‘The al Qaeda Seven’ are defenders of basic American values

This is some truly despicable stuff.

In fact, this is why politics matters so much, because it is crucial to keep people like this as far away as possible from the levers of power. They are truly dangerous to those things that make America great.

The video below was put together by Keep America Safe, a group led by Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol. It attempts to create political leverage from the fact that nine attorneys who volunteered to represent detainees at Guantanamo have since been hired as lawyers at the Department of Justice. The Washington Times editorial board has labeled the lawyers as “The Gitmo Nine.” Investors Business Daily has renamed the DOJ as the “Department of Jihad” and wondered “just whose side are they on?”

Two of the nine attorneys have been named — Neal Katyal and Jennifer Daskal. But in the video, the Keep America Safe crowd wants to know why the names of the other seven haven’t been made public by Attorney General Eric Holder. “Bring them out,” they seem to say, as if they were a lynch mob demanding satisfaction.

“Why the secrecy behind the other seven?,” the narrator intones ominously as footage of Osama bin Laden flashes in the background. “Whose values do THEY share? Tell Eric Holder that Americans have the right to know the identity of the al Qaeda Seven.”

“The al Qaeda Seven.” Lovely. Absolutely lovely.

Under the military commission system established by Congress and the Pentagon at the insistence of the U.S. Supreme Court, the so-called “al Qaeda Seven” did their patriotic duty as Americans and as officers of the court. Their values are deeply American values, and they have acted on them. Without pay and often at substantial personal sacrifice, they committed time, resources and reputation to ensure that the U.S. judicial system worked as our Founding Fathers designed it to work.

I have talked with several attorneys who volunteered their services to defend detainees, although none to my knowledge is among “the al Qaeda Seven.” Each time, I came away impressed by their devotion to the Constitution and by their patriotism.

This isn’t the first time this issue has arisen. Back in 2007, a Pentagon lawyer named Charles D. “Cully” Stimson named a dozen major law firms that had volunteered lawyers to serve as pro bono defense counsel for Gitmo detainees. Corporate CEOs, Stimson snidely suggested, should “make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms.”

Those comments set off a stir of controversy, and to their immense credit corporate leaders made clear their support for the pro bono work done by their lawyers. Stimson was quickly forced to backpedal, noting that “I believe firmly that a foundational principle of our legal system is that the system works best when both sides are represented by competent legal counsel…. I believe that our justice system requires vigorous representation.” Two weeks later, he was forced to resign in shame.

Air Force Col. Morris Davis, now retired, was the military’s chief prosecutor at Guantanamo from 2005-2007. In an interview with Spencer Ackerman, Davis has denounced the attacks on the “Gitmo Nine.”

“It is absolutely outrageous for the Cheney-Grassley crowd to try to tar and feather (these attorneys) and insinuate they are al-Qaeda supporters. You don’t hear anyone refer to John Adams as a turncoat for representing the Brits in the Boston Massacre trial,” Davis said. “If you zealously represent a client, there’s nothing shameful about that. That’s the American way.”

john_adams

John Adams, role model for "the al Qaeda Seven"

As it happens, Friday will be the 240th anniversary of the Boston Massacre. As you no doubt recall, British troops facing an angry crowd of Boston residents shot and killed five civilians in 1770. The shooting galvanized American public opinion against British rule and the redcoats, hastening the onset of the American Revolution still six years away.

As Davis notes, John Adams served as the defense attorney for the six British soldiers charged with murder in the case. Threatened with a ruined business and the end to his political career, the future president nonetheless argued the case before a Boston jury. Adams won acquittals of the commanding officer and three of the soldiers; two others were convicted of manslaughter.

In his journal a few years later, Adams recalled the difficulty of fulfilling that mission:

“I. . .devoted myself to endless labour and Anxiety if not to infamy and death, and that for nothing, except, what indeed was and ought to be all in all, a sense of duty. In the Evening I expressed to Mrs. Adams all my Apprehensions: That excellent Lady, who has always encouraged me, burst into a flood of Tears, but said she was very sensible of all the Danger to her and to our Children as well as to me, but she thought I had done as I ought, she was very willing to share in all that was to come and place her trust in Providence….

