Not So Much an Open Thread....

by Eric Martin

...as a lazy* blogger's way to highlight some topics** and offer a forum for flaming each other in the comments section.

1. Why don't sex scandals involving Republicans matter to the media/result in resignations?  I'd add Mark Sanford to Matt's list of teflon Republicans.  And John Ensign's misdeeds are worse than any of them.

2.  Representative Paul Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future" sure looks like a hot mess.

3. I will be attending this conference over the weekend and live tweeting (my first foray into Twitterville) if anyone is interested in following.  I'll try to write about some of the highlights next week as well, with possible outside contributions.

UPDATE: Conor Friedersdorf (via) on the neo-McCarthyite Republican push is very worth the read.  He makes the point that is repeatedly obfuscated by Republican defenders of torture, indefinite detention and Gitmo in general: the issues are with the rights of the accused. To smear the Gitmo attorneys as defenders of "al-Qaeda terrorists" is wrong on multiple levels:

1. They participated in legal proceedings related to people accused of being al-Qaeda terrorists.  The vast, vast majority of detainees at Gitmo were not, in fact, al-Qaeda terrorists.  Most weren't even Taliban. 

2. They participated in legal proceedings that established legal precedents that would impact the nature of our rights and the basis of our adherence to the rule of law, regardless of what the defendants are accused of.  The issues were transcendent and the repercussions potentially paradigm-shifting.

3. The right to counsel applies regardless of what the defendants are accused of.

* (lazy in a qualified sense, that is, the day job has its demands)

**(feel free to discuss parsnip recipes)

Comments

[cleek]

peel, slice the boil your parsnips. then cover them in a sauce of butter and orange juice & zest.

do the same thing to carrots.

um yum yum

[cleek]

s/the/then

[Ugh]

the neo-McCarthyite Republican push

I think alot of people are missing the boat on the points of the whole Liz Cheney/Eugene McCarthy attack. First, it was a web ad that, my guess is, cost them next to nothing to make. Yet it generated this huge outcry and faux controversy that eventually led to segments on CNN with the titles (or chryons) such as "Department of Jihad" and Op-Eds in the WaPo defending the ad. They have gotten gigantic media coverage for, essentially, zero dollars spent.

Second, and more importantly for trolls like Liz Cheney and her fascist father, they now have yet another defense, if not in the law but in the court of public opinion and, ultimately, a jury, should any of former VP Cheney and his fellow torture revelers be charged with their war crimes, to wit: The DOJ is staffed with al Qaeda sympathizers and they are now extracting their revenge on us for keeping the country safe.

It really is that simple, IMHO. So all this "they finally went one step too far because Cully Stimson signed a letter" pats on the back that I've been seeing by people like Sully and Greenwald are beside the point. They now have more chaff to throw in the air should any attempt ever be made to call them to account for their crimes (not that that will ever happen, at least here in the U.S.).

So, the thought that they were making some kind of point that had any basis in law, logic, or the American tradition completely misses the boat. They're playing a different game.

[Ugh]

And also, I would note, a disturbing number of people agree with the Liz Cheney view. Americans don't much like criminals, or even accused criminals. They don't much like lawyers either, and certainly not lawyers who defend accused criminals. When the person the lawyer is defending is accused of being a terrorist and, even worse, here in the ad the terrorist is being branded as a member of al Qaeda, all-powerful perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, well, fnck those lawyers and the horse they rode in on. AND NOW THESE TRAITORS ARE WORKING FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE!!!11!!

I guess that's the third point of the ad, continue to stoke paranoia and fear in the American public.

[Sebastian]

In the sex scandal thing I'd suggest two possible explanations:

Illegal sexual activity is likely to get rid of you. See for example Mark Foley (R) and sexual harassment. The current Massa junk is also about sexually harassing employees. The Patterson scandal is about protecting potential sexual assault and near certain intimate abuse, so I think that is understandable.

Things with mistresses don't usually get rid of you except at the presidential level (and maybe gubernatorial level in some states).

And it isn't as if all politicians retire from political life after sex scandals. See for example Bill Clinton engaging in activity that would get the CEO of a public company fired. (Interesting counterfactual: would Bush II have had any chance at all if Gore had been president for a year? It probably wouldn't have been close enough to come down to Florida)

[Sebastian]

Interesting additional counterexample: Bob Livingston, heir to Newt Gingrich for Speaker of the House in 1998?

[Eric Martin]

Yeah Seb, it just seems weird that Vitter and Ensign are still in their jobs. Vitter patronized prostitutes. Ensign is up to his neck in illegal conduct.

Yet?

[McKinneyTexas]

Eric, do you think John Edwards should not be excoriated and exiled from politics for what he's done? Which person on either side has been as far out of bounds and as deceptive as Edwards?

[Uncle Kvetch]

Illegal sexual activity is likely to get rid of you.

Vitter only avoided prosecution by virtue of the statute of limitations. He's running again this year.

[Eric Martin]

McTex: I'm fine with Edwards being out of politics. I would never vote for the guy. He deserves the criticism for doing that to his wife, and his staffers.

But John Ensign is worse. He abused his office, his power, to accommodate an extramarital affair. And then bribed the parties to keep them quiet.

Edwards' failures were personal, though reprehensible.

Ensign's failures were somewhat less morally reprehensible on a personal level, but involved his office and public trust.

Don't you think that's kind of an important distinction?

[Jay C]

@ Ugh:

I guess that's the third point of the ad, continue to stoke paranoia and fear in the American public.

Funny, I took that to be the MAIN point of it....

[Uncle Kvetch]

Ensign called for Bill Clinton's resignation because of the Lewinsky affair. He also spoke on the floor of the Senate in favor of the "Defense of Marriage Act," saying "Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded."

John Edwards, meanwhile, called for the repeal of DOMA during his run in 2008.

Edwards' behavior was reprehensible and we're well rid of him. But the hypocrisy factor in cases like Ensign and Vitter is very hard to overlook. Provided you're not a Republican, anyway.

[efgoldman]

@ Mckinney

As usual, the point isn't really the scandal itself, but the hypocrisy.

