Bush 43 A-G Judge Michael Mukasey defends lawyers who defend al-Qaeda clients. But there are rebuttals....
Begin with Judge Mukasey, who eloquently writes:
Most recently, lawyers now employed at the Justice Department who, while in private practice, volunteered to represent suspected terrorist detainees, or argued legal positions supporting various rights of such detainees, have been portrayed as in-house counsel to al Qaeda.
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.
Judge Mukasey concedes that some lawyers might be unfit to serve at Justice:
I agree that lawyers who, like the head of one self-described public interest organization, threaten to achieve their desired outcomes by overwhelming the courts with thousands of lawsuits in behalf of detainees, or those who adopt publicly the agendas of their clients, deserve every bit of condemnation they get.
It is plainly prudent for us to assure that no government lawyers are bringing to their public jobs any agenda driven by views other than those that would permit full-hearted enforcement of laws that fall within their responsibility—whether those laws involve prosecution of drug dealers, imposition of the death penalty, or detention of those who seek to wage holy war against the United States. It's also prudent that Congress exercise its long-established oversight responsibility to provide that assurance.
NRO ace Andy McCarthy recounts how al-Qaeda bar types treated him, not American Taliban John Walker Lindh, as the enemy, and prefers military tribunals, where such fauna are excluded. Author Marc Theissen asks if "mob lawyers" could run drug cases at the Justice Department. Both note that A-G Holder's Justice Department gives no quarter to CIA folks who thought they were defending their country when they used enhanced interrogation techniques authorized by Team Bush.
In another NRO posting McCarthy skewers Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-NC) for inconsistency & getting his own law wrong! Better still, McCarthy quotes Sen. Graham during the debate over the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (as law Graham co-sponsored, which was amended in 2009). Referring to one al-Qaeda bar lawyer (who meets the Judge Mukasey "overwhelming the courts" test above), Sen. Graham said in 2006:
If I could add one thing on this point: perhaps the best evidence that the current...system undermines effective interrogation is that even the detainees’ lawyers are bragging about their lawsuits’ having that effect. Michael Ratner, a lawyer who has filed lawsuits on behalf of numerous enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, boasted in a recent magazine interview about how he has made it harder for the military to do its job. He particularly emphasized that the litigation interferes with interrogation of enemy combatants:The litigation is brutal [for the United States]. We have over one hundred lawyers now from big and small firms working to represent these detainees. Every time an attorney goes down there, it makes it that much harder [for the U.S. military] to do what they’re doing. You can’t run an interrogation … with attorneys. What are they going to do now that we’re getting court orders to get more lawyers down there?
McCarthy concludes:
When not filing suits for the detainees — oh, I'm sorry, I mean, when not being a good defense lawyer who fights to make the government do their job — Michael Ratner of the neocommunist Center for Constitutional Rights runs around Europe trying to find some court willing to indict Bush administration officials for war crimes. Now, he's John Adams. Who knew?
McCarthy--and Graham--are right as to Ratner. He is not simply representing clients as a public obligation. He is trying in any way he can to use Lawfare to toss sand into the gears of American detainee policy.
Ann Coulter, who once worked for a "soul-destroying" law firm, explains why the lawyers who represent terrorists should not be thought of as true heroes:
At least 34 of the 50 largest firms in the United States have performed pro bono work on behalf of Guantanamo detainees.
Years ago, when I nearly died of boredom working for a law firm, I heard whispered rumors about a partner, Michael Tierney, whom none of the female associates wanted to work with because his pro bono work included defending -- gasp! -- pro-life groups. (There was at least one female associate who wanted to work with him!)
I didn't hear a peep about the august "American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients" back then.
Like Hollywood actresses, lawyers need to believe they're noble and courageous to help them forget that they are corporate drones doing soul-destroying work, which mostly consists of making photocopies.
Defending terrorists gives status-conscious attorneys a chance to get standing ovations at the annual ABA convention -- much like promoting "global warming" makes climatologists feel like they're saving the world, rather than studying water vapor.
It took me exactly one Nexis search for "ABA," "award" and "Guantanamo" to find that the 2006 "Outstanding Scholar Award" at the ABA annual banquet was given to New York University law professor Anthony G. Amsterdam for his "extensive pro bono practice, litigating cases that range from civil rights claims, to death penalty defense, to claims of access to the courts for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay."
A rule I have is: You're not defending an unpopular client if you're getting awards from the ABA, particularly if the award mentions "courage."
Lawyers, one of the most liberal groups in the nation, lionize their own. Do not, AC ends, make Atticus Finch (the fictional civil rights lawyers who defends an innocent black man accused of murder in Harper Lee's award-winning novel of a half century ago, 'To Kill a Mockingbird") of those defending terrorists.
A WSJ editorial finds good & bad points made by each side. It is a good summary of the pros & cons.
Bottom Line. Judge Mukasey concedes that some lawyers might be unfit to advise on terror detainee policy. Finding out which, if any, of A-G Holder's minions fit this description is an essential task for Congress.
Letter from the Capitol, LFTC, 9/11, National Security, Terrorism, Homeland Security, Conservative Politics
Comments