“The Part I took in Defence of Cptn. Preston and the Soldiers, procured me Anxiety, and Obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country. Judgment of Death against those Soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches, anciently. As the Evidence was, the Verdict of the Jury was exactly right.”

That is courage and duty. That is American values at work.

The values motivating Keep America Safe, on the other hand, are those of the craven mob. And we as a nation have been and I hope always will be so much better than that.

355 comments Add your comment

I Report (-: You Whine )-: Have A Drink On Us, obozo!

March 2nd, 2010
5:18 pm

I Report (-: You Whine )-: Have A Drink On Us, obozo!

March 2nd, 2010
5:21 pm

Holder is a verified terrorist sympathizer and from that you can draw your own conclusion.

Some of us think defending throat cutters and the killers of innocent women and children is despicable, just sayin….

I Report (-: You Whine )-: Have A Drink On Us, obozo!

March 2nd, 2010
5:23 pm

Here we go with the innocent goat herder who just so happened to be picked up on the battlefield.

Armed to the teeth.

Is there a savage the liberals don’t adore?

Gene

March 2nd, 2010
5:27 pm

Political scumbags and warmongers hiding behind the microphone and videotape. I’m sure they know mothing of self sacrifice and contribute their annecdotes to only financially profitable causes.

Intown

March 2nd, 2010
5:29 pm

Well done Bookman. The radical right is nothing but a bezerk lynch mob. they are the greatest threat to democracy and the rule of law this nation has seen in a long long time.

I Report (-: You Whine )-: Have A Drink On Us, obozo!

March 2nd, 2010
5:30 pm

On March 5, 1770 a small group of colonists were up to their usual sport of tormenting British soldiers. By many accounts there was a great deal of taunting that eventually lead to an escalation of hostilities. The sentry in front of the Custom House eventually lashed out at the colonists which brought more colonists to the scene. In fact, someone began ringing the church bells which usually signified a fire. The sentry called for help, setting up the clash which we now call the Boston Massacre.

A group of soldiers led by Captain Thomas Preston came to the rescue of the lone sentry. Captain Preston and his detachment of seven or eight men were quickly surrounded. All attempts to calm the crowd proved useless. At this point, the accounts of the event vary drastically. Apparently, a soldier fired a musket into the crowd, immediately followed by more shots. This action left several wounded and five dead including an African-American named Crispus Attucks.

How many angry mobs of women and children do you reckon al Qaeda has defended themselves against?

It’s a sick comparison, just sayin..

Robert

March 2nd, 2010
5:32 pm

Its always nice to see such well thought out responses. I wonder if any of these responders have ever heard of John Adam.

RB from Gwinnett

March 2nd, 2010
5:35 pm

What’s the point of the trial anyway Jay? Biden already declared them guilty and promised they would never walk free again? Why waste the time and money for this show when he’s already revealed the ending?

And your comment below is a complete joke, Jay. There is no way you can expect any rataional reader to have read your piece and not conclude your intent was to paint Bunning as one who doesn’t care about unemployed people. That’s a complete lack of journalistic integrity, Jay. You owe the man an apology.

jewcowboy

March 2nd, 2010
5:35 pm

Any more despicable than the original of this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmVACvVQwSc&feature=related

josef nix

March 2nd, 2010
5:36 pm

I doubt these attorneys volunteered their services so much out of dedication to the principles of representation before a court of law as they did from what it would bring them in terms of prestige and or noteriety. The Gloria Alred syndrome seems to go with the territory in these high profile cases. That said, the job of a defense attorney is to get his/her client off the hook as much as possible. Would the opponents suggest that we deny defendents legal representation in a court of law based on the relative popularity of their “cause?”

Jay

March 2nd, 2010
5:37 pm

Bunning owes the unemployed an apology.

Jay

March 2nd, 2010
5:38 pm

And Josef, if they did it for the prestige and notoriety, how come we don’t know their names?

Brad Steel

March 2nd, 2010
5:41 pm

…a group led by Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol.

