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

Rightwing Troll

March 10th, 2010
6:29 am

Amen brother.

Ed

March 10th, 2010
6:31 am

Maybe Ms Cheney is being a bit extreme, but why are we offering help to these people? I do not believe we should stop them from having representation, maybe even encourage that they find some and offer a way to do so, phone a friend maybe? But provide to provide an American lawyer to defend someone fighting to abolish the American way of life is counterproductive, and is paid for by every soldier who dies protecting us. Wait, this dose define the current democratic party’s way of thinking, lets pay for stupidly with American blood by helping terrorist to become free so they can kill more of us.

Joel Edge

March 10th, 2010
6:43 am

The problem started when they weren’t named. It gave the appearance of hiding something. Did they think the American people would suddenly appear with pitchforks and torches. It’s insulting.

steve

March 10th, 2010
6:44 am

Maybe there is more to the story than what this writer one-sidedly portrays. Civil liberties that U.S. citizens enjoy are probably the best in the world. Our court system is expensive to run. I certainly do not want to pay for multiple trials for terrorists. Leave acts for war left to the military tribunal system.

Jack Larson

March 10th, 2010
6:52 am

Barr, both parties are the bane of this country. Both are self-serving. However, when anyone in government retires or gets voted out, turns around to represent a foreign national because of their connections, then they should be put in long term prison immediately. They have discharged their office at the expense, once again, of the American people. That is treasonous. Lawyers…99.9% are egotistical worthless animals.

TP

March 10th, 2010
7:00 am

In perfect Cheney World, our human rights doctrine would be parallel to the likes of Burma or Belarus. One truth, proudly served by the Master wrapped in American flag. Luckily, we the people still believe in Constitution over dictatorship. Or at least some of us do.

OMG she's 43 WHAT.

March 10th, 2010
7:06 am

When I read she was 43 I was like forty what? that an old looking woman. Oh and she making that money off fearmongering.

William of Orange

March 10th, 2010
7:19 am

When the former Veep is convicted of war crimes in The Hague, I expect Liz to publicly smear the lawyers who tried to defend a convicted war criminal in Court.

WJ

March 10th, 2010
7:24 am

There’s nothing wrong with releasing the names of lawyers who have defended terrorists. They decided to take that action, everyone should know about the action they took. It’s known as responsibility – you do something, you take the consequences of what you did.

You reference Mr. Adams. Read the history and you will see that Mr. Adams did in fact suffer great public disdain. He was open in defending the British soldiers on points of law regarding the orders under which they served. One key difference was, and remains, the law of the land applied to the soldiers of the Crown. That’s where the dots no longer connect on the current issue. Terrorists from other countries are not entitled to the protection of USA law.

Bob, I would have liked you to also address the openness of the current DOJ folk regarding making public the names of our CIA and other agents protecting the USA. So, why is it OK to tell the world names/photos of our spies, but not OK to release the names of lawyers who defend our enemies?

You’re way off base on this one Bob.

Face facts, Mr. Holder benefits greatly from defending terrorists – personally, financially and most likely in the future. Unfortunately for us, and criminally for him and his colleagues, that is not his job at present, and it is in direct violation of the oath he swore.

Mr. Holder should be removed from office immediately.

WJ
Atlanta

EK

March 10th, 2010
7:24 am

Ed,
It’s called the 6th Amendment to the Constitution. If you don’t like it, get out of my country, pinko.

EK

A dad

March 10th, 2010
7:27 am

When I law school, I was very surprised to find a classmate of mine was planning on practicing criminal defense. Until that point he had been very conversative in thought and deed, and I thought his career choice odd in light of those facts. When I asked him why, he responded “the system is only as good as it’s weakest link.”
I am no supported of terrorism, and truly believe we are in an undeclared holy war with radical Islam. Do terrorists deserve attorneys like Garland and Shapiro et al on the public nickel? No. But if they can afford them privately, so be it. That’s how our judicial system is meant to work, or at least the last time I was in court Lady Justice still wasn’t peeking out from underneath her blindfold.