Edwards is being correctly excoriated, as you say. His political career, such as it was, is over.

But Goopers who actively sought to remove a president over a bleeping bl*w j*b just keep rolling along, "serving" their constituents and, btw, criticizing and trying to enforce state power against anyone who's moral or life choices (or even their genes) aren't the same.

Why a majoority of voters in *ANY* jurisdiction would vote for these turkeys is beyond me.

[Sebastian]

Prostitute scandals don't have to kill you except if you have presidential aspirations? (Spitzer). Or Spitzer might also be--publicly prosecuting prostitutes as a huge part of your public life and then having them on the side can cause problems?

I suspect that Vitter and Ensign survive because they are from two of the more corrupt and sexually permissive states in the union: Nevada and Louisiana. Would they survive in such a high profile in either party from Minnesota, California, or Texas? I doubt it.

But sexual harassment of your employees who don't want it (which is how we ignore Clinton) pretty much gets you booted.

[Slartibartfast]

Ensign's failures were somewhat less morally reprehensible on a personal level, but involved his office and public trust.

Which brings us all the way back to Clinton, abuse of power, obstruction of justice and suborning perjury.

You knew we'd wind up back here again, didn't you?

[Marty]

"AND NOW THESE TRAITORS ARE WORKING FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE"

Well, no not really. I think, not being a lawyer and leaning a little right on issues like this, I will add what I consider perhaps slightly more nuanced view than Liz or Ugh. (recognizing this one certainly won't be popular).

Despite the quick attempt to say these things aren't the same, there are many people who do and will see them being very much like mafia attorneys in this way: If you can aggressively pursue freeing a terrorist then I believe you should not be representing me in trying to prosecute them.

I am smart enough to know that all of the persons accused were not terrorists, but some of them were. So if you aggressively defended someone who WAS a terrorist, I don't want you representing me and, based on everything we know, how do I decide if you did or not?

Much like I believe that the mafia dons clearly deserve the best representation that they can get, terrorists deserve the best representation they can get, but as an attorney, pick a side.

I also think its great if, as an attorney, you want to be involved in precedent setting defense cases, or working to ensure our justice system is treating the accused appropriately. That is a great career choice that I respect, even if you are doing it to further your career versus a conscientious stance. Stay there and do that, I don't trust you to have my best interest at heart.

I don't want to have to wonder just how aggressively you will defend our country versus defending someone who attacks it, not because you are a traitor, thats silly, but because you have an affinity for the defense that may make you less aggressive.

Anyone who doesn't think that liberals follow some of the same thought processes in reverse should simply do a self assessment of how you evaluate a Supreme Court nominee. It is great to say a lawyer is a lawyer doing lawyer things. Not so much in real practice though.

[Marty]

"But John Ensign is worse. He abused his office, his power, to accommodate an extramarital affair. And then bribed the parties to keep them quiet."

Clinton, Ensign, Edwards, Sanford all at miniscule less varying degrees should not be qualified to hold office. However that would have applied to Ted Kennedy and he was an outstanding Senator in later years.

I most resent Clinton as there is something I have just never been able to come to grips with that he did stuff in the White House. It is really silly but that is like cheating on your wife in the bed you share, in this case it was the house we gave him (plus down the hall from his wife). Blecch.

[Eric Martin]

Despite the quick attempt to say these things aren't the same, there are many people who do and will see them being very much like mafia attorneys in this way: If you can aggressively pursue freeing a terrorist then I believe you should not be representing me in trying to prosecute them.

Where do we draw the line? Which group of suspects would you accept a lawyer defending while subsequently taking a government job?

I am smart enough to know that all of the persons accused were not terrorists, but some of them were. So if you aggressively defended someone who WAS a terrorist, I don't want you representing me and, based on everything we know, how do I decide if you did or not?

So, in a sense, it's a matter of luck? You could defend 9 innocent suspects, but if you lose 1 case, sorry buddy?

I also think its great if, as an attorney, you want to be involved in precedent setting defense cases, or working to ensure our justice system is treating the accused appropriately. That is a great career choice that I respect, even if you are doing it to further your career versus a conscientious stance. Stay there and do that, I don't trust you to have my best interest at heart.

So, the lawyer who places a high value on Constitutional rights, and the rule of law, and the ability of individuals to avoid unjust punishment/imprisonment are the ones that...you don't trust to have your best interest at hear?

Huh.

I don't want to have to wonder just how aggressively you will defend our country versus defending someone who attacks it, not because you are a traitor, thats silly, but because you have an affinity for the defense that may make you less aggressive.

This is, actually, absurd. These lawyers were from white shoe law firms, and worked for any number of clients - on both sides of the divide (plaintiffs and defendants). Lawyers do that all the time. "Affinity for the defense" is not actually real.

Anyone who doesn't think that liberals follow some of the same thought processes in reverse should simply do a self assessment of how you evaluate a Supreme Court nominee. It is great to say a lawyer is a lawyer doing lawyer things. Not so much in real practice though.

Liberals want to rule out Supreme Court nominees that were District Attorneys or US Attorneys because they prosecuted criminals, developed affinities for the prosecution and, thus, can't be trusted to have our best interests at heart?

[Phil]

So if you aggressively defended someone who WAS a terrorist, I don't want you representing me

If someone successfully defended someone who was an actual terrorist, I want him on a lifetime retainer as my attorney, because that dude must be a frigging shark in the courtroom.

[Eric Martin]

I should add that few of these lawyers were actually "defending" the accused.

They were making Constitutional arguments/filing motions demanding that the accused get to have trials to adjudicate guilt or innocence.

And yet, for this, you couldn't trust their capacity to later prosecute?

[Doctor Science]

Marty:

I also think its great if, as an attorney, you want to be involved in precedent setting defense cases, or working to ensure our justice system is treating the accused appropriately. ... Stay there and do that, I don't trust you to have my best interest at heart.

To me, you seem to be saying that ensuring appropriate treatment of the accused is, by definition, *not* in your best interests. Is that what you mean to say?