There’s your sign.

josef nix

March 2nd, 2010
5:42 pm

jewcowboy–
Despicable, without a doubt and were it not so gallows-humor funny, I’d consider it dangerous. However, our constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and opininion mean that, should someone try to ban it, I’d come out swinging. It’s much the same with thre al-Qaada Seven–as reprehensible as I may find their philosophy and the actions they have been charged with, a fair trial demands they be afforded representation.

roldawg70

March 2nd, 2010
5:43 pm

lets see
cut funding on education
require students rote learning
with no controversy
only approved history
no critical thinking
then we can have a
populace that can be
ruled by thowe who shout
and create fear

wonderful

roldawg70

March 2nd, 2010
5:44 pm

should be those instead of thowe

I Report (-: You Whine )-: Have A Drink On Us, obozo!

March 2nd, 2010
5:44 pm

Aahhh, yes, the whining is all a misdirection ploy-

Ironically, say DOJ sources, while Holder and his staff continue to work hard to protect the identities of those attorneys who provided legal advice to suspected or convicted terrorists, several of the attorneys in question are believed to have been instrumental in the efforts of Human Rights Watch and CREW to leak to the media and Democrat supporters on Capitol Hill, the names of CIA interrogators of enemy combatants and suspected terrorists, as well as the locations of foreign-based U.S. secure holding facilities and various interrogation techniques used on terror suspects and enemy combatants.

Now Bookman is on record calling these traitors “heroes.”

I Report (-: You Whine )-: Have A Drink On Us, obozo!

March 2nd, 2010
5:45 pm

Liz Cheney is a Patriot, just sayin….

Why do you think these mealy mouthed socialists hate her?

arnold

March 2nd, 2010
5:46 pm

Well, the chicken hawks are at it again. They continue their despicable history. Just be glad W didn’t die in office.

josef nix

March 2nd, 2010
5:50 pm

JAY–
We do know the name of two, and why is that? I’ve been priviledged to have known a number of lawyers who took on unpopular cases, some from a sincere dedication to constitutional principles and some for far less idealistic reasons. In my experience, the higher the profile the more the latter was the motivation, the more obscure, the more the dedication to principle. That is why I prefaced what I said with “I doubt…”

It is the way the game is played. It’s how a resume is built. I don’t necessarily “resent” them doing so, but neither am I willing to grant them coats of mail out of hand.

Midori

March 2nd, 2010
5:51 pm

The radical right is nothing but a bezerk lynch mob.

hahahahahahahahaha :)

Paul

March 2nd, 2010
5:51 pm

Kristol. The Richard Perle of journalism. And Cheney? Inexplicable for any decent reason.

BTW – one of the Fox news and entertainment shows the other night. Host referred to letters wanting to know why they weren’t covering this (the attorney issue, not the commercial). He said they’d contacted Justice, who said (numbers are ballpark) 38 of 50 of the top law firms did work for AQ defendants. Then he said there’s no story.

Except about those who exploit it.

josef nix

March 2nd, 2010
5:55 pm

JAY

And why do I think we don’t know their names? For the time being, I’d venture discretion as the greater part of valor. As we can see from the posts coming in, the reputation they may be gaining in the professional sphere is more than offset by an element of the population which is disinterested in constitutional principles…

Jay

March 2nd, 2010
5:56 pm

Why do we know the names of two?

Because the Washington Times, in its effort to assassinate their character, ferreted them out.

It wasn’t because they sought publicity. Seriously, Josef. Until you read this piece, had you ever heard or seen the names Neal Katyal and Jennifer Daskal?

jewcowboy

March 2nd, 2010
5:56 pm

josef nix,

” However, our constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and opininion mean that”

Certainly! If they could not produce their video, how could we have parodies such as these?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0pPEAdDn64
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mQVT2SC3M0

josef nix

March 2nd, 2010
5:58 pm

JAY–
L-wdy! What in the name of rationality put that 5:55 into moderation. Not that I greatly care, but it is intriguing. However, it was mostly to you, anyway… Illigitimati non carbonrandum! :-)

jt

March 2nd, 2010
5:59 pm

Pretty decent piece except for the lawyers not getting paid. I had to laugh.

Its in their genes. They do nothing for free.

“America is “a nation of cowards”
Eric Holder

josef nix

March 2nd, 2010
6:01 pm

JAY–
Thanks for turning it loose so quickly!

No, I had not heard of them and, yes, I will agree with you on the “ferret out” aspect. However my contention of “prestige and notoriety” refers more to the circles in which they run than to the public at large. Perhaps I should have better worded it, “prestige or notoriety.”

