Holder's Department of Jihad

[kyzr]

I remember all the Left's constant whining about law professor John Ashcroft. Now its the Right's turn to whine about Eric Holder's DOJ...that's Department of Jihad....
Libertarian Republican: Eric Holder hires 9 Muslim Terrorist sympathizing Attorneys

Lets see how Holder's hiring of the terrorist's lawyers into the DOJ is a good idea or an insult to those who were murdered by terrorists.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr84u6UXDvI]YouTube - alquada 7.wmv[/ame]

 

[Baruch Menachem]

My understanding of Bar rules is they can't get involved in these cases anyway.

I think it is kind of odd that they would hire these kind of lawyers. But Holder's DOJ has been kind of weird all along

 

[GHook93]

Holder was a shitty affirmative action pick and he is proving everyday how much he is incompetent!

 

[Xenophon]

Eric is the guy who will get the chop if things go as bad as they look come November.

He's the fall guy.

 

[goldcatt]

Why? Because the DOJ hired attorneys who have worked and been familiar with Gitmo cases? Attorneys who won Gitmo cases? Heaven forbid. Just because an attorney represents somebody doesn't mean he sympathizes with their point of view or approves of whatever it is they did. He certainly doesn't have to like his client. In fact, he might hate his client with a holy passion. It doesn't matter. He's hired to do a job, he's a professional, he does it, end of story. That's like saying any doctor who treated a Gitmo detainee is a terrorist sympathizer. But having that experience on staff (and off the open market, BTW) could come in handy even if they're walled off from dealing specifically with their former clients, and it's not common. I say good for Holder, it's a good practical move.

 

[Si modo]

Why? Because the DOJ hired attorneys who have worked and been familiar with Gitmo cases? Attorneys who won Gitmo cases? Heaven forbid. Just because an attorney represents somebody doesn't mean he sympathizes with their point of view or approves of whatever it is they did. He certainly doesn't have to like his client. In fact, he might hate his client with a holy passion. It doesn't matter. He's hired to do a job, he's a professional, he does it, end of story. That's like saying any doctor who treated a Gitmo detainee is a terrorist sympathizer. But having that experience on staff (and off the open market, BTW) could come in handy even if they're walled off from dealing specifically with their former clients, and it's not common. I say good for Holder, it's a good practical move.

If your assumption that they value their professional integrity over any political agenda is true, I agree. But I don't believe that for a second.

 

[QUENTIN]

Why? Because the DOJ hired attorneys who have worked and been familiar with Gitmo cases? Attorneys who won Gitmo cases? Heaven forbid. Just because an attorney represents somebody doesn't mean he sympathizes with their point of view or approves of whatever it is they did. He certainly doesn't have to like his client. In fact, he might hate his client with a holy passion. It doesn't matter. He's hired to do a job, he's a professional, he does it, end of story. That's like saying any doctor who treated a Gitmo detainee is a terrorist sympathizer. But having that experience on staff (and off the open market, BTW) could come in handy even if they're walled off from dealing specifically with their former clients, and it's not common. I say good for Holder, it's a good practical move.

Yes. Thank you.

The smearing of brave attorneys, much of them military lawyers, willing to do their duty to defend detainees accused of terrorism at Gitmo and elsewhere, fully three-quarters of whom turned out to be innocent and more than two-thirds of whom were exonerated and released while Bush was in office (in other words NOT fucking terrorists, merely people FALSELY ACCUSED of being terrorists) is literally about as low as I've seen anyone in politics go.

It's seriously fucking disgusting. The logic behind it is that if a defense lawyer takes a defendant's case, they are sympathetic to the defendant and their cause. The implication there of course is that we should not have the trials promised to us and lawyer provided us in the Bill of Rights, otherwise anyone who takes on someone accused of a terrible crime will be smeared by these soulless scumsucking motherfuckers as being sympathetic to the crime they're accused of.

John Adams famously defended British soldiers accused of brutal crimes committed during the Boston Massacre. Adams called his defense of those enemy soldiers "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." And so it was. But the truly vile Liz Cheney, William Kristol, and supporters on this board would label him a Massacre One and impugn his character for doing the job lawyers are required to and our justice system demands.

Nevermind the fact that again, most of those defended and detained were in fact innocent people who had done nothing wrong and whose review and defense allowed to have their false imprisonment finally reversed after facing the injustice of years in a foreign prison without cause. But of course there's no sympathy for them. Anyone with a funny name or a beard accused of terrorism by the government, even if that same government clears them of any wrongdoing or connection to terrorism, must be a terrorist no matter what and anyone who thought the law should apply to them as the courts had demanded and should be represented as our justice system requires sympathizes with terrorists no matter what.

Those calling this the "Department of Jihad" and the lawyers who did their duty the "Al Qaeda 7" and implying they are sympathetic to Al Qaeda for meeting their professional obligation are beneath contempt, some seriously despicable trash.

Here are reports featuring some of the scores of military lawyers who defended detainees (and who were also employed by the Bush DOJ you ignorant, integrity lacking political point-scoring pieces of shit) and who are now being smeared as traitors by the never-served chickenhawk cowards Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney, which some of the lowest members here eat up while masturbating in their own feces:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_new_mccarthyism

http://washingtonindependent.com/78...ns-prosecutor-defends-slandered-doj-attorneys

 

[The T]

*HOLDER* Should RECUSE HIMSELF for impropriety...Holder HIMSELF is CRIMINAL in his position...*IF* he Continues....



