Why do they hate America?
      Isn't the bedrock of our nation our judicial system that grants all people involved in a trial the right to a fair trail and competent representation?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 8:44 pm ET)
        1 2
        EXACTLY my point, WHY does the everyday guy on the street that "CAN'T AFFORD A LAWYER" get a run of the mill "public attorney" while the fascist-terrorists get SEVERAL high priced defense attorneys, paid for by US?? that's the question, FAIR???

        I can't believe you left-wing nutters that are always tooting your horn for the "little guy" think this is FAIR???

        I'll go one step further why do you "love" the fascist-terrorists so much you SUPPORT this UN-FAIR behavior???
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Kikabi (March 05, 2010 11:47 am ET)
      7 1
      This whole "Department of Jihad" thing infuriates me. Part of it is that they seem clueless to just how unAmerican, unpatriotic is to demonize these lawyers who were upholding some of our most important and cherished American principles and values by representing those Gitmo detainees!

      So, it pleases me greatly to know so many people are condemning what Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol have done. May their voices be heard loud and clear!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 05, 2010 2:43 pm ET)
        1 6
        A patriotic American would not represent the scum in Gitmo.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ilikeike (March 05, 2010 3:29 pm ET)
          5 1
          what about the "scum" arrested as terrorists but later found to be innocent. oh yeah they are all innocent until convicted!!!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Reinhard (March 05, 2010 4:15 pm ET)
          6 2
          Another America-hater speaks. Bobby Jindal fan, why do you hate America? Take the advice of your brethren- love it or leave it.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 06, 2010 9:19 pm ET)
              2
            We're taking it back starting this November and then in 2012 when he kick B Hussein's ass.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (March 05, 2010 4:16 pm ET)
          5 1
          Yeah, you're a tool. A NON-PATRIOTIC lawyer wouldn't want to honor our judicial system. A non-patriotic attorney would refuse to respect our laws and the findings of the US Supreme Court that ANY alleged defendent is entitled to competent defense attorneys.

          A patriotic American would step up to the plate and defend scum just like they defend innocent people accused of crimes. Everyone deserves adequate and appropriate defense in court.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by internet soldier (March 05, 2010 7:23 pm ET)
          4 2
          How do you know they're terrorists if you don't try them?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 8:45 pm ET)
          1 2
          Now that is really out of order, and sorry but palin wrong and I'm no left-wing nutter...
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Ruby (March 06, 2010 10:59 pm ET)
          3  
          John Adams was a lawyer. He defended British soldiers accused of murder in the Boston massacre. He later called this one of the most gallant actions of his life, and one of the greatest services he ever performed for his country.

          I guess John Adams wasn't a patriot, then.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 12:58 pm ET)
      1 5
      I'm curious, why do the islamo-fascist-terrorists, have a "RIGHT" to these HIGH PRICED "defense attorneys"? If it was a run of the mill person who couldn't afford an attorney, you know a down and out AMERICAN, he'd get an "off the street" public defender... This doesn't seem very "fair" to me...

      How about we dispense with the name calling and other obnoxious stuff and help me understand....

      ....just wondering. BTW I do think that they deserve competent defense...
      Report Abuse
        • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 2:02 pm ET)
          1 2
          Can you spell anything else.. It's a question... duh!"PROVE IT"!DUH
          Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (March 05, 2010 4:33 pm ET)
            1 2
            That is all vhw ever posts either prove it or you are wrong. I feel a prove it post is response to this post.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by vhw28672478 (March 05, 2010 4:47 pm ET)
            2  
            you prove it
            Report Abuse
            • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 8:46 pm ET)
              2 2
              I get it your just funny!, well maybe a little dim, but funny...

              I know, "prove it".. HeeHee
              Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (March 05, 2010 1:48 pm ET)
        3 1
        Let's compare terrorists to terrorists, not to some poor regular schmuck.