Drew

March 2nd, 2010
6:01 pm

Huh. Neal Katyal, one of the targets of Liz Cheney’s lynch mob, argued Hamdan v. Rumsfeld before the Supreme Court. Even the conservative Supreme Court sided with him over Cheney. Are they the al Qaeda Nine?

Liz Cheney et. al. won’t be satisfied until torture is as commonplace in America’s justice system as it is in Iran’s. This is simply another front in that sick crusade.

Matilda

March 2nd, 2010
6:04 pm

I don’t know Liz Cheney well enough to love her or hate her, but I understand she IS upset that Andrea Mitchell fact-checks her statements. http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/liz-cheney-thinks-its-unfair-if-andrea-mit

I wonder why?

Paul

March 2nd, 2010
6:05 pm

Drew

That second paragraph is about as extreme as the commercial.

Paul

March 2nd, 2010
6:06 pm

Hi Midori!!!

:-)

josef nix

March 2nd, 2010
6:07 pm

jewcowboy @ 5:56

Heh, heh! The First Amendment. Ain’t it grand?

jewcowboy

March 2nd, 2010
6:08 pm

josef nix,

“For the time being, I’d venture discretion as the greater part of valor.”
“L-wdy! What in the name of rationality put that 5:55 into moderation”

discretion? valor?

RW-(the original)

March 2nd, 2010
6:11 pm

Funny, I don’t seem to remember this call to privacy when it was Wall street execs the lefty lynch mobs were after.

I’ve always been uncomfortable with those who try to tie a lawyer to his or her clients, but I also wouldn’t like to see these 9 go from defense lawyer to prosecutor on the very same cases. All in all this seems to be a pretty pathetic smear….unless we aren’t getting the whole story here….

vince neil

March 2nd, 2010
6:12 pm

The defendants are enemies of the state and should be tried by the military…quickly…………these attorneys, while misguided are probably sincere in their absurd self righteous defense of said enemies…..they are a bunch of hippies who may not necessarily hate all we are about much like their “clients”…but once they actually own property and have to pay taxes will change their minds or move to Canada….hopefully
I am truly overwhelmed by the vitriol on the left….do you people kiss your Prius’ with that mouth?

Paul

March 2nd, 2010
6:14 pm

josef nix

[[“L-wdy! What in the name of rationality put that 5:55 into moderation”]]

“Sphere.”

So many connotations. Plus, it sounds slightly ominous. Gotta be it.

josef nix

March 2nd, 2010
6:14 pm

jewcowboy–
That’s the ticket! :-)

Curious Observer

March 2nd, 2010
6:14 pm

Ah! Right-wing political correctness at work. If the defendant is an accused terrorist, then transfer the accusation to his attorney too. Does anyone wonder why the finances of state legal defense funds are in such desperate shape right now? I’m thankful that there are still a few Clarence Darrows in this country. Darrow, you know, also went against popular opinion to argue for his client.

But I forget myself. According to the rightists, the terrorists should be tried by a military tribunal–you know, the judging system where the prosecutor picks the jury members and where the conviction rate is some 96%. Never mind that such tribunals will have no credibility in most parts of the world and will inevitably be viewed as the U.S. getting its revenge, without regard to principles of justice.

Thanks on this end to those attorneys who had the courage to serve as counsel for widely reviled clients. I don’t ask about their motivation, unlike some on this blog. They did the job, instead of running their mouths to curry popular favor. People like them make the American justice system work. It’s hard enough for a defendant to go up against an entire state that has unlimited resources. At least such a defendant can have a competent attorney–something that, shamefully, has not occurred throughout the history of American jurisprudence.

josef nix

March 2nd, 2010
6:16 pm

PAUL–
And ’round and ’round we go!

Paul

March 2nd, 2010
6:16 pm

vince neil

“There haven’t been hippies in centuries. Are you freeze-dried or doing hard time? ”

Corporal Snitch Neal to Gunny Highway in Heartbreak Ridge.

@@

March 2nd, 2010
6:17 pm

The planet is off it’s axis, jay, and sometimes so are you.

Why the outrage? Eric Holder’s “selective” reasoning could, very possibly, be linked to his own defense of terrorists. His decisions could have an impact on us all. He’s a public figure…he’s fair game.

The three lacrosse players at Duke University? They were not fair game, yet your media cohorts and liberal academics were all too eager to convict on hearsay alone.

