Cheney to lawyers: “drop dead”

Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, appears to have inherited her father’s disdain for the niceties of constitutional principles.  The former vice president was well-known throughout his tenure in that job, for missing no opportunity to praise the use of torture (which he referred to euphemistically as “enhanced interrogation techniques”) against those suspected of violating US anti-terrorism laws, and for often belittling those who believed that the Bill of Rights might actually apply to those charged with committing acts of terrorism.

Mr. Cheney’s daughter, now herself a darling of the GOP, has been burnishing her credentials as a chip off the old block.  From her perch as chair of the recently-formed, neo-conservative “Keep America Safe,” Ms. Cheney has publicly mocked lawyers at the US Department of Justice for having engaged in what she believes to have been a most un-American of activities — previously providing legal advice or counsel to persons accused of commiting acts of terrorism in violation of American law.

Apparently, at least for some defendants in our system of justice, the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which among other things, guarantees to those accused of a criminal offense the right to have counsel in their defense, now occupies a place on that lengthening list of rights enumerated in our Constitution that the Cheney clan has decided we no longer need.

In fact, in Cheney World, lawyers who dared to provide legal counsel for those facing such serious charges as committing acts of terrorism should be forever thereafter barred from serving in any government job; and also probably should be branded on their forhead with a scarlet “T” (for “terrorism lover”). 

A recent video solicitation for Keep America Safe made this point graphically, when it chided Attorney General Holder for not “releasing” the names of certain Justice Department lawyers who in their previous careers had something to do with providing legal counsel for alleged terrorists.  The video called these US lawyers serving in the Justice Department, the “Al Qaeda Seven.”

While this disgraceful pandering to the extreme right undoubtedly will resonate with Ms. Cheney’s family — both her biological family and her extended political family — her actions went beyond the pale for at least one group of Republicans.  A group of lawyers who served previously under Republican presidents has issued a public denunciation of Ms. Cheney’s tactics; calling them “unjust,” “destructive” and “shameful.”  The letter was signed by former Independent Counsel Ken Starr and fomer Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, among others.

Unfortunately, the well-reasoned and historially-sound arguments made by these distinguished barristers will likely fall on deaf ears in Republican circles on Capitol Hill.  Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), for example, continues his drive to ferret out terrorist-hugging lawyers in the Obama Administration.  And Liz Cheney already has accepted an invite to speak next month at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, where her cries to tar and feather Justice Department lawyers for having represented individuals she and her father don’t like, will almost certainly be met by rousing cheers.

Former Vice-president and President John Adams, who earlier in his legal career represented the highly-unpopular British “Redcoats” accused of shooting civilians in the Boston Massacre, must be turning in his grave.  But here, above ground, the most recent former vice president beams at his daughter as she trashes public servants for putting constiutional principles to work in our justice system.

142 comments Add your comment

Cutty

March 10th, 2010
10:03 am

Republicans scream and yap about the constitution, except when it gets in the way of their political agenda. Period.

john

March 10th, 2010
10:05 am

Thank you Bob. Since you wrote it, the ones most likely to agree with Liz have read it.

Keep up the good fight!

March 10th, 2010
10:08 am

Don @ 9:28

Perhaps, if you actually held the position you claim, you would have knowed:

“There are still innocent people there,” Lawrence B. Wilkerson, a Republican who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, told The Associated Press. “Some have been there six or seven years.” Reported by CBS News and AP and other sources. Few have been found guilty. However even if 100% of the detainees were found guilty (again not the case), the principles of this country are that everyone deserves an adequate defense. Innocent until proven guilty.

Dan @ 9:36 — You’re a racist but if I would still defend your right to be stupid and racist in your speech…does not mean I agree with you nor would I respect you. I respect the constitution and this country. I respect what we as a people stand for. And that means even you get a defense for being stupid and racist.

Keep up the good fight!

March 10th, 2010
10:16 am

Scout……. So if I was law enforcement and I arrested you for alleged terrorism, you have no problem apparently in being denied an attorney and perhaps since I dont know your citizens (or perhaps I allege you are not a citizen) and then we can just shoot you? Are you going to bend over so someone can shoot you in that pea-sized brain? Your comment only proves your inability for reasoned thought.

96SC

March 10th, 2010
10:19 am

Darth Vader and his young Pup appear to take on the characteristics of TRUE TERRORISTS. DARTH VADER displayed in the 1960’s his affinity to certain characteristics designated to NATURAL BORN COWARDS. The Cheneys are true believers of achieving PEACE thru eternal CHAOS and WAR with other CITIZENS at peril.