An American

March 10th, 2010
7:29 am

It comes down to this, The Bill Of Rights was written in America, by Americans, for Americans. It was intended to protect the rights of Americans, NOT THE WORLD! Their rules, in their country are different. They committed crimes against Americans as FORIGEN NATIONALS. They have NO rights in this country. Our Bill of Rights and our Constitution were written to set US apart from the rest of the world. The same crimes against their country might allow them to speak, or give contradiction in evidence. They might be allowed a court appointed lawyer, who has thier guilty fate pre-decided, and they would face certian death penality when (not if) found quilty.
The terrorists are enemy combatatants, hell-bent on destroying this country, the same as any army attacking this soil. They should be treated as such, in a millitay court, millitary rules, and millitary judgement. It was the road they chose to follow, let them walk it, and when they drop off the edge, others may travel a different route.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 10th, 2010
7:33 am

I respectfully disagree with our esteemed host. I am an attorney, and I have frequently represented criminal defendants. I undoubtedly have a bias formed by those years of representing drug dealers and small time users, a bias that would decriminalize all such victimless crimes. I know many disagree with my use of the term “victimless,” and that is the point of my argument. Those of us with biases ought not be setting policy in the area of our biases. That is it “crime” so cogently exposed by Ms. Cheney.

L A Smith

March 10th, 2010
7:45 am

Barr lecturing on the Constitutional Law is like Bill Clinton lecturing on marital fidelity. It just don’t wash.

JDW

March 10th, 2010
7:50 am

I will never understand how someone that calls themselves a Conservative could support the decidedly extreme positions of the Cheney’s. Today’s “Conservative’s” like to hold themselves out as defenders of the Constitution but it seems that only holds true when convenient.

Sandra

March 10th, 2010
7:50 am

Bob,
I occasionally agree with you and this is one time that I do. For some folks, the Constitution only applies when it is convenient or easy for them. Why should those lawyers be named unless they want to be? Civil liberties went out the door as well as decency and civlility in the Cheney years.

Jerry

March 10th, 2010
8:01 am

Leaving aside issues of tone, I think it’s fair to say the issue as the same if mafia defense lawyers were brought in to work on mafia prosecution in the Justice Department. People would want to know who they were and whether they provided defense merely as part of their business as a lawyer or because of related beliefs in the correct punishment of the wrongdoers.

neo-Carlinist

March 10th, 2010
8:02 am

Liz Cheney is the Brittany Spears of he neo-con world. She is a carefully designed character, who spouts sound-bite nonsense to feed a very specific demographic audience. She doesn’t care about America’s “safety” or “terrorism” or the Constitution. She cares about saying what needs to be said (publicly or via DVD) to generate income for her “think tank”. If you replace “terrorism” with “climate change” she’s Al Gore and nothing more. She is an annoying gadlfy. Like him or not (and I do not), at least her father was/is a ruthless, coniving, political operative, and not a whining malcontent.

Dewi

March 10th, 2010
8:06 am

Laws in this country apply to all those who are within its borders. Not just the residents or the citizens, but the visitors as well, be they tourists, workers, or terrorists. Same goes for other countries (think Haiti missionary “orphan” adoption group).

If by enemy combatant you really mean “prisoner of war we don’t want to afford the rights guaranteed by Geneva”, then yes, they are just that. If this is truly a war that we are in, which I believe it is, then these people should be treated as prisoners of war.

Agreed with the sentiments expressed above about footing the bill for their legal defense. However, if they are guaranteed a trial and we are to actually live by our Constitution, then they must be afforded a defense. If they pay for a Garland or a Shapiro, then best of luck to them. If not, then they should get a public defender, and get to deal with it like those of us unable to afford an attorney. Otherwise, this is just a sham, and there is no justice being served.

Wheat Williams

March 10th, 2010
8:12 am

My God! Bob Barr said something that I agree with. I’m glad that people all over the political spectrum agree that protecting constitutional principles is vital. It is also good to hear a conservative like Barr acknowledge that Cheney (and by extension the Bush administration) often showed little respect for the Constitution. The problem is that since they established a precedent that the Bill of Rights should be flexed and bent whenever an administration felt like it, we might just be doing serious, permanent damage to our principles, our citizens’ rights and freedoms, and our nation.

Dick Cheney

March 10th, 2010
8:19 am

I and my entire family hate America and everything it stands for.