I can see where the aura of "mafia lawyers" comes from, which also applies to e.g. tobacco company lawyers, RIAA lawyers, etc. To me, the lawyers for accused terrorists are profoundly different, because defending accused terrorists is not an ongoing, very lucrative career choice. Or do you trust them less because they're not in it for the money?

[Marty]

"So, in a sense, it's a matter of luck? You could defend 9 innocent suspects, but if you lose 1 case, sorry buddy?"

Eric,

I will not engage in a petty back and forth. You know as well as I do that these lawyers knew which of their clients were terorists and which weren't. It has nothing to do with winning or losing the case.

White shoe law firms worked for both sides? The prosecution and the defense? Both?

And your response on the Supreme Court is also pretty disingenuous, you evaluate what judges have done and written to see if their views qualify them for the Court in your eyes. So do conservatives.

[Phil]

You know as well as I do that these lawyers knew which of their clients were terorists and which weren't.

How are you possibly in a position to know this, let alone to know whether Eric knows this?

[Mike Schilling]

I am smart enough to know that all of the persons accused were not terrorists, but some of them were. So if you aggressively defended someone who WAS a terrorist, I don't want you representing me and, based on everything we know, how do I decide if you did or not?

Guilt by association with people who possibly might have been guilty themselves: that's M[cC]art[h]yism in a nutshell.

[Marty]

"To me, you seem to be saying that ensuring appropriate treatment of the accused is, by definition, *not* in your best interests. Is that what you mean to say?"

We have an adversarial justice system. I believe that if you take the role of defending a terrorist then we need people who have chosen to be aggressive prosecutors to have an effective adversarial system. It doesn't have anything to do with whether I believe that the accused have rights, which I do and believe they should be aggressively defended. I just want someone at the DOJ who is going to just as aggressively prosecute them within the boundaries of the law.

[Eric Martin]

White shoe law firms worked for both sides? The prosecution and the defense? Both?

They worked for both sides in their career. Plaintiffs, and defendants. And yet you claim that work on motions to compel trials makes them irredeemably sympathetic to the defense.

I will not engage in a petty back and forth. You know as well as I do that these lawyers knew which of their clients were terorists and which weren't. It has nothing to do with winning or losing the case.

But do you know? Care to share?

And your response on the Supreme Court is also pretty disingenuous, you evaluate what judges have done and written to see if their views qualify them for the Court in your eyes. So do conservatives.

Not disingenuous at all. You don't look to which types of suspects they defended. Or whether they were prosecutors. Which you suggested by saying that liberals apply the same analysis to Sup Court nominees.

Rather, you look at which Constitutional principles they defend/embrace, and how they interpret Constitutional rights.

There is no analogy here, and yet you tried to shoehorn one in. It just doesn't make sense to say the same standard is being applied here.

[Mike Schilling]

I believe that if you take the role of defending a terrorist

I believe that if you consistently use "terrorist" to describe people accused of terrorism (who in some cases had already been exonerated) you forfeit the right to be taken seriously and can be accurately dismissed as a troll.

[Eric Martin]

I believe that if you take the role of defending a terrorist then we need people who have chosen to be aggressive prosecutors to have an effective adversarial system.

I will repeat this:

I should add that few of these lawyers were actually "defending" the accused.

They were making Constitutional arguments/filing motions demanding that the accused should have trials to adjudicate guilt or innocence.

Do you not see the difference?

[Marty]

"But do you know? Care to share?"

Exactly, how would you know? How would you evaluate their resume? You have to assume one or the other.

You assume they are all just really lawyer geeks who decided to do this because it is a cool lawyer thing to do to work on setting precedent, or even perhaps they had a conscientious view of supporting the constitutional rights of these detainees (or prisoners, not sure why we have to use that euphemism). i won't give you the second motivation for the white shoes.

However, some people assume they were defending terrorists.

[Eric Martin]

White shoe law firms worked for both sides? The prosecution and the defense? Both?

Actually, and this is a gas, military lawyers actually did work both sides at various points. Military officials that worked as prosecutors at Gitmo, later worked for defendants.

Out of curiosity, Marty, would you disqualify military attorneys that filed motions demanding trials on behalf of accused terrorists?

[Marty]

"Out of curiosity, Marty, would you disqualify military attorneys that filed motions demanding trials on behalf of accused terrorists?"

Nope, the military justice system requiress lawyers to work both sides. It is an assignment not a choice.

[JLR]

all of the persons accused were not terrorists

I'm going to assume you meant not all of the persons accused were terrorists. Big difference.

[Eric Martin]

You assume they are all just really lawyer geeks who decided to do this because it is a cool lawyer thing to do to work on setting precedent, or even perhaps they had a conscientious view of supporting the constitutional rights of these detainees (or prisoners, not sure why we have to use that euphemism). i won't give you the second motivation for the white shoes.

You know, Marty, lawyers are SUPPOSED to take the principles of the Constitution seriously. I doubt, very much, that Gitmo cases were seen as a means of career advancement. I mean, why would you think that? However, many very good attorneys took the issues seriously enough to stake their reputations (and incur the likely Liz Cheney smears) to do the right thing.

Just like many military lawyers did. Unless you question their motives too?

detainees (or prisoners, not sure why we have to use that euphemism

Because the Bush administration sought to create a new class of people held againt their will. Prisoners are normally entitled to a bunch of rights that the Bush team wanted to deny this group.

Exactly, how would you know? How would you evaluate their resume? You have to assume one or the other.

I would suggest that there were some obvious cases of innocence (the Bush admin itself released something like 500 based on this), as well as some areas of gray and some obvious guilty. But did Liz Cheney seek to differentiate?

However, some people assume they were defending terrorists.

Oh absolutely. Liz Cheney did what she did because it is effective. Fearmongering gets results.

As was cautioned way back when, "A republic, if you can keep it." And "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

Those admonitions were based on the realization that people will act out of fear, and support policies that undermine freedom and republican rule.

But pointing out this human tendency should not be a justification for the blinkered view itself.

[Marty]

"I'm going to assume you meant not all of the persons accused were terrorists. Big difference"

Yes thanks :)

[Eric Martin]

Nope, the military justice system requiress lawyers to work both sides. It is an assignment not a choice.