        I bet Timothy McVeigh had some high priced attorneys.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 2:11 pm ET)
          2 3
          Good point but I really don't know... but assume he did, Why is he or they different than the average Joe (American)...

          mcveigh is just as much a terrorist as KSM and the other fanatics.

          I guess I shouldn't be exclusionary by specifying islamo-fascist terrorists without include other fascist terrorists... But my question is still the same after your observation... why did mcveigh NOT get an "off the street" public defender...

          I actually have no preconceived idea... It just seems "odd" when justice is suppose to be blind and equal.

          I do also find it interesting to speculate on mcveighs defense, who did defend him... I suspect you are right tho??

          Report Abuse
          • Author by trelan1701 (March 06, 2010 9:56 pm ET)
            2  
            High profile cases require high powered lawyers because with some low level public defender there will a question of whether the terrorist received a fair trial and wasn't just railroaded.

            It's a matter of appearances. The justice system must be seen as impartial or it can't hold the confidence of the people.

            The more terrible the crime the more important it is that a proper defense is mounted to stave off any accusations of bias.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 05, 2010 2:44 pm ET)
          3 3
          Tim McVeigh was an American citizen and as such entitled to due process. KSM is not an American citizen. He is not a criminal either. He is an enemy combatant - he is no rights to due process. He has the right to be waterboarded.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by clams casino (March 05, 2010 3:14 pm ET)
            8 2
            He has the right to be waterboarded.


            Most idiotic statement I've read all day.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by ilikeike (March 05, 2010 3:32 pm ET)
            3 2
            why because the Bush admin said so ?you cant make up the rules as you go along and call it American justice
            Report Abuse
            • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 8:48 pm ET)
              3 2
              waterboarding is NOT torture, never has been, never will be. Calling something torture that isn't DOESN'T make it so... Just ask Pelosi, she approved it....
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Johaely (March 06, 2010 5:59 pm ET)
                1 1
                When did she approve of it? And if its not torture why have we prosecuted people for it and what is your stardard of torture? Visible body harm?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by trelan1701 (March 06, 2010 9:59 pm ET)
                1  
                So you're just going to ignore all the times we prosecuted and convicted people of waterboarding both here at home (Texas) and abroad (Vietnam)?

                If we send our own people to jail for water boarding, it's obvious we consider it a crime so you're argument holds no water (har har har).
                Report Abuse
          • Author by Kikabi (March 05, 2010 6:38 pm ET)
            5 1
            From the Declaration of Independence:

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

            This states two of America's most important principles: that all men - that is, people - are equal and that they are all born with the same rights. Note, it states all men - it makes no exceptions based on race or where one was born or what kind of criminal that person may or may not be (including "enemy combatants.) Neither does our Justice system.

            The American Constitution delineates many of these rights. Including:

            Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

            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 defence.


            The Constitution doesn't "give" people these rights, including the ones quoted above, nor can people be "given Constitutional rights" (no matter what Sarah Palin says.) People are born with these rights and the Constitution lists what many of these rights that people, including "enemy combatants", are born with are.

            You may not like it, but that is what our entire judicial system is based upon, and these are some of our most important principles. We turn our back on these, and we turn our back on the foundation of the USA. Which is definitely not a patriotic thing to do.

            Excuse the lecture, but I felt some of these things needed to be repeated as a reminder of what this is really all about.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (March 05, 2010 7:37 pm ET)
              3 1
              Thanks. A lot!
              Report Abuse
            • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 8:51 pm ET)
              2 2
              OK so given that what you say is true, exactly WHY do the fascist-terrorists get top of the line defense at our expense, when the average Joe get plain old fresh out of law school public defenders that has so many assigned clients he can't even remember them all???

              FAIR, that's what I'm questioning
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Kikabi (March 05, 2010 9:31 pm ET)
                3 1
                My understanding, which might be faulty, is that these lawyers did it pro bono, that is, they volunteered their time and energy, doing it for free. So it wasn't at "our expense." Why these particular lawyers were asked to do this, I don't know.



                Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (March 05, 2010 2:27 pm ET)
        3 1
        There is no such thing as an islamofascist. The terms are mutually exclusive. It is a made up term to appeal to uninformed, unintelligent, reactionary folks like you.

        Based upon your other posts here, you have no concept of the law. When lawyers are appointed by the courts . . . it usually doesn't matter whether they are high-priced or not. In Texas, for instance, we don't usually have "public defenders." The courts go down the list of criminal defense lawyers and appoint whomever is next on the list.

        You would do well to research the talking points you are posting before you post them. They make you look a little foolish.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 8:58 pm ET)
          1 2
          well blinky, not talking points.... FACTS.... I don't live in Tecase and neither do the islamofascists. And NO the terms are NOT mutually exclusive, they are accurately descriptive... BUT as I said EARLIER, if you could read. It is WRONG of me to exclude all fascist terrorists.

          All terms are "made up", new words are added to the language EVERY day. islamofascist is VERY descriptive of your terrorist friends...

          OK genius, Texas or not, "public defender or "list".. WHY is it the fascist terrorist get VERY HIGH PAID, MULTIPLE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS while the average Joe has to share ONE, regardless of his or her origin with dozens, Maybe even MORE defendants... The question is FAIRNESS for the little guy??? Simple... I can see you are getting further and further from YOUR talking points as you get more and more agitated... Which, in this case IS not my intent....
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Johaely (March 06, 2010 6:03 pm ET)
            2  
            "fascist terrorist" "islamofascist" are just a bunch of meaningless scare words just like communist and "your terrorist friends"? Man, go to hell.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by ilikeike (March 05, 2010 3:31 pm ET)
        2 1
        because when the federal govt decides to prosecute someone for terrorism or war crimes or attacks on the nation then the govt feels a moral obligation to provide reasonable and fair defence for those accused.that is one of the attributes that make america great
        Report Abuse
        • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 9:00 pm ET)
          1 1
          So we can just throw the little guy to the WOLVES, some poor sucker framed for murder... makes a lot of FAIR sense to me...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by trelan1701 (March 06, 2010 10:03 pm ET)
            2  
            It's not fair, but then neither is a system that allows the rich (OJ Simpson) to buy an amazing defense and get away with murder (literally) while the poor get overworked underfunded lawyers that fail to defend properly.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Reinhard (March 05, 2010 4:31 pm ET)
        2 1
        How much any particlular lawyer makes is kind of irrelevant since most of them are offering their services pro-bono. BTW, who claims they're "high priced" lawyers?

        Getting the picture yet?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by rsinebada7366 (March 06, 2010 1:03 pm ET)
        1  
        too late, otp: We all know what you are. It is too late to try to ingratiate yourself and pretend to having a normal reaction to the current situation.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 05, 2010 2:40 pm ET)
      2 4
      Well.....who are the al-Qaeda seven? Why won't Holder give us the names of the other seven al-Qaeda lawyers?

      Obviously Holder hired these people to act as moles to sabotage the prosecutions.

      Holder (and Obama) are clearly sympathetic to al-Qaeda.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (March 05, 2010 2:45 pm ET)
        5 3
        What is the goal of Al Qaeda?

        Once you figure that out, you'll realize that the nutjobs and teabaggers and Bush apologists are way, way more sympathetic to terrorists than Holder and Obama.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 05, 2010 3:11 pm ET)
          1 3
          THeir goal is to reestablish their caliphate (including Spain) and then expand it to the entire world. They want everyone in teh world to be a muslim and they will kill anyone who is not.

          The US stands in their way so they hate the US. Again, I reiterate Obama is sympathetic to their cause.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by ilikeike (March 05, 2010 3:39 pm ET)
            4  
            reminds me of the Catholic church of centuries passed, fortunately Al-Queda does not have that kind of power.


            and not that it matters but I was raised catholic
            Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (March 05, 2010 3:41 pm ET)
            4  
            Wrong. Amazingly wrong. No wonder you're such a misguided soul.