As I recall, many of your leftist contributors tagged them as “rich white boys run amok.”

“Until Proven Innocent” by Stuart Taylor Jr and KC Johnson tells the tale of vicious attacks directed at the lacrosse players.

When one finger points forward, there will be three pointing back.

Selective outrage? Gotta luv it?

Paul

March 2nd, 2010
6:19 pm

Curious Observer

[[Never mind that such tribunals will have no credibility in most parts of the world and will inevitably be viewed as the U.S. getting its revenge, without regard to principles of justice.]]

So you think a criminal justice system, in which the President and Attorney General say the accused WILL be found guilty, and if by some strange reason they aren’t, they’ll never see freedom anyhow, is viewed by the rest of the world as a credible justice system?

Matilda

March 2nd, 2010
6:20 pm

Hahahaha! Paul at 6:16, GOOD ONE! Hahaha!

josef nix

March 2nd, 2010
6:23 pm

Curious Observer–

I readily agree with what you say, but as with anyone, I don’t think we ought to be out handing out haloes willy-nilly either. It cheapens the ones that are truly deserved.I would recommend “To Kill a Mockingbird” as an insight into what I’m talking about. Atticus Finch, these lawyers ain’t.

Curious Observer

March 2nd, 2010
6:26 pm

So you think a criminal justice system, in which the President and Attorney General say the accused WILL be found guilty, and if by some strange reason they aren’t, they’ll never see freedom anyhow, is viewed by the rest of the world as a credible justice system?

The fact that a pair of political hacks can’t check their tongues does not discredit the American justice system, although it discredits them. Sorry, but Obama and Holder have engaged in the same kind of favor-currying that I wrote about. Politicians, regardless of affiliation, need to put a sock in it when it comes to the administration of justice. The judiciary is independent for a reason. Obama and Holder have inflicted great damage on the reputation of the judiciary with their statements.

@@

March 2nd, 2010
6:27 pm

Atticus Finch, these lawyers ain’t.

josef, I wholeheartedly agree. If they were they wouldn’t have accepted the appointments. More worthy defendants on our own streets.

josef nix

March 2nd, 2010
6:28 pm

PAUL @ 6:19

“When logic and proportion, have fallen sloppy dead…”

Curious Observer

March 2nd, 2010
6:32 pm

So you think a criminal justice system, in which the President and Attorney General say the accused WILL be found guilty, and if by some strange reason they aren’t, they’ll never see freedom anyhow, is viewed by the rest of the world as a credible justice system?

The fact that Obama and Holder can’t check their tongues does not discredit the American justice system, although it discredits them. The American judiciary is independent for a reason. And the statements of these two politicians have done great damage by implying that if a court doesn’t find these people guilty, it won’t matter anyway. Such statements are as anti-democratic and anti-constitutional as one can get. They remind me very much of Stalin’s reply when one of his advisers counseled that an action, if taken, might very well offend the Vatican. That reply: “And how many divisions has the Pope?”

josef nix

March 2nd, 2010
6:33 pm

@@

The real heroes of our criminal justice system are those court appointed attorneys out in Lonoke, Arkansas who fight like h*ll for their clients with no reward other than being able to sleep at night.

Drew

March 2nd, 2010
6:38 pm

“That second paragraph is about as extreme as the commercial.”

Hm. So how frequently would Liz Cheney’s America torture as compared to Iran? If not as much, then three-quarters as much? Half as much? Liz Cheney has said that we must torture; I simply assumed that she wanted to torture as much as any nation that tortures would.

md

March 2nd, 2010
6:38 pm

“It wasn’t because they sought publicity.”

And because Jay believes a certain way, there must be no possibility that they were out for fame and fortune – please.

In the real world Jay, unless you know these folks personally, none of us has a clue as to their true intentions – including you.

Paul

March 2nd, 2010
6:39 pm

Curious Obsever

The President and Attorney General are a couple of political hacks?

Where’d the 96 percent conviction rate come from?

The prosecutor picks the jury? You might want to read the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Or at least skim through it. It’s online.

Once had a person tell me “if you’re a defendant, you want to be tried in military court and sentenced in civilian court.” When I inquired further, the explanation was “military juries are very well educated and see through prosecution and defense false arguments. They don’t suspend reality when they walk in a courtroom.”