But some of the lawyers volunteered. Like Col. Morris Davis.

Regardless, shouldn't the fact that the military believes lawyers are capable of doing both effectively provide some illumination?

That's how lawyers operate.

[Marty]

"I would suggest that there were some obvious cases of innocence (the Bush admin itself released something like 500 based on this), as well as some areas of gray and some obvious guilty. But did Liz Cheney seek to differentiate?"

I seem to recall that my point was to strike somewhere between Liz and Ugh. I think that there is much more information that would be helpful. It is not absurd or McCarthyesque to ask the questions.

[Marty]

"That's how lawyers operate. "

That is too much of a generalization for you to believe, even if it is supposed to be true.

[Sebastian]

I'd like to make a stronger argument than Eric.

We know that we actually tortured innocent non-terrorists.

It is very likely that some of the accused really aren't terrorists.

They should be defended by good lawyers.

Threatening their lawyers with treason charges isn't good for that.

[jrudkis]

"Affinity for the defense" is not actually real.

I think this is real: I have an affinity for the defense, both civil and criminal. I could not be a prosecutor because I generally see that job as requiring arguments that reduce and detract from Constitutional rights (ie, that warrantless search was legal because...) whereas the defense is always looking to expand those rights (the warrant was bad because...).

When I worked at a public defenders office, there were two types of attorneys: the "social justice attorney" who were actually concerned about the accused, and conservative ones who were concerned about erosion of constitutional rights(and they sometimes overlapped). Both were very effective. What I did not see there were attorneys who were not passionate about one or the other.

The prosecutor's office, on the otherhand, seemed like a stepping stone for people interested in doing other things and simply wanted trial experience.

Anecdotal at best, but I think there is a defense mindset.

[Eric Martin]

That is too much of a generalization for you to believe, even if it is supposed to be true.

Marty, from someone who defends their right to make such broad generalizations, I taks this with a chuckle.

Yes, that is a generalization. So it isn't always true. But lawyers of this caliber generally operate this way. And to suggest otherwise without evidence is a smear.

I seem to recall that my point was to strike somewhere between Liz and Ugh. I think that there is much more information that would be helpful. It is not absurd or McCarthyesque to ask the questions.

Depends on how the questions are asked, and in what context. But generally, filing Consitutional motions on behalf of detainees seeking to get trials for detainees should not be the subject of inquiries on the fitness of such lawyers to serve.

[rdldot]

Marty seems to think lawyers are a lot more ideologically driven than I do. Don't many lawyers start as defense then move to prosecution, and vice versa? And one of the best ways to move into being a politician is to be a prosecutor. I don't think these people are ideologically driven at all. And I DO think most lawyers are impressed more by the 'law' games than justice in any case, on either side. But that's just my impression.

[cleek]

any of you CPA/tax types want to go and set Yglesias straight about the ins and outs of corporate dividends ?

i tried, but his blog is not letting me comment today.

[Uncle Kvetch]

Threatening their lawyers with treason charges isn't good for that.

But Marty's not doing that, Seb! He's just...asking questions. Which is totally different.

[Marty]

"Threatening their lawyers with treason charges isn't good for that.

But Marty's not doing that, Seb! He's just...asking questions. Which is totally different."

I am actually doing neither. I am stating that I believe that lawyers who choosee to defend actual terrorists are suspect as potential prosecutors for the DOJ. I am, and did, specifically state that saying they are traitors is nonsense.

[Mike Schilling]

He's just...asking questions.

In fact, it would be irresponsible not">http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=95000429">not to speculate.

[Bernard Yomtov]

any of you CPA/tax types want to go and set Yglesias straight about the ins and outs of corporate dividends ?

IANACPA, but I don't see where he's wrong. The scenario he describes seems to work under Ryan's proposal - no corporate income tax, no dividend tax. Maybe the VAT would make it infeasible.

[Marty]

"Yes, that is a generalization. So it isn't always true. But lawyers of this caliber generally operate this way. And to suggest otherwise without evidence is a smear."

I am curious what you mean by this Eric. What does "lawyers of this caliber" mean? Maybe I missed something but I haven't seen anything that suggests that these were "great" lawyers or "well respected" lawyers or "esteemed" attorneys.

Hmmm, that sentence sounds snide. It is not meant to be.

I am really asking if there is a commonality that these were top notch lawyers who somehow got involved here.

[Mike Schilling]

I am stating that I believe that lawyers who choosee to defend actual terrorists are suspect as potential prosecutors for the DOJ

If any such exist, which we don't know, and if "defend" meant "try to get released" as opposed to "ensure due process for", you might have a point. As it is, all you've got is a smear.

[Marty]

"If any such exist, which we don't know, and if "defend" meant "try to get released" as opposed to "ensure due process for", you might have a point. As it is, all you've got is a smear."

Thanks, so I might have a point.

[Eric Martin]

I am really asking if there is a commonality that these were top notch lawyers who somehow got involved here.

They were either high ranking military officers, law professors at schools like Georgetown, attorneys with very good reputations from top law firms in the country and/or otherwise professionally accomplished. These lawyers donated time pro bono, most of them because their billable rates put them out of the reach of all but the most affluent clients.

Generally speaking, only the best students from the best law schools are hired to those firms, teaching positions or other organization. This is no guarantee of getting the best attorneys, but those institutions also tend to weed out the weak links early on.

[Eric Martin]

I am stating that I believe that lawyers who choosee to defend actual terrorists are suspect as potential prosecutors for the DOJ

Should I point out, again, that they weren't actually "defending" the accused, but rather filing motions regarding the quality of their detention (torture, ie) and their right to a trial - at which SOMEONE ELSE would do the actual "defending."

Doesn't that matter even a little?

[Marty]

Thanks Eric,

I just don't equate law professors and attorneys at that level of accomplishment with the typical political appointees I think get hired at the DOJ. So I will follow up with, are these people really taking jobs at the DOJ?

[Eric Martin]

I suppose it's worth noting that the Bush/Cheney administration itself hired 3 attorneys that had previously worked on detainee cases in pursuit of rights to trial and detention free of torture.