            Your answer is based on hate radio and Fox News talking points. News flash - their goal isn't to reestablish anything. Their goal is to bankrupt the USA because we have, and continue to, meddle in the affairs of the Middle East. And Bush and his neo-con buddies played right into their hands.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 05, 2010 4:30 pm ET)
              2 4
              No, their goal is to kill all non-muslims.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by vhw28672478 (March 05, 2010 4:49 pm ET)
                4 2
                wrong
                Report Abuse
                • Author by trelan1701 (March 06, 2010 10:07 pm ET)
                  1  
                  Actually, he's right. Their short(ish) term goal would be to destroy America but the ultimate goal of Islamic fundamentalists is to convert the world by any means necessary.

                  BTW, this is the goal of Christian fundamentalists as well, they're just less barbaric about it.

                  That's just the reality of any fundamental mindset of any religion that proselytizes.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by ilikeike (March 05, 2010 7:15 pm ET)
                   
                wrong. the goal of terrorists is to get the victims to overreact and attack the broader community from which the terrorists came. it worked for the IRA. At first the irish catholic populace was sympathetic to the presence of british troops, who were seen as protecting catholics from protestant forces and keeping the peace. to thwart this sympathy the IRA attacked and murdered British troops, the troops retaliated, often against the general populace where the terrorists sprang from and soon the British troops were viewed as brutal occupiers.no more classic example of playing into terrorist hands could be found then G.W.Bush invading Iraq in order to punish Al-Queda
                Report Abuse
        • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 9:04 pm ET)
          2 2
          Better to be a teabagger than a teabagged. I love that term, teabagger... HeeHee. Comes out EVERY time the left-wing nutters can't say anything else...

          So Mr. smart guy tell us, exactly what is the goal of the al queda scumbag islamo-fascist terrorists.... Oh yeah, nuclear bombs here at home...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Johaely (March 06, 2010 6:05 pm ET)
            1  
            I knew you sounded familiar! you are the dancing queen. but why didi you choose a term associated with fanfiction for your username?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (March 07, 2010 2:20 pm ET)
                 
              He chose another screen name so that he can switch back and forth to thumbs down other posts and recommend his posts and his buddies' posts.

              He also changed his name because pretty quickly he lost credibility with the old screen names he's used, so he comes back with a new name to confuse people.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by ilikeike (March 05, 2010 3:37 pm ET)
        4  
        I am not trying to be sarcastic or insulting but by that last statement I honestly question your rationality.you are either extremely exercised about the issue and flying off the handle, or you have let go of common sense and logic. the idea that anyone could seriously hold this kind of Manchurian Candidate conspiracy theory to be true is so staggeringly unbelievable that I wonder if you might need some type of therapy. I really do not mean to insult you, but you are either just saying ridiculous things to bait people or you are severely deluded.D o you honestly believe that the president of the United States is an Al -Queda sympathizer?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 05, 2010 4:51 pm ET)
          3 5
          The truth is I honestly don't know if Barry is a Manchurian candidate or an al-Qaeda sympathizer. I am not saying he is, but I do believe it is possible.

          The fact that he is president simply scares the hell out of me. I am afraid for myself and my family. Most of my friends feel this way as well. Most people I know are stocking up on arms and ammunition as a contingency plan.