The Washington Times has done terrific work pounding at Holder’s stonewall.
And they continue to get results. The Times editorial board today publishes two more names of DOJ lawyers who have done work for terrorists. Names that Holder refused to give up. Names that you won’t find on any of the public disclosure websites of the most transparent administration ever. When you want transparency from Team Obama, you have to do it yourself:

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa is rightly unhappy that the Justice Department won’t divulge the names of the nine Justice Department lawyers who directly represented suspected-terrorist detainees, or their cases. Grassley identified two himself, Neal Katyal (an aside: Katyal is a very impressive guy and very charming and level-headed) and Jennifer Daskal. Well, we’ve identified two more of them: Deputy AG counsel Eric Columbus and Office of Legal Counsel lawyer Jonathan Cedarbaum.We also reminded people of a Legal Times report that named 14 DoJ attorneys who likely would hav to recuse themsevles from specific detainee cass because of the work of their former law firms. We also remind people that back in November we reported, in an exclusive, that Associate Attorney Genreal Thomas J. Perrilli had to recuse himself at least 39 times, and we named the names of the detainees involved…
…Anyway, now we have four names identified (Katyal, Daskal, Columbus, and Cedarbaum), with at least five more to go. And again, that doesn’t include another substantial number who, like Mr. Perrilli and Mr. Holder, had law-firm-related recusals.
​

 

[The T]

Isn't it interesting how OBAMA surrounds himself with Statists, and people with "QUESTIONABLE" Backgrounds?

THEY ALL NEED TO GO.

 

[jeffrockit]

Why? Because the DOJ hired attorneys who have worked and been familiar with Gitmo cases? Attorneys who won Gitmo cases? Heaven forbid. Just because an attorney represents somebody doesn't mean he sympathizes with their point of view or approves of whatever it is they did. He certainly doesn't have to like his client. In fact, he might hate his client with a holy passion. It doesn't matter. He's hired to do a job, he's a professional, he does it, end of story. That's like saying any doctor who treated a Gitmo detainee is a terrorist sympathizer. But having that experience on staff (and off the open market, BTW) could come in handy even if they're walled off from dealing specifically with their former clients, and it's not common. I say good for Holder, it's a good practical move.

That's not the real issue. The issue is that they did volunteer (unpaid) work for these people. With so many cases in the US that could use free representation, why did all 9 choose the Gitmo detainees? I'm sure there are even liberal's in the US needing help. So the question is why do their passions for pro bono work lie there?

 

[The T]

Why? Because the DOJ hired attorneys who have worked and been familiar with Gitmo cases? Attorneys who won Gitmo cases? Heaven forbid. Just because an attorney represents somebody doesn't mean he sympathizes with their point of view or approves of whatever it is they did. He certainly doesn't have to like his client. In fact, he might hate his client with a holy passion. It doesn't matter. He's hired to do a job, he's a professional, he does it, end of story. That's like saying any doctor who treated a Gitmo detainee is a terrorist sympathizer. But having that experience on staff (and off the open market, BTW) could come in handy even if they're walled off from dealing specifically with their former clients, and it's not common. I say good for Holder, it's a good practical move.

That's not the real issue. The issue is that they did volunteer (unpaid) work for these people. With so many cases in the US that could use free representation, why did all 9 choose the Gitmo detainees? I'm sure there are even liberal's in the US needing help. So the question is why do their passions for pro bono work lie there?

WHY? Because of SYMPATHY of those needing to be Represented. They are sympatico with the TERRORISTS.

[LIKE MIND]

 

[GHook93]

Eric is the guy who will get the chop if things go as bad as they look come November.

He's the fall guy.

As long as he falls and/or gets chopped is all that matters! He is a detriment to the USA!

 

[VaYank5150]

DUMBEST thread of the day leader, right here.

 

[goldcatt]

Why? Because the DOJ hired attorneys who have worked and been familiar with Gitmo cases? Attorneys who won Gitmo cases? Heaven forbid. Just because an attorney represents somebody doesn't mean he sympathizes with their point of view or approves of whatever it is they did. He certainly doesn't have to like his client. In fact, he might hate his client with a holy passion. It doesn't matter. He's hired to do a job, he's a professional, he does it, end of story. That's like saying any doctor who treated a Gitmo detainee is a terrorist sympathizer. But having that experience on staff (and off the open market, BTW) could come in handy even if they're walled off from dealing specifically with their former clients, and it's not common. I say good for Holder, it's a good practical move.

That's not the real issue. The issue is that they did volunteer (unpaid) work for these people. With so many cases in the US that could use free representation, why did all 9 choose the Gitmo detainees? I'm sure there are even liberal's in the US needing help. So the question is why do their passions for pro bono work lie there?

Maybe to a lot of people, attorneys who do this kind of pro bono work included, it has more to do with who we are than who they are. The issues are larger than the people involved.

What you want to see depends on what you value, I suppose.

 

[dilloduck]

My lawyer advised me to make no comment on this thread

 

[goldcatt]

My lawyer advised me to make no comment on this thread

Uh-oh, you taking the 5th?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wait till you see Rachel Maddow's take on this (from last night's show). If you have a brain you will literally piss yourself laughing.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The whitehouse has it own jihad department
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngyo-Jy0vDI]YouTube - White House defends Obama envoy to OIC 1[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85E2L8qRCLw]YouTube - White House defends Obama envoy to OIC2[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-Sdl0KgLLo]YouTube - White House defends Obama envoy to OIC 3[/ame]

 

[L.K.Eder]

I remember all the Left's constant whining about law professor John Ashcroft. Now its the Right's turn to whine about Eric Holder's DOJ...that's Department of Jihad....
Libertarian Republican: Eric Holder hires 9 Muslim Terrorist sympathizing Attorneys

Lets see how Holder's hiring of the terrorist's lawyers into the DOJ is a good idea or an insult to those who were murdered by terrorists.

after careful evaluation i came to the conclusion that you are a smarmy yeasty ****.