So, yeah.

[Mike Schilling]

Thanks, so I might have a point.

Not familiar with counterfactuals, I see.

[Marty]

"Doesn't that matter even a little?"

Sure, if ALL of them were doing that. I was pretty explicit, I think, at what I thought was the legitimate issue. You keep asking this question, so yes, I think that it matters what they did, and why.

[Marty]

"I suppose it's worth noting that the Bush/Cheney administration itself hired 3 attorneys that had previously worked on detainee cases in pursuit of rights to trial and detention free of torture."

That were law professors at Georgetown or doing probono work because there typical firm rates were so exorbitant?

I mean, John Yoo is a law professor somewhere (or Berkeley) but I think most people wouldn't consider him a great example.

And despite the default assumption, I don't really agree with a lot of things the Bush\Cheney administration did.

[Eric Martin]

So I will follow up with, are these people really taking jobs at the DOJ?

Yes. Which might be take as evidence that they put a value on service to their country, and defense of its ideals, above material gain alone.

Incidentally, they are:

Jonathan Cedarbaum, Eric Columbus, Karl Thompson, Joseph Guerra, Tali Farhadian, Beth Brinkmann, and Tony West.

As well as Neal Katyal (Georgetown University law professor) and Jennifer Daskal (worked for Human Rights Watch).

brief bios to follow...

[Eric Martin]

Tali Farhandian clerked for Justice O'Connor and worked at Skadden Arps and Debevoise & Plimpton (two of the best firms in the country).

Tony West graduated from Harvard with honors, then Stanford law. He had previous DOJ experience, and was a litigator at Morrison & Foerster

Beth Brinkman: Graduated Phi Beta Kappa in 1980 with a bachelor's degree from the University of California, Berkeley, and earned her law degree from Yale Law School in 1985. She clerked for Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun in 1986 and also clerked for appeals-court judge Phyllis A. Kravitch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Jonathan Cederbaum: Harvard undergrad, Yale Law, solid prior DOJ experience and PARTNER at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.

Eric Columbus: Harvard undergrad, Harvard law, associate at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.

Joseph Guerra: PARTNER at Sidley Austin - in charge of their appellate division. The most active dept in recent years arguing before the Supreme Court.

Karl Thompson: worked at O'Melveny & Meyers, and was asked by his boss to help out a military lawyer with one case.

Heckuva job Cheney, Kristol and Grassley!

[Jacob Davies]

Edwards is probably the most hated left-wing politician among liberals. Since the affair I have never heard anyone say anything about him that didn't express a scorn and contempt verging on hatred. Of course, most of the reason we hate him is because we like the Democratic Party and think he came within inches of destroying it, so I don't know why Republicans should really care.

Ensign is a slightly different flavor of scum. He made a career in large part out of preaching virtue in public, while engaging in vice in private. Spitzer, Sanford, Vitter, Craig, are all of the same ilk.

I don't much care about the personal lives of politicians (or really anyone). I don't think affairs or airport bathroom handjobs are per se disqualifications for public office, although I think party loyalty demands that if you seek a very scrutinized high office you should make damn sure you don't get caught (or just admit it ahead of time and tell people to mind their own business).

Using the services of prostitutes is different because it's illegal, and I think that people in law-enforcement roles should refrain from committing crimes (radical idea, I know).

But basically I don't care. Just don't make a career out of condemning other people for being human and then go around doing the same stuff yourself. Unfortunately what I think the survival of sex-scandal tainted Republicans tells us is that a large section of the Republication electorate doesn't think that way. Hypocrisy is a minor offense to them; what matters is that the public condemnation continues. What that's all about, I can't imagine.

[Eric Martin]

That were law professors at Georgetown or doing probono work because there typical firm rates were so exorbitant?

That had solid credentials.

And yes, Yoo proves that this is not an exact science. But still, I mentioned a "caliber" of attorney, and I generalized, and I'm pretty confident in those assertions as a "general" rule.

[CharleyCarp]

Marty, yes, the people in question at DOJ have stellar resumes. Superstars by any measure. And no, none of them were acting as trial counsel for someone accused of a crime. None are employed as prosecutors.

Several of the DOJ lawyers represented (or filed amicus briefs) in support of Lakhdar Boumediene, arguing that the law that would deny him a trial was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed. Boumediene had his trial, and he won: not an enemy, not a member of Al Qaeda, not a terrorist. He's living in France.

One fellow was the appellate lawyer for Salim Hamdan, arguing that the system set up to try him was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed, and said that only if Congress created a new system could the trial go forward. It did, the trial went forward, and Hamdan was acquitted of some things, and convicted of others. He was sentenced and served his sentence. He's since been released, and went home.

Others represented John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla, American citizens never sent to Guantanamo. Another filed an amicus in the case of al Marri -- these were all about how the system should deal with American citizens or legal residents accused of involvement with terrorism.

These lawyers weren't arguing guilt or innocence, but about what system is appropriate, under our Constitution, for finding out the truth of the various allegations.

[Uncle Kvetch]

I just don't equate law professors and attorneys at that level of accomplishment with the typical political appointees I think get hired at the DOJ.

As is so often the case, the question must be asked: do you have any evidence whatsoever to base this "thinking" on, Marty, or are we just floating in the ether of your preconceptions and hunches and gut feelings?

Time and again on this blog, you attempt to construct an argument based not on facts, but on the way things seem to you. And then you get defensive when you're called on it.

Why you're digging in your heels on this is a mystery. It's almost as if you're terrified to come out in total agreement with Eric on something (or in total disagreement with Liz Cheney, same thing), so we go round and round with your endless yes-buttery. And it's really tiresome.

[CharleyCarp]

I should add that the Georgetown professor, and the stellar OMM associate both came into the thing at the request of military defense lawyers, because of the limits of their appointments (someone who could act in another court was necessary to vindicate their constitutional claims) and because, in the OMM case, it was already in the Supreme Court, and they needed some major league talent.

[Eric Martin]

UK: In Marty's defense, the Bush administration had an absolutely atrocious record of hiring unqualified, politically simpatico attorneys to the DOJ.