          I do believe that he hates America, but I am undecided whether or nor he is an al-Qaeda sympathizer. My wife is convinced that he went to a mujahedeen/Taliban training camp in Afghanistan between 1981 and 1983. She thinks he is a sleeper cell. I am not willing to go that far, but I am definitely concerned.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 05, 2010 4:53 pm ET)
            2 2
            I am not alone in this belief.

            http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437
            Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (March 05, 2010 5:58 pm ET)
            6  
            You're insane. And so is your wife.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by ilikeike (March 05, 2010 7:03 pm ET)
            1  
            stop and think for a moment. do you really believe the democratic party doesnt vet the candidates they run for president. if their was even a whiff of any of this nonsense being true, do you really think they would nominate some one who could never get elected, would destroy the party and possibly threaten the nation. please use common sense.you and your friends are the perfect dupes for that section of the right wing that knows fear is a sure route to power. let your wife explain how a presidential candidate could disappear and attend a Taliban training camp for all that time and it wasnt found out. you have to admit much of the media is happy to discredit him. why do you think they have not followed this up? when you run for president you are giving the party you represent, the secret service, and the media carte blanche to have every aspect of your life put under a microscope, but somehow this was missed?
            I dont believe that you really believe this but that you want to believe it. conspiracy theories are cool and make you feel that you have answers that the general public does not, but you have to dissassociate yourself from logic to buy in to most of them.I am convinced that Simon Cowell is a member of the Illuminati and the songs played on American Idol have subliminal messages telling me to sell my organs on E-bay, but my conviction makes that no more true than your wifes ridiculous, nonsensical, illogical and hateful fantasy
            Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (March 06, 2010 8:28 am ET)
            2  
            You and your wife should seek help as soon as possible.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (March 05, 2010 5:30 pm ET)
          2 1
          Yet another example of a crazy conspiracy theory that someone believes with no evidence?

          Say it isn't so. According to RightON, there's no evidence that the right behaves this way!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 9:09 pm ET)
            2 3
            See, here's the problem with left-wing nutters, if anyone is even SLIGHTLY to the right of them, well they're plain stupid... Just that belief is, unbelievable? and there's no way one could be to the left of them...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Johaely (March 06, 2010 6:09 pm ET)
              1  
              You call this rational?

              The truth is I honestly don't know if Barry is a Manchurian candidate or an al-Qaeda sympathizer. I am not saying he is, but I do believe it is possible.

              The fact that he is president simply scares the hell out of me. I am afraid for myself and my family. Most of my friends feel this way as well. Most people I know are stocking up on arms and ammunition as a contingency plan.
              I do believe that he hates America, but I am undecided whether or nor he is an al-Qaeda sympathizer. My wife is convinced that he went to a mujahedeen/Taliban training camp in Afghanistan between 1981 and 1983. She thinks he is a sleeper cell. I am not willing to go that far, but I am definitely concerned.


              Only people on the fringe left and libertarians would believe something similar of president Bush.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 9:06 pm ET)
          2 1
          I'll answer for myself.. NO President Obama is NOT an al queda sympathizer.. period...

          Personally I have no doubts that President Obama loves the country as much as I do. I do however disagree with MANY (not all) of his policies.... but then again I wasn't much in favor of Bush either...
          Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (March 05, 2010 4:18 pm ET)
        2 1
        If you don't know that the names of the "al qaeda" seven are already KNOWN NOW, then you shouldn't be trying to educate US on anything related to this topic, you fool.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 9:14 pm ET)
          2 2
          OMG - she's actually RIGHT... I think I'm choking on coffee grounds. Thank goodness she has mmfa to do her research, they support all their shills.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (March 06, 2010 8:27 am ET)
            2  
            The crazies are out. You have shown when confronted with facts to have nothing but hate in response. So be it,but hate and vindictiveness does not replace rational argument. Try using reason sometime otherwise you appear off the hinges.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 06, 2010 3:02 pm ET)
                3
              The Left used hate to attack GWB and it worked. There is nothing wrong with the Right using hate as a weapon with which to attack Obama. It will be effective. It people are angry and afraid they will turn on Obama and the Dems.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Johaely (March 06, 2010 6:12 pm ET)
                2  
                In Bush's case hate didn't bring him down, but the mistakes he did and the cowboy diplomacy (which brought him down internationally).
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 06, 2010 9:23 pm ET)
                    1
                  Bush made three mistakes: Medicare Part D, irresponsible spending, and TARP. Other than that he was a good President.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Ruby (March 06, 2010 11:05 pm ET)
                    1  
                    Oh right. Katrina was just dandy. And lying us into an unnecessary war that cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (March 06, 2010 7:34 pm ET)
                2  
                The difference, BJ fan, is that the hatred toward Bush was for his deeds. The hatred toward Obama is for what he might do, and that he is the black man in the White House.