Al

March 10th, 2010
8:21 am

Since when we are paying this much attention to this kid, really? someone forgot to ask for Lindsay Lohan’s opinion?

Bill

March 10th, 2010
8:29 am

In reply to the user “An American”:
“We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal.” Does this sound familiar?

Bandwidth

March 10th, 2010
8:30 am

Joel asks why the “Al Queda 7″ weren’t named. This is a falsehood that is being sustained by Cheney’s utter disdain for the facts. They were named in amicus and court briefs that are available freely online. Perhaps if Keep America Safe could figure out the technical niceties of “the Google” we wouldn’t be having this conversation. (But that would make it harder for them to slam Obama.)

Final thought. Every individual charged with a crime under the laws of the United States gets representation, one way or another. Everything else to the contrary is just noise. Cheney is an unpatriotic, anti-American, Constitution undermining tool.

RaceToTheBottom

March 10th, 2010
8:40 am

What is Cheney channeling Palin?

It might serve to get those red meaters to face some truths about their log cabin ways and recognise that some people, Including their own, are built differently. But that Cheney gene pool is detrimental to the human race and the US in particular.

Ben

March 10th, 2010
8:48 am

These terrorists have not been accused of crimes under civil law. The have been held as war criminals in military custody. They have no 6th Amendment rights.

sickofhearingmantra

March 10th, 2010
8:48 am

The VAST majority of the men sent to GTMO were released because they were innocent and not AQ/Taliban associated, yet so many brain dead patriots continue to insist that everyone at GTMO is a “terrorist” out to kill Americans and not entitled to even the most basic right of challenging their detention. What are we North Korea? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? What are you so proud of? No, it’s not okay to lock someone up without charge or trial for 10 years, what’s the matter with you? That’s where we’d be without the GTMO attorneys.

Bandwidth

March 10th, 2010
8:58 am

Wrong, Ben. Nice try though. The Bushies absolutely failed to categorize the nature of the detention and also reserved the right to prosecute the individuals under the U.S. Criminal Code (not quite the U.S. Civil Code, as you state in your post. Big difference, your education failed you on that one. Look it up now, though.) Being held under threat of Criminal prosecution entitles ANYONE the right to prepare defense. Stupidity is going to destroy this country.

[...] Bob Barr – Atlanta Journal Constitution: 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. Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey: This is all of a piece, and what it is a piece of is something both shoddy and dangerous. A lawyer who represents a party in a contested matter has an ethical obligation to make any and all tenable legal arguments that will help that party. A lawyer in public service, particularly one dealing with sensitive matters of national security, has the obligation to authorize any step or practice the law permits in order to keep the nation and its citizens safe. And a lawyer who undertakes to represent someone whom his neighbors–perhaps rightly–revile as a threat to the public welfare is obligated to bring his talents to bear just as forcefully in favor of that client as he would if he were representing Capt. Alfred Dreyfus, the French artillery officer who in 1895 was found guilty of treason and sent to Devil’s Island for little more than being Jewish. [...]

Dewi

March 10th, 2010
9:09 am

Bandwidth – What do you mean, going to?

Khannez

March 10th, 2010
9:13 am

How can we tell the world that we are the beam of democracy and freedom when we ourselves do not follow it? We keep prolonging this war and we are giving reasons for other to attack us. We open Gitmo and the “others” are given reasons to do same. We torture detainees and others will do the same. And the list goes on. We need to be very careful and think outside the FOX lenses and keep in mind that the whole world knows of a different truth. You can mask this so called Cheney patriotism war anyway you want. But the bottom line remains is that we need to be better than them.
We were raised to do what’s right. To be atatcked for doing a basic legal right is unpatriot.

William G

March 10th, 2010
9:17 am

Bob I never thought I would agree with you on anything. But your point is spot on. Thank God we have folks who are willing to stand up for our Constitution. To view this any other way, while perhaps personally satisfying, is absurd.

The Snark

March 10th, 2010
9:18 am

Somewhere in hell, Joe “Tail Gunner” McCarthy is laughing his head off.