Many were graduates of Regent University - a Tier 4 law school started by...Pat Robertson. Not kidding. Pat Robertson.

Bush hired 150 Regents grads to federal positions.

Tier 4. That's reeeeaaaly bad.

There were several embarrassing lowlights, including Monica Goodling.

After 8 years of such debasement, it's easy to forget that most administrations actually hire qualified attorneys, and not political hacks.

[Uncle Kvetch]

After 8 years of such debasement, it's easy to forget that most administrations actually hire qualified attorneys, and not political hacks.

Point taken.

[Marty]

Eric and Charley,

Thanks for thte info. Obviously all of these details make me more sure that there was no reason for the original aggressive attack by Liz, et al.

I appreciate knowing that what they were saying was happening isn't.

[Ugh]

I appreciate knowing that what they were saying was happening isn't.

You thought the lawyers were members of al Qaeda?

[Eric Martin]

Ugh, you could be more charitable.

[Carleton Wu]

Much like I believe that the mafia dons clearly deserve the best representation that they can get, terrorists deserve the best representation they can get, but as an attorney, pick a side.

I think this just isn't realistic. Consider child molesters; some percentage of accused child molesters are guilty. Yet I still want them all to get the full benefit of representation *precisely* because it weeds out those provably guilty of their crimes from those not so.

Putting a moral onus on lawyers to not defend that entire class of cases unless they "pick the side" of child molesters in general- in practice this means denying them the effective means to prove their innocence.

I also think its great if, as an attorney, you want to be involved in precedent setting defense cases, or working to ensure our justice system is treating the accused appropriately.... Stay there and do that, I don't trust you to have my best interest at heart.

You're assuming that "treating the accused appropriately" isn't acting in your best interest. It is, on two counts: 1)you may someday find yourself in need of fair treatment at the hands of the judicial system, accused of a heinous crime and 2)if you never do, living in a country with such a system is still far preferable to the alternative.

And your response on the Supreme Court is also pretty disingenuous, you evaluate what judges have done and written to see if their views qualify them for the Court in your eyes. So do conservatives.

There's a big difference between analyzing the decisions made from the bench (supposedly impartial interpretations of the law etc) and positions supported as legal counsel. I totally expect legal counsel to do their best for their clients. My objections to various USSC nominees have iirc all been based on their time as judges.
But I suppose it's true that if someone eg did lots of pro bono work for the Aryan Nation, I might be suspicious of their character- it would depend on the type of work. But there's a very large precedent for eg groups like the ACLU to defend the legal rights of people even when they disagree with their politics (eg they defended Limbaugh during his drug issue). In those sorts of circumstances, I totally respect the rule of law and those who attempt to preserve it, even in the cases where they find the defendant to be repugnant.
So if an ACLU lawyer defended the Aryan Nation on a specific charge, I would find no support for the idea that they would be less supportive of legal action against that group or other racist groups.

[ugh]

Don't need the tax deductions.
More seriously, isn't Marty saying that you have ever represented a criminal defendant that was in fact guilty you can't serve in DOJ, period? Or is there a special exception for terrorists?

And just what is the label "al Qaeda 7" supposed to mean in any event?

I would also note that a prosecutors job is to "do justice", not zealously pursue a conviction

[fledermaus]

I was going to pile on, but it seems unnecessary now. The problem is - and not your fault Marty - is that criminal defense work is generally misunderstood if you don't actually work in the area (thank you very much Law and Order).

As jrudkis said above there are a lot of different motivations that draw people to it. If the one of the defense attorneys were given overwhelming proof of guilt for their client, it wouldn't that hard to get a conviction in a a court or military comission or what have you. But most of the time the government wasn't saying even to anyone why they were holding them.

Defense attorneys are actually bound by a whole bunch of rules regrading criminal representation. I know the lay perspective is that they break all these rules all the time and the poor judge is helpless before our mind control machines. But that really isn't the case. White shoe lawyers for S&C aren't going to risk debarment or worse to unethically help one of the detainees, even if wholly innocent.

Their roles in this were more focus on the nature of the proceedings - not necessarily a jury trial but a fair and impartial hearing, which is trickier than it sounds. You do need input from everyone including someone to represent the defense.

[Carleton Wu]

On the Clinton/Massa/Foley/etc front: I find unwanted sexual advances to be much more reprehensible than affairs. So Sanford strikes me a foolish person, where Massa seems genuinely creepy and wrong. And honestly, excessive condemnation of "family values" politicians for sexual missteps is a little too convenient for Dems anyway- it strikes me as silly as the criticisms of Al Gore flying in airplanes rather than walking and swimming around the world.
I dont find anything more reprehensible about opposing gay rights as a closeted gay than as a heterosexual.
The biggest surprise to me out of all of this has been Vitter- I have no idea how he still has a political career.

[twiff]

And honestly, excessive condemnation of "family values" politicians for sexual missteps is a little too convenient for Dems anyway- it strikes me as silly as the criticisms of Al Gore flying in airplanes rather than walking and swimming around the world.

er, not so much. criticizing gore for using modern tech & transportation instead of unrealistic travel plans is silly. particularly when one can try to offset some of the effects. those concerned about climate change aren't luddites (well, most aren't). the goal is to figure out how to keep our effect on climate in check while still hanging on to all the neato stuff we've made. emissions controls, alternate fuels, etc.. we don't want to give up our advances, we want to enjoy them without potentially fucking the place up for ourselves.

whereas some jack-hole who parades around claiming that marriage is the most sacred thing in the world, so that's why evil scary gays shouldn't be able to marry; some ass who enacts or tries to enact laws that deny rights to groups of people on the basis of morals and then cheats on his wife or fucks random guys in bathrooms? fuck that hypocrisy.

I dont find anything more reprehensible about opposing gay rights as a closeted gay than as a heterosexual. i find both reprehensible, but i'll admit i find it more so from someone closeted. legislature is not the place to work on your personal issues with your sexuality, so again, fuck these people.

[tgirsch]

I have nothing of value to add, so I'll add something devoid of value. This:

And yet, for this, you couldn't trust their capacity to later prosecute?