Morrus

March 10th, 2010
10:25 am

Vote out the incumbents and start over

Scout

March 10th, 2010
10:28 am

Keep up the good fight! :

Very easy answer ……….. you can do better than that.

If I am caught out of uniform in this country as an enebmy combatant and my citizenship is in question, I am held until that is determined. If I am later determined to be a citizen I get a military trial. If I am not a U.S. citizen I am shot by military firing squad for being out of uniform during time of war ………….. again, just like Gen. Eishenhower did the German soldiers during the Battle of the Bulge. All those poor guys did was speak perfect English, dress as U.S. Military Police, and direct our convoys the wrong way.

Scout

March 10th, 2010
10:30 am

P.S. to Keep up the good fight! :

As long as we treat this as a “law enforement function” in this country instead of a “war” we are in trouble.

P.S. I spent 34 years in Federal law enforcement.

BTW ……….. if the terrorists landed in rubber boats on our beach from a submarine and then went out of uniform would that make a difference to you ?

Pansie Liberals!!!

March 10th, 2010
10:38 am

Its this simple: American Rights do not apply to those who are not Americans – especially if they are known terrorists at war against America.

Enhanced interogation techniques are not “illegal”. Terrorists have a right to be shot that is all! There lawyers too!!!

Keep fighting fro America, Liz Cheney!!!

Keep up the good fight!

March 10th, 2010
10:42 am

Scout really? Try some serious thought. Your examples presume guilt and presume war. You compare it to declared hostilities by a nation. This is not a declared war by any nation. Further soldiers caught whether in uniform or not were NOT just shot on site. That would have been a violation of all standards. Yes it may have happened as it did by soldiers attacking Japanese islands but was never condoned or approved by military officials and was not the US policy.

Until Bush, this has always been law enforcement. What is the uniform you expect these “terrorists” to wear? Since they may belong to different groups, do they all have to wear the same uniform?

I am confident that if the rubber boat lands and unidentified people went out in civilian dress, that if they used weapons, whoever captured them would shoot if shot upon and act as necessary. So your example presumes they have been caught and now pose no threat.

And of course how exactly did you “prove” in your example that they were spys out of uniform…….in a trial with an advocate attorney for them or did you just pick random people off the street who file the “profile” you assume.

Really a first year law class on the first day could do better.

StJ

March 10th, 2010
10:57 am

Let’s not forget the German spies who landed here from U-boats equipped to destroy our aircraft production lines in WWII. The ones who did not surrender (and were eventually turned in by their peers) were convicted in a military tribunal and shot. (The way it should be done.)

Equating terrorism with domestic battery is a mistake.

Yes, stupidity will destroy this country.

Keep up the good fight!

March 10th, 2010
11:03 am

StJ….you just proved the point…..they were tried and convicted. They were provided a defense and had an advocate.

And demeaning our law enforcement to infer that all they can handle is domestic battery really is a cheap shot.

We can agree that stupidity is very damaging…..we just dont agree on who the stupid are. I keep hoping that some are merely ignorant and that means that they can learn. Every day “conservatives” and others like “Pansie” dimish that hope. I have given up on the racists.

Nomaz

March 10th, 2010
11:06 am

The question, I believe with my minimal experience in constitutional law, comes down to the interpretation of whether or not terrorists are considered enemy P.O.Ws, international criminals, or domestic terrorists. I would think that only United States citizens would fall under the vail of consitutional law, otherwise it defaults to articles of the Geneva Convention and/or United Nations protocole. It’s also important to remember that actual “torture” techniques were only used on literally 2 occassions, as was reported by official CIA releases, and the extent of these techniques was simple water-boarding, something that is completely pyschological to the person being tortured. Not to mention those being subjected to these techniques are most likely murderers and torture deviants themselves. Have some faith in your intelligence agents everybody, this isn’t Oceania.

Nomaz

March 10th, 2010
11:09 am

“Enhanced interogation techniques are not “illegal”. Terrorists have a right to be shot that is all! There lawyers too!!!”

Away you!, back to the depths for which ye’ came!

Minister James

March 10th, 2010
11:12 am

Lizzard Cheney and her father will go the way of Hitler. The cowards.

DC

March 10th, 2010
11:26 am

I guess Liz and ya’ll don’t know this, but the defense attorney’s names are in the public records of the cases in question. Jeeeez

Keep up the good fight!