Kamchak

March 2nd, 2010
6:40 pm

Halos? Atticus Finch?

jewcowboy

March 2nd, 2010
6:40 pm

josef nix,

“The real heroes of our criminal justice system are those court appointed attorneys out in Lonoke, Arkansas”

Wait a second…what about poor Joslyn James and Rachel Uchitel? The true heroine….yep you know who:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/11/tiger-woods-mistress-glor_n_388328.html

josef nix

March 2nd, 2010
6:40 pm

md

Which is why I said, “I doubt…” They may indeed be motivated entirely by the most noble of dedications to principals…but I doubt it.

jewcowboy

March 2nd, 2010
6:43 pm

Or who has done more in death than those in life? This is who:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJYPZj1Mb6c

Paul

March 2nd, 2010
6:43 pm

Drew

See what happens when you assume?

I take it that means you don’t have citations for Liz Cheney saying she wants torture for American citizens ? (”Liz Cheney et. al. won’t be satisfied until torture is as commonplace in America’s justice system as it is in Iran’s. “}

md

March 2nd, 2010
6:43 pm

Jo,

I read your post as “there is a possibility”……………

I read Jay’s response as “I have spoken”…………..

josef nix

March 2nd, 2010
6:43 pm

K’chak

Not following that one…clarification?

jewcowboy–

That woman gets on my last nerve!

jewcowboy

March 2nd, 2010
6:44 pm

Why does California have the most attorneys, and New Jersey have the most toxic waste dumps?

New Jersey got first pick

Kamchak

March 2nd, 2010
6:46 pm

josef

No where in Jay’s piece did I see anything coming close to canonization or hero worship.

Hillbilly Deluxe

March 2nd, 2010
6:47 pm

Since I don’t know these people, I don’t know their motivations but I will say, I don’t really trust any lawyer, including my own.

jewcowboy

March 2nd, 2010
6:48 pm

josef nix,

As much as she may annoy you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIN0PuW3NRQ

jewcowboy

March 2nd, 2010
6:49 pm

What’s the difference between a good lawyer and a great lawyer?

A good lawyer knows the law. A great lawyer knows the judge.

jewcowboy

March 2nd, 2010
6:51 pm

As I am dealing with several lawyers on estate settlement right now, this seem appropriate:

How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?

Fifty four. Eight to argue, one to get a continuance, one to object, one to demur, two to research precedents, one to dictate a letter, one to stipulate, five to turn in their time cards, one to depose, one to write interrogatories, two to settle, one to order a secretary to change the bulb, and twenty-eight to bill for professional services.

Paul

March 2nd, 2010
6:52 pm

jewcowboy

Did you know Washington DC has more lawyers than people?

jewcowboy

March 2nd, 2010
6:54 pm

Paul,

What’s wrong with lawyer jokes?

Lawyers don’t think they’re funny, and nobody else thinks they’re jokes.

jconservative

March 2nd, 2010
6:55 pm

“Liz Cheney is a Patriot, just sayin….”

I say Lynn Cheney has surrendered to al Qaeda. In her twisted mind al Qaeda has won.

The day we allow al Qaeda, or any terrorist, to dictate American legal and moral standards is the day we have lost. I can handle, and indeed love, hardball politics. But there are realms where, for the good of the country, you do not go. This is one of those realms.

Cheney & Kristol are really saying …”screw the Supreme Court of the United States, we see a chance to score a political point…”.

Just saying.

jewcowboy

March 2nd, 2010
6:55 pm

If you are stranded on a desert island with Adolph Hitler, Atilla the Hun, and a lawyer, and you have a gun with only two bullets, what do you do?

Shoot the lawyer twice.

Paul

March 2nd, 2010
6:56 pm

jewcowboy

Actually, I don’t think there are any lawyer jokes. None at all.

They’re true stories.

Hey, whaddya call eight lawyers, jumping one after the other off the top of a 25-story building?

Skeet!

Midori

March 2nd, 2010
6:58 pm

OT: Bunning has caved!!

jewcowboy

March 2nd, 2010
6:58 pm

Paul,

LMAO!

What’s the difference between a dead dog in the road and a dead lawyer in the road?