Is actually quite funny if you imagine it being said in a stereotypical "Jewish mother" voice.

[/got nuthin]

[willf]

1. Why don't sex scandals involving Republicans matter to the media/result in resignations?

Because the media is owned by Republicans.

[Jesurgislac]

I dont find anything more reprehensible about opposing gay rights as a closeted gay than as a heterosexual.

It's not more reprehensible.

In a weird kind of way it's even understandable: when you have been reared in a homophobic atmosphere of hatred and condemnation, taught to believe that your natural and normal capacity for love, passion, and sex ought to be stifled, twisted, and destroyed, told over and over again that there is something wrong with you - it is weirdly comprehensible that someone who has been regularly abused like this by their family and their pastor and their friends, will turn into a self-hating persecutor of the people who managed to triumph over their abusers to live normally as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

Unlike the simple bigotry that motivates heterosexual opponents of LGBT equality, which is not comprehensible except to another bigot.

There are people who argue that anyone who passionately opposes LGBT equality is probably a closet-queer themselves, but I think the people who argue like this are missing the fact that bigots can be passionate about their bigotry quite purely: passion in itself isn't a reliable indicator of that cocktail of messed-up emotions fuelling a closety gay politician who's made a career out of being publicly homophobic.

And honestly, excessive condemnation of "family values" politicians for sexual missteps is a little too convenient for Dems anyway

I think it's a different level of "convenient". Anyone who argues that committing adultery or making unwanted sexual advances or being gay automatically disqualifies you from being fit to hold public office, as so many Republicans have argued about so many of their political opponents, is straightforwardly laying themselves open to being required to live up to their own standard. To put it briefly: if it's claimed Bill Clinton should have been impeached because he lied about getting a blowjob, either this is a partisan attack on Clinton which can be dismissed with the contempt it deserves - or every politician who ever lied about getting a blowjob needs to be impeached, too.

[Uncle Kvetch]

i find both reprehensible, but i'll admit i find it more so from someone closeted.

I have to agree with this. It may just be that as a gay man I can't be dispassionate about the issue, but the hypocrisy aspect in a case like Larry Craig's is very real to me.

And I have to say I find the Al Gore comparison downright silly. If you take the accusations against him at face value (and that's a stretch), Al Gore could maybe be accused of failing to lead by example. But to compare the legally enshrined homophobia that many LGBT people have to contend with on a daily basis to the...what, persecution? vilification?...of people who drive Hummers is frankly offensive. Not even apples and oranges...apples and orangutans, maybe.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't criticize Gore for flying instead of walking. I criticize him for flying instead of teleconferencing. Really, you want people to take global warming seriously, don't use it as an excuse to vacation in Bali, while making millions on carbon indulgences.

[Jay C]

@ Ugh:

" Or is there a special exception for terrorists?

How quickly we forget... you remember that the Bush Adminstration made a great deal of effort to set up a parallel system of "justice" founded on just that fundamental distinction?

[Morat20]

I can't really grasp the apparent conservative view of the Judicial process.

You'd think, given the tin-foil hysteria of the 90s and the current crop of tin-foil nutcases on the right with their survival seeds and their bulk ammo purchases for when Obama "takes all the guns" and invites the UN in to turn all the Christian women into sex slaves for Nigerians or whatever the current paranoia is about....

You'd think, given their unwavering fear of the excesses of the government in Democratic hands, they'd be falling over backwards to make sure that anyone accused of anything got due process. They should be TERRIFIED at the thought that Obama could, with a stroke of a pen, claim they're a dangerous terrorist and ship them to Gitmo or into a military brig, and refuse to grant them access to a lawyer, or courts.

I just don't get how on the one hand, they're happy with stripping out all the defenses against an abusive Executive, yet on the other hand they're telling each other ghost stories about how many laws the Executive is going to break.

Don't they get that the whole Judicial system -- with the lawyers, and due process, and the fact that no matter how horrible the crime is a vigorous defense of the accused is the first and best step against totalitarian governments.....acts as a check to their very fears?

How do you get to the point where you're dealthy afraid of both the problem, and it's counter?

[Bernard Yomtov]

I dont find anything more reprehensible about opposing gay rights as a closeted gay than as a heterosexual.

I do. A closeted gay, it seems to me, should have a better understanding of the issues, and the impact of anti-gay prejudice, and the inaccuracy of bigoted views of gays, than a straight person. Having more information makes the bigotry worse.

The biggest surprise to me out of all of this has been Vitter- I have no idea how he still has a political career.

Louisiana.

[hairshirthedonist]

I'm with Bernard. You don't have the excuse of ignorance as a closeted gay.

[wonkie]

Maybe someone else pointed this out, but I didn't see it: McCarthyism has nothing to do with Eugene McCarty. Eugene McCarthy was the Democratic anti-Vietnam war Senator from Minnesota (or Wisconsin,I forget).
McCarthism refers to Joe, the Republican, also a Senator from the North Woods, but a very different type of person and politician.

[Anarch]

In re cooking:

1) Roast parsnips are one of the bestest things ever.

2) Someone in a previous thread talked about cooking cabbage with cream and bacon, and that's certainly good. But the best ever? I beg to differ! I just did a schweinebraten-esque dish a few nights ago that was to die for. 1 lb of red cabbage sauteed in bacon fat and doused with wine and vinegar (aka "fast sauerkraut"), 1 lb of ordinary shredded red cabbage, a couple of onions sliced thick, garlic and caraway, enough wine and water to cover, and a browned pork shoulder roast. Braise until the pork is tender, then extract the pork and cabbage, reduce the cooking liquid, and serve with parsley'd egg noodles and grainy mustard. Hot damn was that good.

Also, any Floridians here in Orlando? I'm going there for a conference in a week or two and it's going to be deathly dull, I could certainly use a touch of liveliness...

[Bernard Yomtov]

Anarch,

Welcome back. You've been gone a while.

[Mike Schilling]

McCarthyism refers to Joe, the Republican, also a Senator from the North Woods, but a very different type of person and politician.