March 10th, 2010
11:31 am

Nomaz, you are somewhat incorrect. It is clear that anyone found on US soil is entitled to constitutional rights. What is allegedly not clear is whether those captured outside the US are entitled to rights when they are captured by the US or when they are brought back to US soil or to places controlled by the US such as Gitmo.

Waterboarding has been determined to be torture in the past and the legal reasoning of Yoo and anothers has been shown to be not only incorrect but just plain simple bad lawyering. “Enhanced interrogation” is just a euphanism for torture and is not permitted and has been determined by US Military to be wholly ineffective….despite those who watch 24.

But to get back on track…advocates and lawyers who defend the accused do not become “terrorist” or terrorist sympathizer merely because they provide a defense.

My typos have been horrendous today…..

Bandwidth

March 10th, 2010
11:32 am

Hear, Hear, Minister!

Bobo Brazil

March 10th, 2010
11:33 am

Ken Starr said it best. When defense attorneys make the government do its job and hold it to the bounds outlined in the Constitution – even when they’re defending terrorists – they make it safer for all of us. Maybe not against terrorism, but against an overreaching government. For anyone who believes the only people who can rob us of our values and way of life is ourselves, keeping a check on our government is more important than any terrorist.

That’s why Liz Cheney is unpatriotic. She’s going after the very people who, by defending terrorists, are protecting our liberties. In at least one case, successfully arguing before the Supreme Court to set limits on what our government can do.

Bandwidth

March 10th, 2010
11:37 am

It constantly amazes me that conservatives profess to want less and smaller government, yet they seem content to let political entities take over the very rules and tenets of justice so that no one would have a conflicting say. Hypocrites, pure, simple and unadulterated.

Larry

March 10th, 2010
11:44 am

Apparently, to most of the commenter’s here, the Rule of Law and U.S. Constitution only apply when it can be used against a Democrat. The cheneys and the other far-right-wing-nutjobs that makeup the republican’t party have managed to make even Bob Barr seem reasonable. The rest are no better than terrorists themselves, advocating torture and murder to anyone who dares dispute their hate filled vision of America.

No More Progressives!

March 10th, 2010
11:47 am

Mr. Cheney’s daughter, now herself a darling of the GOP, has been burnishing her credentials as a chip off the old block. From her perch as chair of the recently-formed, neo-conservative “Keep America Safe,” Ms. Cheney has publicly mocked lawyers at the US Department of Justice for having engaged in what she believes to have been a most un-American of activities — previously providing legal advice or counsel to persons accused of commiting acts of terrorism in violation of American law.

It’s December 8th, 1941. Admiral Yamamoto has been captured. The American public is wrestling with the aspect of “act of war” vs. “crime.” Now, all you defense “lawyers” who’ll provide pro bono services for the Admiral, raise your hands:

That’s what I thought…………………zero/nada/zip.

Rafe Hollister

March 10th, 2010
11:49 am

Those of you, who think like Bob that these Muslim Extremist bent on world domination, deserve Constitutional protection have lost all rational judgement. If they deserve representation from a court appointed and government paid lawyer, then they deserve to be tried by a jury of their peers. That is what the Constitution says all American citizens are entitled to. So do you expect the US Govt to send to the Middle East to get some turban wearing Jihadist Muslim jury members. How do we strike the jury, too Muslim, not Muslim enough, wears no Turban, a woman, pork eater, disrespects his wife, loves his camel. Do we swear them in on the Koran or the Bible?

The US Constitution was never envisioned to provide “rights” to our enemies. Gitmo is not in the United States and was chosen as a prison so that these killers would not be able to claim Constitional protection. We need to channel some of this concern over Constitutional rights to those American Citizens who are unfairly treated by our Judicial system, because they picked the wrong lawyer or were not able to afford the best attorney. We have problems applenty in the criminal no justice system as it is.

Nomaz

March 10th, 2010
11:57 am

“But to get back on track…advocates and lawyers who defend the accused do not become “terrorist” or terrorist sympathizer merely because they provide a defense.”

Too true, one might remember back to the example of John Adams defending the accussed British soldiers in the Boston Massacre.

What I hope everyone is taking from this conversation is that Law is interpretable but that our defense of the law for ANYONE is by no means evil or wrong in nature. There’s a reason that we held the Nuremberg Trials, and there’s a reason we defend the accussed in court, because evil doers do just the opposite, they don’t recognize the law and therefore demean good.