There are skid marks in front of the dog.

josef nix

March 2nd, 2010
6:58 pm

K’chak

The “Atticus Finch” was addressed to Curious Observer, not Jay.

Jewcowboy–
Yeah, but did Gloria get through 25 words without a use of the first person pronoun? That;s why I say she gets on my last nerve…and you’re right, it is that she annoys me…as we would say, “that girl’s just too full of herself…”

jewcowboy

March 2nd, 2010
7:03 pm

Midori,

Jim Bunning…

That’s the joke and the punchline.

Midori

March 2nd, 2010
7:03 pm

jewcowboy

March 2nd, 2010
7:04 pm

Do you know how to save a drowning lawyer?

Take your foot off his head.

Paul

March 2nd, 2010
7:07 pm

Midori

And the benefits are retroactive.

jewcowboy

Now that’s how to spend an evening!

Okay, last one.

An aspiring young lawyer was sitting in her office late one night (see? this is an equal opportunity joke), when Satan appeared before her. The Devil told the lawyer “I have a proposition for you…”

“You can win every case you try for the rest of your life. Your clients will adore you, your colleagues will stand in awe of you, and you will make so much money Wall Street traders will be jealous. All I want in exchange is your your husband’s soul, your children’s souls, the souls of your parents, grandparents, and the souls of all your friends and law partners.”

The lawyer ponders this for a while, then she finally asks: “So… what’s the catch?”

jewcowboy

March 2nd, 2010
7:07 pm

josef nix,

“that girl’s just too full of herself…”

Yeah yeah…but c’mon anyone who quipped this can’t be all bad:

“The more I know about men the more I like dogs.”

Paul

March 2nd, 2010
7:08 pm

okay, that 7:04 was good, too…….right up there with the best -

jewcowboy

March 2nd, 2010
7:09 pm

Paul @ 7.07,

:)

RB from Gwinnett

March 2nd, 2010
7:10 pm

Jay, Bunning has caved. Unemployed people are out NOTHING as a result of his efforts.

You, however, still have no journalistic integrity. Your piece earlier was dishonest. As I’ve told you before, the people of this city deserve better, Jay. Step up or move on.

jewcowboy

March 2nd, 2010
7:10 pm

What do you call a smiling, sober, courteous person at a bar association convention?

The caterer.

bajaboy

March 2nd, 2010
7:14 pm

I remember a federal prosecutor who did not want to prosecute a popular young politician who built a mansion with laundered drug money.

Creative Loafing, an early investigative newspaper, had been sitting on the story for a year and told the prosecutor they were going to publish it if no case was pending.

Bob Barr immediately went after Pat Swindell and became known as a champion of justice who was non-partisan. In politics, a duck is not always a duck.

Scout

March 2nd, 2010
7:14 pm

Jay:

This “may” not be a question of patriotism but in fact is just a question of “appearance”. They should recuse themselves so there is no question of conflict of interest, etc. These cases are just too important.

We do that with judges and jury members all the time and prosecutors or defending attorneys should be no different. I don’t know how many times I have been struck from a jury (after going to all the trouble to show up for jury duty) because I spent a career in law enforcement.

By the way, Adams was part of that group of our founding fathers who was much more elitist than most. I believe he also supported a “permanent” President much like a King. He had his faults for sure.

“In the first year of Washington’s administration, Adams became deeply involved in a month-long Senate controversy over the official title of the President. Adams favored grandiose titles such as “His Majesty the President” or “His High Mightiness” over the simple “President of the United States” that eventually won the debate. The pomposity of his stance, along with his being overweight, led to Adams earning the nickname “His Rotundity.”

jewcowboy

March 2nd, 2010
7:15 pm

RB from Gwinnett,

“You, however, still have no journalistic integrity.”

Please elucidate.

Drew

March 2nd, 2010
7:15 pm

“I take it that means you don’t have citations for Liz Cheney saying she wants torture for American citizens?”

Cheney has said herself that she supports torture – beatings, waterboarding, stress positions, exposure, etc.; her father has said he was “a big supporter.” It’s common knowledge to the point of being a rallying cry for the far right.

Scout

March 2nd, 2010
7:19 pm

P.S.

The Constitution guarantees a “fair” trial ……….. not a perfect one.

