OBOMINATION: 'American Taliban' Lawyer Now Number Three At DOJ...

paulitician

Platinum Member
Oct 7, 2011
38,401
4,162
1,130
Over at Pajamas Media, J. Christian Adams lays out the gruesome details of the elevation of Tony West to the No. 3 man at the Justice Department. Adams explains that West (zero relation) and his San Francisco law firm have represented "some of the most radical Islamic terrorist causes, including the American Taliban John Walker Lindh."

Adams reports that, in his new position, West, who has brought into senior Justice jobs other prominent jihadist defenders, will be overseeing detainee policy at Guantanamo Bay.

It's either a mad, mad, mad, mad world -- or, as I believe, it all makes perfect sense. We are being taken down from within due to a potent nexus of fear, non-rational thinking, and subversion.

First, beginning on 9/12/01, the Bush administration effectively outlawed the way public officials may talk and write and ultimately think about Islam by formulating the de facto and, finally, in 2008, the practically de jure lexicon that de-links Islam from its institutional lifeblood, jihad. The effect is to foil all rational approaches to thwarting the Islamic threat. Since President Obama came to office, he has simply, if enthusiastically, taken the Bush policy of de-linking Islam from jihad, both violent and pre-violent, to its logical conclusions.

Thus we see in 2010, for example, the FBI's National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) inviting Kifah Mustapha, a known operative of Hamas, a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, to a six-week "citizens' academy" inside the top secret installation...


Today we see the elevation of a leading member of "the al Qaeda bar" to a position of control over Gitmo policy at the Justice Department.

The continuum... continues.

Read More:
'American Taliban' Attorney Now Number Three at DOJ
 
Wow... how about that... an American Citizen has the right to a defense, and you want to demonize the defender... How Constitutional of you.
 
There's nothing more annoying than a Ron Paul supporter, unless of course it's a fake Ron Paul supporter.

If you hate the right to counsel, you hate the American judicial system, and you hate the constitutional principles upon which it's based.
 
There's nothing more annoying than a Ron Paul supporter, unless of course it's a fake Ron Paul supporter.

If you hate the right to counsel, you hate the American judicial system, and you hate the constitutional principles upon which it's based.

Yeah, except i never said any of that. Dummy. :cuckoo:
 
Sounds like a guy who knows a lot about the quasi legal landscape of the war on terror better than most.
 
Last edited:
Wow... how about that... an American Citizen has the right to a defense, and you want to demonize the defender... How Constitutional of you.

It actually is very Constitutional of me.

So where in the Constitution does it say that a defense lawyer that PAULITICIAN doesn't agree with can't be appointed?

Never said it did. But it is my Constitutional right to disagree with the appointment.
 
"some of the most radical Islamic terrorist causes, including the American Taliban John Walker Lindh."

John Walker Lindh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aged 20, he decided to travel to Afghanistan to fight for the Afghan Taliban government forces against Afghan Northern Alliance fighters.[2] His parents state that he was moved by stories of atrocities allegedly perpetrated by the Afghan Northern Alliance army against civilians. He traveled to Afghanistan in May 2001,[16] contrary to reports after his arrest that implied or stated that he traveled to Afghanistan to kill Americans after 9/11. American soldiers were not deployed in Afghanistan at the time he joined the Taliban government forces; however, he chose to stay and fight after it was known American forces were in country and backing the Northern Alliance.

Tony West, his lawyer, explained it as follows:

"One of the first things he told Army interrogators when they questioned him on December 3 of last year was that after 9/11 happened, he wanted to leave the front lines but couldn't for fear of his life. John never wanted to be in a position where he was opposing the United States (and never thought he would be), and in fact he never opposed any American military."[17]
.............

Lindh accepted this offer. On July 15, 2002, he entered his plea of guilty to the two remaining charges. The judge asked Lindh to say, in his own words, what he was admitting to. Lindh's allocution went as follows: "I plead guilty", he said. "I provided my services as a soldier to the Taliban last year from about August to December. In the course of doing so, I carried a rifle and two grenades. I did so knowingly and willingly knowing that it was illegal." Lindh further commented that he "went to Afghanistan with the intention of fighting against terrorism and oppression," fighting for the suffering of ordinary people at the hands of the Northern Alliance.[1] On October 4, 2002, Judge T.S. Ellis, III formally imposed the sentence: 20 years without possibility of parole.[32]

Who knows for sure about Lindh, seems to go both ways - 20 years might be right but the "without possibility of parole" makes the sentence seem politically motivated considering the circumstances.

West seems a counter to the military empowerment endorsed by the previous Administration and a logical promotion to restore / insure civil rights at the Department of "Justice".
 
Last edited:
It actually is very Constitutional of me.

So where in the Constitution does it say that a defense lawyer that PAULITICIAN doesn't agree with can't be appointed?

Never said it did. But it is my Constitutional right to disagree with the appointment.
*********************************************************************
NOTE: West is a former Federal prosecutor, also. I think DOJ under Bush made sure Lindh had competent counsel, smart move. No nut case, West made sure Lindh got a fair trial, Lindh was CONVICTED of course.
 
Why this guy? Couldn't the Dear Leader find anyone else? There had to be someone better than this guy. It looks like he did this just to piss people off. Oh well, i guess that is the Saul Alinsky 'Rules for Radicals' way though.
 
Why this guy? Couldn't the Dear Leader find anyone else? There had to be someone better than this guy. It looks like he did this just to piss people off. Oh well, i guess that is the Saul Alinsky 'Rules for Radicals' way though.
******************************************
Why not pick a man who was both a good prosecutor AND defense attorney?
 

Forum List

Back
Top