My argument for why international terrorists don’t deserve tribunal is the same reason that prisoners of war don’t aren’t given a trial that determines if they are prisoners of war or not. But I think it’s extremely important to note that if they are United States citizens they damn well better be given the protection of the United States consitution, if they are international citizens, then they need to be ensured the full protection of international law.

sickofhearingmantra

March 10th, 2010
11:59 am

RE: Don – I have no idea where your information originated. However, as the senior FBI Special Agent who was in charge of coordinationg the investigation of over 600 “detainees” immediately following 9/11, I know, for a fact, that wherever your information originated, it is absolutely, false.

Answer: If you reviewed GTMO cases, you would have discovered that most were not captured by US forces; not caught in the battlefield (one guy was a UN refugee living in Lahore); of virtually no intelligence value – especially after they were tortured. We’re not talking about KSM and other blacksite imports. As for “vast majority”, the truth is somewhat self-evident. If the 400 (+/-) men released by the DoD and Bush admin. between 2004-2007 truly posed a “security threat” to the US, why were they released? They may not have loved the USA, but you might say that about entire the Middle East.

1. Michael Scheuer, head of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) bin Laden unit from 1999 to 2004: “We absolutely got the wrong people.” 2. Mark Jacobson, assistant for detainee policy in Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s office from November 2002 to August 2003, stated quite frankly: “I think the standards for sending someone to Guantanamo in 2002 and early 2003 were not as high as they should have been.” 3. Brigadier General Jay Hood, former commander of Guantanamo: “Sometimes, we just didn’t get the right folks.”

Bandwidth

March 10th, 2010
12:01 pm

Absolute foolishness on the part of “no more progressives”. Children know the difference between a criminal and the agent of a nation state held under a Congressional Declaration of War. (Yeah, that’s right it’s December 8th, 1941. Take a look at the Congressional Record for the day!) Yamamoto would never have been in the criminal system under your scenario. What’s wrong with you? The blinders you guys have on astound me. I never get tired of it.

Keep up the good fight!

March 10th, 2010
12:03 pm

No More Progressives! As an attorney I would defend Yamato against any allegations of crime vs act of war. In fact, it is very clear that a declaration of war was intended to be delivered just prior to the attack.

Mike

March 10th, 2010
12:05 pm

WJ—

You miss the point and the principle entirely.

Bandwidth

March 10th, 2010
12:12 pm

Rafe said “The US Constitution (sic) was never envisioned to provide “rights” to our enemies.”

In reality, the Bill of Rights was never intended to be re-interpreted or revised by individuals, only by the majority consent of the United States Congress. Start rounding up the votes to repeal the 6th Amendment or pipe down. I’m not sure if what you propose is treason or sedition. It’s one of those.

Here’s the text of the 6th Amendment; “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 where in 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.”

No mention of citizenship. Not even a long shot interpretation. “All criminal prosecutions…” however is pretty precise language. Why did the Bush administration reserve the proscribed right to charge the Gitmo detainees under the U.S. Criminal Code if they thought they wouldn’t need it? Spare me your outrage in the face of the law of the land. I’m sure there are other countries that would let you have your way. North Korea, maybe??

Scout

March 10th, 2010
12:16 pm

To Keep up the good fight! :

O.K. One more time ………. please pay attention.

1) German soldiers captured out of uniform were shot during the Battle of the Bulge for “misdirecting convoy traffic”.

2) A war does not have to be officcially “declared” to fall under Geneva Convention rules. One of those rules is you must be in uniform or you can be shot as a spy.

3) The uniform? A 4X4 inch “Jihad” patch that must be worn on any type of outer clothing (right shoulder) 24/7/365 (366 on leap year) ……… in their country, in a foreign country, on one of our airplanes, in one of our colleges, etc. If you don’t ………. and are caught as a terrorist ……….. bang!

4) And the trouble with a “law class” is it’s not the real world. You may recall the article (”A Professor’s Street Lessons”) written by the very, very liberal college professor (about 20 years ago) in Florida who constantly chided his “off duty” police students re: Constitutional Law. They finally goaded him into becoming a “reserve officer”. He had to go through the academy and actually work the street. He did a complete 180 and wrote the article about his experiences of “book learning” vs. “the real world.”

Here it is: http://www.policensw.com/info/history/kirkham1.html

It’s really quite simple and I would sleep like a baby if these policies were implemented.

You can coddle terrorists if you want but I choose to vote for those who will not coddle them.

Tricky

March 10th, 2010
12:18 pm

You know Bob, we have this weird relationship lately, some days we agree, some days we disagree. Welcome back buddy! At least until the next blog.

sickofhearingmantra

March 10th, 2010
12:27 pm

RE: You can coddle terrorists if you want but I choose to vote for those who will not coddle them.