                Bush hatred - rational. Obama hatred - irrational.

                It's really that simple.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 06, 2010 9:26 pm ET)
                    2
                  Obama hatred - justified
                  Bush hatred - unjustiried

                  It's that simple.

                  GWB made mistakes, but his intentions were good. He loves America - I am not willing to stipulate that Obama's mistakes are in good faith. I do not so much believe that he is incompetent as I do he is malfeasant. I think the guy hates America.

                  This has NOTHING to do with his race and everything to do with his Marxist ideology. As a person, I think he is a dirt bag, but even that is not the reason I despise him. It is because of what he is trying to do to my country.

                  If your standard is that disagreeing with Barry makes a racist, then if you disagree with Gov. Palin you are a misogynist.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by trelan1701 (March 06, 2010 10:16 pm ET)
                    1  
                    GWB made mistakes? That's a massive understatement and not entirely accurate.

                    If I tell you that sticking a fork into a socket will hurt you and you do it anyway, is that a mistake of willful stupidity.

                    Bush was warned, repeatedly, that we would have to pick up the pieces in Iraq and hold it together or else have it turn into a long expensive mess. This is why his father didn't stay in Iraq after stomping Saddam into the ground the first time. He knew trying to run a country held under a tyranny for years would be a disaster.

                    His son, good old Dubya, didn't listen to all the experts telling him the same thing. He even fired the ones that publicly disagreed with him. Result? 7 years (so far) of quagmire.

                    That's no accident, that's indifference to the consequences for America.

                    Therefor: Bush hatred - completely justified.

                    On the other hand Tea Party hatred of Obama (starting less than three months in office) - based almost completely on race.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 07, 2010 7:06 pm ET)
                         
                      It is zero percent based on race and the hatred started long before he was three months into office.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by Ruby (March 07, 2010 4:56 pm ET)
                       
                    Translation:

                    As long as it's people I agree with, it's fine. If it's people I disagree with, they're anti-American, unpatriotic, terrorist sympathizers.
                    Report Abuse
      • Author by Ruby (March 06, 2010 11:17 pm ET)
        2  
        That kind of slander (being sympathetic to terrorists) encompasses many military lawyers who have passionately defended Guantanamo detainees. You are smearing members of our military--men and women who are devoted to preserving the values this country stands for.

        It smears many heroic civilian lawyers as well, who have devoted time and energy (almost always pro bono) to defending the most despised individuals, risking their reputations and livelihood in order to defend the constitutional liberties America represents.

        One of the "Al Qaeda 7" is a lawyer named Jonathan Hafetz who represented Mohamad Jawed, a boy who was 15 years old when he was taken into custody and brought to Guantanamo. He was falsely accused of throwing a grenade at an American soldier and locked up for seven years without a trial until last year a federal judge finally granted his habeas petition on the gounds of insufficient evidence.

        These are the people you call "Al Qaeda sympathizers". Since when does being committed to justice and liberty make you a terrorist?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pomriver (March 06, 2010 9:11 pm ET)
         
      What is all the fuss? The whole DOJ is corrupt including the ex branch
      Report Abuse
    • Author by factsfirst (March 07, 2010 7:21 am ET)
         
      Innocent until proven guilty.
      Lawyers are trained professionals, and deserve the respect that true professional conduct deserves. True professionals do not discriminate and when called to duty, perform to the best of their ability. What's next, court-appointed defense attorneys for defendants who do not have the means to retain their own defense are in collusion with the defendants?
      This is ridiculous.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.