Scout

March 10th, 2010
9:22 am

Sorry Bob:

Terrorists caught “out of uniform” (which said “uniform” can be a simple, readily identifiable/observable shoulder patch of their choosing which must be worn 24/7) should be shot just like Gen. Eisenhower had the Germans caught out of uniform shot during the Battle of the Bulge (within 24 hours no less). Since the “field of battle” is also the United States that applies here as well as anywhere else in the world.

If you are captured “in uniform”, you are a POW until your side surrenders. That’s their choice.

The ONLY exception should be a U.S. citizen (but only if caught in the U.S.). Otherwise, bang!

Barck

March 10th, 2010
9:22 am

I believe that any foreign terrorist that attempts to kill Americans should be afforded all the rights and priviledges afforded to any US citizen. In fact, they should also have the right to free legal representation and healthcare while awaiting trial. And, to avoid any appearance of improprieties and so as not to offend anyone, the American tax payer will gladly provide comfortable accomodations for the accused at any hotel of their choosing, especially those with award points programs.

Toomanyignorantpeople

March 10th, 2010
9:23 am

The constitution states that all persons, not just citizens, have the right to counsel, just like in other countries, they will appoint counsel to represent you. Far too many ignorant people comment about the constitution, yet failed to read it. Yes, in this climate, I agree with withholding the names of the lawyers representing the defendents. The GOP and fox news have many people, including in these comments angry at public servants, federal employees only doing there job. IRS employees being targeted, Census employees, now Lawyers? Even Jesus ate with the tax collectors…

Mr. Holmes

March 10th, 2010
9:26 am

Yay! Sane Bob Barr is back. We missed ye…

Don

March 10th, 2010
9:28 am

sickofhearingmantra said, “The VAST majority of the men sent to GTMO were released because they were innocent and not AQ/Taliban associated …”

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.

Lil

March 10th, 2010
9:33 am

It’s frightening and tragic that so many people seem willing to dispose of the Constitution. It’s what keeps our country great.

Ghent

March 10th, 2010
9:33 am

6th Ammendment only applies to American citizens, not PoWs or war criminals. This IS war, folks, not some mere assault & battery domestic arrest.

vracer

March 10th, 2010
9:34 am

Bob is obviously off his meds.

Dan

March 10th, 2010
9:36 am

All you rag-head loving, USSA bashing Pinkos seriously need to move to France. You will fit right in.

Jeff

March 10th, 2010
9:37 am

Why does the title of you blog post indicate that Cheney told Lawyers to drop dead and yet nowhere in your post do you reference that quote. Did she say this? If not, it would seem that your title is nothing more than a lie intended to draw readers. If so, why don’t you reference it?

You’ve wasted my time. I’ve read this story multiple times by better journalist. It’s already stale.

ColinATL

March 10th, 2010
9:43 am

A bill of rights lesson for the apparently constitutionally-challenged commenters here: 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 defense.

There is no limitation to “US citizens” or “non-terrorists,” simply “the accused.” I’m no terrorist lover, but even I can see the importance of bringing these people to justice in a very PUBLIC and CONSTITUTIONAL way. Not only are the rights of the accused preserved, but the WORLD can see that we are consistent in our application of principles of freedom, liberty and justice. Otherwise, we’re just another bunch of hypocrites.

paulserroto

March 10th, 2010
9:43 am

If laws do not apply to everyone, they apply to no one –
since when does it make sense that we deny rights to people based on where they’re from?
To say that America’s laws should only apply to Americans means the laws themselves are based on residency, as opposed to emerging from principles like evidenciary support or the right to face one’s accusers, or the presumption of innocence –

the idea that we are free to deny laws to people because they are foreigners makes a laughing stock of our entire judicial system – if we uphold the principles the laws are based on, then we must apply them fairly, to everyone;
we allow child rapists public defenders for heavens sake, but Cheney thinks she has the right to deny justice to others? Just in the event they may in fact be innocent? These people are profoundly ignorant.

lmno

March 10th, 2010
9:43 am

It doesn’t matter if the majority are innocent or not. If there is a chance that one suspect is innocent, then they should all be given fair trials. While terrorism is a real threat, caging innocent men like animals is also a threat.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to Justice everywhere.