I agree, but only AFTER that crucial determination is made. We’re talking about people who could be innocent. This isn’t North Korea or PRC, you don’t just sentence people to life without some due process. That means someone to help you challenge the allegations. If they’re truly guilty, I’ll let you take the first kick.

Jefferson

March 10th, 2010
12:37 pm

She is a lot like her dad. Can we call her “Dick” also ?

William

March 10th, 2010
12:38 pm

If Bob and others believer terrorist caught off our shores should get constitutional rights as citizens then why not defend them pro bono. Do not cost the tax payers anything. The cost of the trials would run into the billions and most would be in the pockets of the lawyers–who are terrorist themselves.

Rafe Hollister

March 10th, 2010
12:46 pm

speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in 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

Bandwidth, re-read this portion. I do not want to repeal the 6th Amendment, I want to adhere to it as it applies to criminal trials for US Citizens or individuals captured on US soil. Note the phrase about an impartial jury drawn from the State or District where the crime was commited. i do not think the framers had Afghanistan or Iraq in mind when they spoke of the State or District. As to your opinion that the 6th amendment was not to be interpreted by individuals but by Congress that is big government liberal bunk. Any one can intrepret the Constitution, including the scalawags in Congress, but the only opinion that counts is the opinion of the US Supreme Court.

These murdering terrorists deserve to be treated fairly under international law, even tho they have not committed to abiding by the Geneva convention, however they do not deserve US Constitutional protection.

Keep up the good fight!

March 10th, 2010
12:47 pm

Scout….perhaps you need to pay attention. No point arguing with you. A patch? Really. Who imposed this stupidity as a “uniform”. You? And who determines which ones get the patches? Which group issues them? I suppose that you also support that our special forces who may fight “undercover” should also be shot immediately by those who oppose us.

Perhaps you need to study your historical references. Operation Greif by the Germans resulted in a military trial of Pernass, Billing and Schmidt and they were executed by firing squad……13 others were tried and shot by firing squad. Skoreny was tried as a war criminal. Google can be your friend to prevent you from just being absolutely wrong.

And since your logic remains muddled….lawyers are not elected, they provided pro bono services in these cases to defend a rule of law and the Constitution. And that is why we have a balance of power…so that legislators who ignore these rights can be removed or limited.

Scout

March 10th, 2010
12:58 pm

Keep up the good fight!:

1) Patch Design? Sounds like a great project for the U.N. And if you are caught in a terrorist act anywhere in the world and and weren’t wearing it ……………. you screwed up.

By the way ………. our special forces know the consequences if caught out of uniform (but you know that doesn’t matter with the terrorists if they were wearing their “dress blues” so it’s a false arguement on your part).

2) Thanks for proving my point ………….. they were shot !! Bang! Bang!

3) You play in your world (probably a paper world) and I’ll play in mine:

Scout
India Company
3rd Battalion, 4th Marines
Vietnam – 1967/68
34 years Federal law enforcement (retired)
But still ready ………………

P.S. Sheep, wolf or sheepdog …………… which are you ?

Keep up the good fight!

March 10th, 2010
1:10 pm

Scout…I’ll play in a real world of law and the rule of law everyday. In fact I do and I dont need to trot out my credentials to prove it. You can play with your false sense of security….

Yep…they were shot…after a trial and a defense…… Which is the point Bob and others are making. We dont taint those who defend the accused as sympathizers. You really need to pay attention!

If you want a death penalty argument, that is a completely different thread…while I applaud your service and thank you for it….just because you served does not mean that your conclusions about terrorists are any more “right” or “real world” than others.

No More Progressives!

March 10th, 2010
1:56 pm

Bandwidth

March 10th, 2010
12:01 pm
Absolute foolishness on the part of “no more progressives”. Children know the difference between a criminal and the agent of a nation state held under a Congressional Declaration of War. (Yeah, that’s right it’s December 8th, 1941. Take a look at the Congressional Record for the day!) Yamamoto would never have been in the criminal system under your scenario. What’s wrong with you? The blinders you guys have on astound me. I never get tired of it.

So armed conflict (Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq) does not qualify as a “war” to you? It has to be officially sanctioned & declared by the Federal Government, your personal arbitor of all things good?

I astound you? You pathetic cretin. Good men died so you can act like an idiot.

No More Progressives!

March 10th, 2010
2:01 pm

Keep up the good fight!