A “jury of peers” is not in the Constitution but it’s orginial intent meant people who knew you, your background and whether you were even capable of such an act. Communities had trials where everyone knew everyone. You just picked honest people and they gave honest verdcits.

jewcowboy

March 2nd, 2010
7:19 pm

“a duck is not always a duck.”

A motorist in a Bentley was driving through the country on a Sunday afternoon when he came to an area of the road that was covered with a rather large puddle of water from a previous rain storm.

Worried that he was going to damage the car and its engine in the deep water, he asked a local farmer (who just happened to be standing near the large pool of water) how deep the water was.

“That water is only a few inches deep.”

Relieved, the motorist edged his car into the water, expecting to come out the other side in no time. Instead, as he drove in, the water came right up the side of the car, and the engine sputtered to a halt. Sitting there with the water along with and a floating weed lapping at the window, the motorist yelled at the local angrily: “I thought you said this water was only a few inches deep!!!”

“Well”, replied the local farmer “It only come up to the waist of them there ducks!”

josef nix

March 2nd, 2010
7:19 pm

jewcoyboy–
You’ve got a point there, but she’s not the first to say it…she go to law school with Biden? :-)

Scout

March 2nd, 2010
7:21 pm

P.S.S.

I would argue that the true “Defenders of American Values” are those Marines/soldiers who should have put a bullet between the eyes or a bayonet in the stomach of these terrorists on the field of battle. Then we wouldn’t be having some of these arguements. And before you start …….. the “field of battle” includes the United States proper.

josef nix

March 2nd, 2010
7:22 pm

Scout–

Who was it that referred to Adams as “Your Rotundity?”

Keep the lawyer jokes a’ comin…

AF

March 2nd, 2010
7:23 pm

Good job, Jay.

It is surprising to me that those who support “conservative principals” don’t support this important principal of justice. The right to counsel is a principle that is conservative, constitutional, and honorable.

Finn McCool

March 2nd, 2010
7:25 pm

had you ever heard or seen the names Neal Katyal and Jennifer Daskal?

Umm, they were on the OJ defense team! yeah??

jewcowboy

March 2nd, 2010
7:26 pm

“I take it that means you don’t have citations for Liz Cheney saying she wants torture for American citizens?”

With Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post on “Morning Joe”:

Robinson: I do not think that’s the case. Torture is a war crime. It is a war crime.

Cheney: That’s right. And this wasn’t torture. Those legal memos demonstrated where the line was, and where it would become torture.

Robinson: Waterboarding was torture during the Spanish Inquisition, it was torture when Pol Pot did it, and I believe it was torture when we did it. But that –

I would assume from the quote that citizenship would be inconsequential if the suspect was thought to be an enemy. But I could be wrong…many times I am…

Paul

March 2nd, 2010
7:26 pm

Drew

Earlier you wrote “”Liz Cheney et. al. won’t be satisfied until torture is as commonplace in America’s justice system as it is in Iran’s. “’

If you were inaccurate or exaggerated, it’s okay to say so.

As far as the 7:15…. did she really say she supports beatings? Really? Did she say she supports the measures cited as routine? Or only in certain cases?

Any particular reason you left out other examples of torture, such as yelling at detainees? Making them feel uncomfortable? Or is that okay with you?

(please don’t skip right to the last question. the earlier are really much more interesting)

Dave R.

March 2nd, 2010
7:27 pm

Why don’t lawyers sue sharks?

Professional courtesy.

Dave R.

March 2nd, 2010
7:28 pm

What do you call 100 lawyers buried alive?

A good start . . .

josef nix

March 2nd, 2010
7:29 pm

jewcowboy–

Robinson? Ain’t he the one who used the phrase “off the reservation” in reference to someone who was, well, a bit “savage…” He ain’t real popular in this household…

RB from Gwinnett

March 2nd, 2010
7:29 pm

““There’s no doubt that he would not be acquitted; the facts we have are overwhelming,” Biden said in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program. “He will be in jail and he will stay there.”

So, what’s the point of the trial? Do you think the people who still hate us a year after the one who was supposed to make them love us don’t read the papers or watch TV? Do you think they’re going to feel better about KSM and co. being moved from Gitmo to NY to be given a “fair” trial when the VPotUS has already declared him guilty?

How about you post how pathetic that is, Jay, like you would if W and Cheney had done the same thing?