Ben Applegate

March 10th, 2010
9:45 am

Are you kidding me? How in the world is it distasteful to not want terrorists to be tried in our court system and be given rights meant to pertain to American citizens? These people want to kill American citizens, so as far as I’m concerned anyone who wants to treat them like victims rather than perpetrators of evil can drop dead.

Frann T.

March 10th, 2010
9:46 am

Ghent, where does it say only American citizens? It’s your attitude and people like you who are giving the terrorists ammunition for their recruiting. You all are actually hurting the war on terror.

Daedalus

March 10th, 2010
9:57 am

If Liz Cheney really wanted to know the names of the attorneys representing the inmates at Gitmo, all she’d have to do is read the briefs which are available on Lexis/Nexis, Pacer, etc.

She could then publicize them, spend a little time to discover their home addresses and publicize that too. Then all you wingnuts can picket their houses, harass their children and use your 2nd Amendment rights to pop a cap or two in them.

That will show the rest of the lawyers at DOJ and elsewhere that we will not tolerate anyone who considers giving the Gitmo inmates an impartial review of their cases.

BTW — if “Don” was the “Senior FBI Agent” in charge of screeing the Gitmo detainees cases, then I’m Napoleon Bonaparte.

Heaven forbid that Americans admit that anyone else is entitled to an impartial review.

Scout

March 10th, 2010
10:00 am

I say again:

1) Caught on the field of battle “out” of uniform (including in the U.S.) ………….. shot.
2) Caught on the field of battle “in” uniform (including the U.S.) …..POW status to the end of the war.
3) Caught anywhere as a U.S. citizen (in or out of uniform) ………. military trial ….. then shot.

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.

Keep up the good fight!

March 10th, 2010
2:37 pm

Bandwith…As insane as it sounds, one ill-informed party tried to make that argument to Jon Stewart. But you are right…NMP is just not worth the time.

songbird

March 10th, 2010
2:38 pm

Isn’t Liz Cheny a lesbian. I thought wingnuts hated gay people.

Keep up the good fight!

March 10th, 2010
2:49 pm

Actually it is Mary Cheney who is the lesbian…..

But you really have to wrap your flag waiving and hatred list by priority.

retiredds

March 10th, 2010
3:02 pm

Bob, I agree with you entirely on this one. Two things come to mind: Liz gets her money from the far right so if she makes outlandish statements she get more $$$. It is ALWAYS about the money. My guess the more she does this kind of verbal pandering her constituency will flood her with $$$. And, second, it is VERY scary to note that her father was one heartbeat away from being President. While I didn’t agree with much that GWB said or did, I own him a great debt of gratitude for remaining alive for his eight years as President.

Chris Broe

March 10th, 2010
3:06 pm

It will be a measure of our countrymen to see how far a phrase like “the Al Queda 7″ takes Liz Cheney.

Off Topic: They say some cities in Chili moved several inches to the west after the earthquake. And here in the USA, my putting has improved. Lovin’ golf here.

No More Progressives!

March 10th, 2010
3:14 pm

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.

Oh, pardon me, exalted & illustrious barrister. You’ve identified two typos. 3 years & a JD to be a proof-reader?

Exactly what was my “original mistaken premise?” That our Constitution was designed to protect anyone in the world you deem needy on my dime?

Try me, Bandgirth. You might just be surprised.

Boots

March 10th, 2010
3:18 pm

Mr. Barr: I was never a fan of yours when you were in politics; but over the past year or two, something has happened to you or to me in that I find myself applauding your contributions to the AJC.

This article bears witness to your tranformation or mine — you’ve hit the nail on the head.

Cheney seems very comfortable treading underfoot the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And, for this, he is the darling of the Republican Party. His efforts to re-write history and his legacy is transparent, but should be acknowleged for what it is — revisionist horse hocky!

Thanks again, Mr. Barr.

No More Progressives!

March 10th, 2010
3:18 pm

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?

You never bothered to answer the question, Bandgirth……………….

Bandwidth

March 10th, 2010
3:32 pm

See my previous post, NMP.

E

March 10th, 2010
3:39 pm

They deserve nothing. Send them straight to hell. Kill them all.

Keep up the good fight!

March 10th, 2010
3:52 pm

NMP…… correcting typos was something you pointed out….I acknowlege that I make many….dont like being called black, huh pot?