March 10th, 2010
12:03 pm
No More Progressives! As an attorney I would defend Yamato against any allegations of crime vs act of war. In fact, it is very clear that a declaration of war was intended to be delivered just prior to the attack.

Then you should prepair yourself to defend FDR; the JN12 code had been (sufficiently) broken, and we knew that an attack on Pacific assets was imminent. Hostilities in the Pacific began in Sept. 1931 when Japan invaded Manchuria. Pleanty of time for FDR to take his secretary to Warm Springs to diddle. That’s treason in my book.

And it’s Yamamoto.

Byron Mathison Kerr

March 10th, 2010
2:02 pm

What’s next? Vilifying defense attorneys who represent high-profile criminals? Are these high-profile criminals somehow more respectable than terror suspects?

I think many people misunderstand a lawyer’s job. It is not to find a higher truth; it is to represent their client’s best interest.

Bandwidth

March 10th, 2010
2:08 pm

Rafe…sorry, maybe I overreacted. But let’s take Khaled Sheikh Mohammed as an example. The crime that he is accused of masterminding happened in the jurisdiction of the New York City Trial Court, which is in turn geographically located in the U.S. Second Federal Court District. That much is well defined. This act should be tried by one or both of these entities. Mohammed should receive adequate representation for his defense during such a trial. The sixth amendment guarantees it, no?

The big problem here is that the tortuous logic that the Bush administration used to wage this “war on terror” absolutely failed to clarify the nature of the acts or the status of “enemy combatants”. I’m not asking for a U.S. criminal trial for some idiot taking pot shots at our soldiers in Fallujah. However, barring a declaration of war against the nation state that Mohammed is a citizen of, I don’t think there’s any question about how this case should be tried. People are getting all sentimental about John Adams and the Boston Massacre, but in Mohammed’s case the analogy is spot on. A military tribunal in this case is not warranted. What would the right say about the counsel for Mohammed in such a trial? That they were good Americans, upholding the finest traditions of the U.S. Justice system? Somehow, I think that wouldn’t be it.

Bandwidth

March 10th, 2010
2:16 pm

William just called lawyers terrorists. Is the lawyer who represents a pedophile a child molester? There’s no room for this kind of categorization. Sen. Graham and the Bush lawyers who signed the letter against Liz have said that attributing the acts of accused to their counsel is an intolerable act that undermines the the American jurisprudence system and by extension, the American government. Makes you wonder who the real terrorists are.

Bandwidth

March 10th, 2010
2:21 pm

No More Progressives is a lost cause. No More Brains is more like it. I’m not getting into a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed.

Minister James

March 10th, 2010
2:22 pm

Have any of you Chenians ever thought to ask Lizzard and her dad to actually go fight these terrorists that they are so gung ho for our children to die fighting? You place these; the worst of cowards on a pedestal, pay their insurance and allow them to profit from the blood of real soldeirs all the while they’re agitating about ‘keep America safe’. Whew.

HDB

March 10th, 2010
2:27 pm

Here’s what needs to be said to Liz Cheney: STFU!!

Lily

March 10th, 2010
2:32 pm

Minister James, you are so right! Too bad everbody cannot see the truth. These people who say we are “coddling” terrorists do not seem to realize that THEY are actually playing right into the terrorists’ hands. Their “tough talk” and intolerant attitudes are giving the terrorists great recruiting tools, and that is actually hurting the war on terror. We are a country of laws, and we need to show that to the world. In the long run, that will benefit us in the war on terroroism much more than reckless and inflammatory talk.

Keep up the good fight!

March 10th, 2010
2:34 pm

No more progressives….the word is “prepare” not “prepair,” also “Plenty” not “Pleanty”. When you are losing on all grounds, then use names like “cretin” to vilify. Of course, you ignore that your original mistaken premise was woefully wrong….there are those who would defend Yamamoto in a charge of crime vs. act of war. Having lost the point and your conclusion that no one would….you ignore it and move on with your muddled thoughts….and your claims of treason.

Perhaps those good men and women who died would be ashamed of the way you chose to ignore the constitution and the principles they found for….including a right to trial and a right to an advocate to present a defense as well as a number of other fundamental principals.

DAVID: AJC -Truth Detector

March 10th, 2010
2:35 pm

COULD REPLACE Jay Bookman…..in BOB’s byline…..BOOKMAN would use same words..same thoughts..

Stoned Mountain

March 10th, 2010
2:37 pm

The function of the lawyer in our society is to protect the rights of the client under the constitution, whether it is a state or the federal Bill of Rights.