As for your premise that no one would raise their hand to represent Yamamoto…..I have and others…so your no takers comment was woefully wrong.

And the additional point is I dont have to agree with him or what he did to defend his act as a non-crime but rather as an act in connection with a war. Just as attorneys can think many criminal clients and others may have reprehensible morals and be guilty as sin…they deserve the protection of the law and a right to due process and not just when everyone agrees that they are innocent. The objective has always been that no innocent people be convicted. Unfortunately we still strive to attain that true standard. Too many conservatives use the word “terrorist” to be a judgment of guilt and they forget that until proven guilty it is alleged terrorism.

Of course “enemy combatant” also presumes a war….We had a war on drugs did that make them combatants? You toss out “armed conflict” acknowledging a distinction in wording….but without definition of either. When is a crime an act of war…when is it a war…or is it just a crime….does a nation have to be involved… if no national government is involved, how many people in that country does it take to declare a war? Can one person declare a war if they are not the national government? If 10 people say they are against the US, do we have a right to treat anyone call anyone who may defend them in court as the “Al Queda 7″ or to claim that somehow those 7 are less than other Americans? Words have import and meaning. Because I disagree with you and your interpretation of the Constitution, does that may your acts treason? Liz Cheney is related to a man who many Americans consider a violator of international law and treaties, federal laws and the Consitution….because she supports Dick if she guilty of a secret desire to take away our freedoms? If Cheney is brought to trial for alleged war crimes in Spain on international charges, is he entitled to a defense? You can live with Scout in your “secure” world that you are the final judge….but we have a system of justice and government for a reason. We have checks and balances for a reason. Life is not black and white or good vs evil. There is constant gray area and changing social values. Our founding fathers sought to ensure that all accused by our government have the right to an attorney and did not make a distinction about where the US government held trial or the citizenship of the person. If it is the US government and an allegation of US laws, there is a right to an attorney/advocate.

Jim Capatelli

March 10th, 2010
4:20 pm

I’m a traditional values conservative. I take our Constitution seriously. And that means that everyone gets a fair trial. That means everyone.

Stalin had “special trials” for “enemies of the state”. So did Hitler. So did Mao.

We’re Americans. We’re better than that.

As a result, I’m disgusted by Liz Cheney and that slanderous video made by her and Bill Kristol.
It makes all conservatives look small, nasty and somewhat Fascist.

If you, as a conservative, remain mute, while Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol smear all of us with their Joe McCarthy tactics, you’re complicit and/or cowardly.

I’m neither. And in the name of my own integrity, our Constitution, and the blood of our Founding Fathers, I forced to condemn Cheney and Kristol and their horrific, demagogic propaganda.

Shame on you, Liz Cheney. Shame on you.

Abrazos

March 10th, 2010
4:25 pm

Newsflash: Liz Cheney “is thinking about” running for office now. Gee, really? Representing the Great State of North Paranoia, no doubt. Contamination from that amoral family floats through the air like noxious gas.

retiredds

March 10th, 2010
4:28 pm

Jim Capatelli @ 4:20pm, you and I are not in the same camp regarding politcal ideology, I’m more to the left of center, but I must say you have made a strong and excellent case that supports the piece Bob Barr has written. You get right to the heart of the matter, we as Americans despise what the terroists have done and are doing, but out US Constitutional values and premises deserve much more than the “down in the gutter” remarks of Liz Cheney and her ilk. Her kind have preached for decades about the “rule of law”, but it seems when it doesn’t suit their “evil empire” ideology then let the Constitution be (your blip phrase here).

ProgressivePeach

March 10th, 2010
4:46 pm

Bob, when are you going to renounce the current Republican Party and admit what the rest of us already know — that the only ones left in it are the kooks, the demogogues, those who don’t believe in the Bill of RIghts, and those who want to impose a theocracy upon us? Do some soul-searching and renounce them!

The Tar and Feathers Party

March 10th, 2010
4:54 pm

Both Dick and Liz need the GITMO treatment themselves….make it so…

The Tar and Feathers Party

March 10th, 2010
4:57 pm

Ah fergot ta add the word “freak” to the above question…

DWTOO

March 10th, 2010
5:06 pm

Terrorists aim to destroy the American way of life – when we try them outside of our Constitution, pass laws that infringe on our way of life and our rights (Patriot Act, et al), and make us fearful beyond belief they win. Guess what folks they’re accomplishing their goals and we’re helping them. The nation that won WWII against some real demons like Hitler and Tojo now cowers from a bunch of street thugs. C’mon folks get a spine.

There’s wonderful quote from a minister, Martin Neimoller, from Nazi Germany. It ends “Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me”. When you deny rights for one group, then it’s another group you don’t like. It’s a slippery slope.

Joe

March 10th, 2010
5:36 pm

Liz is wrong about just about everything, but to doubt the patriotism of people going to work at the DOJ is really low even for her. If you want to keep America safe people restore the rule of law and bring war criminals in the Bush Administration to justice.

Rafe Hollister

March 10th, 2010
6:18 pm

Hey Joe, only backwater dictatorships and banana republics try former leaders as war criminals. Liberals are so hypocritical. Above Capatelli decries the treatment of enemies of state by Stalin and Hitler, but you want to try the previous administration for war crimes. Didn’t Stalin do that, remember how he treated the Russian Czars and their families. You have so much sympathy and heart ache over the treatment of the murdering terrorists, but none whatsoever for Bush/ Cheney, et al.

Scout

March 10th, 2010
6:55 pm

Keep up the good fight!:

You didn’t answer the question but you are obviously a sheep. That’s o.k. Nothing wrong with that. Most people are.

However, the sheepdogs of the world will take care of you so sleep well tonight ! We’re on watch………

God bless …………..

Keep up the good fight!

March 10th, 2010
7:07 pm

Scout……if you were a tree, what type of tree would you be?

Sheep, sheepdog… I intentionally chose not to answer a very silly question. Not sure what you are watching for…….. The self-appointed “sheepdogs” of the world “taking care of me” are what causes me to lose sleep.

Thankfully there are people on both sides of the political spectrum who can agree that although we disagree about much, there are some priniciples that we can agree on.

RGB

March 10th, 2010
7:43 pm

As Bernie Goldberg said: If a lawyer who had defended the Klan later took a job in the Civil Rights division of the Justice department under a Republican administration, people would have a fit.

Same thing.

Andrew

March 10th, 2010
8:04 pm

Our Constitutional rights do not apply to terrorists we capture on the battlefield.

neo-Carlinist

March 10th, 2010
8:39 pm

while I have no opinion either way as far as the public trials vs. military tribunals debate goes; the whole “enemy combatant/battlefield” argument does not pass muster. while some of the GITMO detains were captured “on the battlefields” of Iraq and Afghanistan, and others may have been caught on American soil, many were not. perhaps the most well-known GITMO resisent, KSM was taken down in a “safe house” in Pakistan. I personally don’t care whether terrorists get a military tribunal or a public trial, but the idea that they should be shot or executed is counter-productive to the whole concept of counter-terrorism.

Chris Broe

March 10th, 2010
8:46 pm

CNN just reported that the seven dwarfs, led by Sleepy-cell, are suing Liz Cheney for libeling the name of the seven dwarfs with the Al Queda Seven slanderous thing..

Lindsay Lohan was unavailable for comment. The E-trade baby threw up.

Keep up the good fight!

March 10th, 2010
8:56 pm

RGB, there is absolutely no reason that an attorney who defended the KKK should be banned from being in the DOJ Civil Rights division based on that representation alone. In fact the ACLU has defended the First Amendment rights of the KKK a number of times. That does not mean that the ACLU is a racist organization. If the winds were to align, I am confident that even a black civil rights attorney would be willing to deny a KKK member denied their civil rights as a matter of legal principle even though the attorney would likely have disdain for everything that individual stands for. The rule of law is greater than the individual involved.

Scout

March 10th, 2010
11:08 pm

To Keep up the good fight! :

“Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been at sea.” Samuel Johnson (1709-1784).

“Dulce Bellum Inexpertis”

Bow wow !

Taps!

deborahinAthens

March 11th, 2010
7:03 am

To those of you that think like “An American” , read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence. The tenets are that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL WITH CERTAIN INALIANABLE RIGHTS. ALL MEN, not white, Christian men, not Republican right-wing nut men, not American men. ALL MEN. We are a country of laws. When you start cherry picking which laws apply to which group, you are no longer a shining beacon on the hill.

sam

March 11th, 2010
9:49 am

Liz is a hot mess, just like her daddy. isnt there a hole in wyoming they should be crawling back in to?

55

March 11th, 2010
10:24 am

That hag and her sickening old man should both be tortured.

Just for the fun of it.

No More Progressives!

March 11th, 2010
10:27 am

Keep up the good fight!

March 10th, 2010
7:07 pm
Scout……if you were a tree, what type of tree would you be?

It’s pointless, Scout. This guy has taken his debate lessons right out of Saul Alinsky’s book.

Rule 7: Tactics:
#10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

MrLiberty

March 11th, 2010
11:23 am

In a fantasy future I can imagine all of the members of the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, the first Bush administration, and the Obama administration being brought up on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity charges. If there were any justice in this world, this would not have to be a fantasy, but unfortunately justice is now in the eye of the victor and international laws, treaties, or respect for other human beings no longer matters to the US government and its “leaders.”

Funny how “conservatives” only have respect for the constitution when it serves their interests. I guess that is the difference between principled libertarians and the rest.

somewhereinga

March 11th, 2010
11:23 am

Jim Capatelli, I couldn’t agree with you more. The woman is unpatriotic. She is unAmerican. It is people like her who do more damage to America than any terrorist will ever be able to do because she undermines the SOUL of America.

aboch

March 11th, 2010
12:41 pm

Scout has proved, that by calling someone he disagrees with a sheep, he is the biggest sheep of all. Learn how to give a rational argument without subjecting yourself to terrible debate cliches.

BigD

March 11th, 2010
3:49 pm

We need to to do what General” black jack” Pershing did…shoot them with bullets diped in hog blood and throw them all in grave with dead pigs. That will teach them not to blow up our buildings and saw the heads off Americans. There is going to be war and you chicken#$%$% people better get use to it…it ain’t going to be pretty.

leeh1

March 11th, 2010
4:05 pm

This is old hat for conservatives. They used to bash lawyers for the Civil Rights activists in the 1950’s and 1960’s. The whole plot of Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” was the hate generated at the lawyer, Atticus Finch, for defending a black man.

They didn’t mind a lawyer defending a black accused of a crime against a white girl- they were just angry because he was so good.

Obviously Cheney is upset that the lawyers for the accused are also good, and don’t deliberately sabotage their client’s case. She and the other conservatives simply want the motions to be made so they can go ahead and hang the guy.

They really, really hate those people who believe the American principles of Truth, Justice and the American Way. It upsets the conservative point of view and their own view of power and priviledge.

[...] her Constitution-redacting Dad, Lynn Cheney would deny counsel to Gitmo defendants. We imagine the Cheneys would throw John Adams in jail for defending Boston’s Redcoats if [...]

the Squad

March 12th, 2010
7:09 am

oh what a Dyke! where’s her wife?

Jennifer E Elliott

March 16th, 2010
8:11 pm

Again a reason why a commission based on everything that was false and detrimental from criminal codes of FISA, pushing the Justice ACT as well as reciminalize torture under the 2010 House Intel bill by (D) Reyes… 15 years for an officer of employee that tortures, 25 years in prison for medical malfeasence, life in prison for death…

And ending the nonsense of Liz Cheney trying to make a career out of being a grand dellusion for spindustry. That one mouth does more harm to national secuirty in trying to protect her father.. Team Cheney of the Torture Team..

What Me Worry

March 23rd, 2010
2:43 pm

Trust the government to get it right every time. They know who the bad guys are without fail. So if someone caught in a terror plot fingers someone else shoot them too. I trust the infallacy of our government I’m sure their sources are all upstanding trustworthy individuals. And if a few innocent people get killed in the process well this is war innocent people will be killed by both sides. I’m sure the government will try really hard to not accidentally kill any of your family members. I’m sure noone will point their finger at someone else to have a few charges dropped.

paradise escorts

August 31st, 2010
1:53 pm

Rather nice site you’ve got here. Thanx for it. I like such themes and anything that is connected to them. I would like to read a bit more soon.

Kate Benedict