Though Andrew is building a strong case for partial ownership.

[Anarch]

Welcome back. You've been gone a while.

Wotcha! Nice to be back. Made the mistake of graduating, getting a real job and (most recently) getting a promotion -- all of which cuts into what's really important, i.e. blog-commenting.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Made the mistake of graduating, getting a real job and (most recently) getting a promotion

A promotion? Who are you working for? Time to sell short.

[ral]

parsnips: julienne, then sautee in butter and garlic.

[of course, anything sauteed in butter and garlic is good, well, maybe not snails, but parsnips are great.]

[wj]

Isn't it interesting that the attempt to demonize lawyers due to who their clients were (or may have been, to be precise) occurs on both sides of the fence?

The nonsense over these lawyers is essentially identical to the regular cries here in California to keep those who represented any major corporation out of state offices having anything to do with either labor relations or the general field (e.g. medicine, chemistry, etc.) that the company was involved in. Opposite sides of the political divide. Same insistence on guilt by association. Same assumption that ever working for or with one side means you can never again be fair to anyone else.

P.S. Only way to make parsnips (or turnips, for that matter) edible: feed them to pigs and make pork out of them.

[Carleton Wu]

I'm with Bernard. You don't have the excuse of ignorance as a closeted gay.

There's that, but on the other side there's the reprehensibility of bigotry where it harms others' freedoms without affecting one's own. The "defenders of marriage" on their third try, who have no real objections to no-fault divorces and consequence-free adultery, but find it easy & profitable to demonize the other in society.

I figure, between the two I don't really have a scale.

[Brett Bellmore]

On roasted parsnips, we generally mix them with carrots, rutabaga, and turnips, toss in olive oil, and sprinkle liberally with Lawry's seasoned salt. (You may want to wrap in foil for the first part of the cooking, then open, or else the carrots will get a bit shriveled.) Then roast at 400 degrees until everything is soft and caramelized. That way there's something in there for every taste. Victor loves them, no pre-made baby food for him!

As for the lawyers, I agree on principle that doing pro-bono work for people accused of something reprehensible should be no bar to government service. I do, however, share Jonah Goldberg's doubt that, if the Bush administration had appointed 7 lawyers with a record of doing pro bono work for white supremacists to the Civil Rights division, Democrats would have refrained from similar histrionics. Though the principle would be precisely the same.

The need for people accused of terrorism to have access to legal counsel isn't to protect terrorists, it's to protect everyone the government might accuse of terrorism, if that accusation were converted into a guarantee the accused wouldn't have access to counsel. You really can't assume good faith on the government's part, when analyzing these things. You always have to look at the way the rule you're proposing will be abused.

[Hartmut]

I would also note that a prosecutors job is to "do justice", not zealously pursue a conviction

In theory yes but the reality looks quite different unfortunately. The famous saying that getting convictions for the guilty is easy while it is the mark of the really good prosecutor that he can get convictions of innocents as well does not come from nowhere. If prosecutors are considered failures, if they 'only' achieve imprisonment for life instead of an execution and this negatively affects their (often political*) careers, then it will not come as a surprise that the system tends to suck.
---
Morat20, I think GOPsters know that the opposition will never sink to their level, abusing the judicial system to take out rivals. Therefore they see no problem in dismantling the safety procedures because they can't really expect to one day become the victims. It would look different, if e.g. Obama, immediately after taking the oath of office, had ordered Chain-Eye/Bush&Accomplices to be arrested and flown to Bagram for enhanced interrogation.
Imo he should have had them** arrested and delivered to the Hague the day after the inauguration or, if the Hague had not taken them, extradited them to Iraq/Iran/Chile/San Salvador/etc. to be charged for their crimes

*cf. campaigns where candidates boast that they got more people on Old Sparky than their opponents and are therefore more derving of winning.
**plus a few Democrats for good measure, e.g. Bill Clinton and M.Albright but most importantly Henry Kissinger

[Phil]

I do, however, share Jonah Goldberg's doubt that, if the Bush administration had appointed 7 lawyers with a record of doing pro bono work for white supremacists to the Civil Rights division, Democrats would have refrained from similar histrionics. Though the principle would be precisely the same.

Jonah Goldberg? Is that who libertarians are hitching their wagons to these days?

[Bernard Yomtov]

I do, however, share Jonah Goldberg's doubt that, if the Bush administration had appointed 7 lawyers with a record of doing pro bono work for white supremacists to the Civil Rights division, Democrats would have refrained from similar histrionics.

The trouble with that argument is that it is largely irrefutable - not because it's true, but because it's not based on any facts or logic. It's just a general charge of hypocrisy.

One slightly relevant fact, though, is that ACLU lawyers, whether Democrats or not I don't know, have defended the rights of some pretty odious characters without bringing down much wrath on their own heads. Make of that what you will.

And stop reading Goldberg. It only hurts your understanding of the world.

[Eric Martin]

sprinkle liberally with Lawry's seasoned salt

There was a deli near my house growing up that used to make homemade french fries smothered with the stuff. An after school snack that I partook in far too often - but would pay handsomely for a batch at this very moment.

[Slartibartfast]

Also, any Floridians here in Orlando? I'm going there for a conference in a week or two and it's going to be deathly dull, I could certainly use a touch of liveliness...

When, Anarch? If it's after the 20th, I could probably break free and partake of some necessary quantity of beer, etc. if you're willing.

The 20th is tournament, and I'm busy working on my crane technique.

[hairshirthedonist]

The 20th is tournament, and I'm busy working on my crane technique.

You're in the heavy machinery tournament, too? I'm into downhill bulldozing.

[Slartibartfast]

;)

[Carleton Wu]

I do, however, share Jonah Goldberg's doubt that, if the Bush administration had appointed 7 lawyers with a record of doing pro bono work for white supremacists to the Civil Rights division, Democrats would have refrained from similar histrionics.

Yeah, like if the ACLU defended the KKK on a particular situation because of the Constitutional principle, obviously liberals would never have anything to do with them again. Fortunately for civilization, there is the Republican party, where an organization fighting for everyone's rights is never demonized at all.
Of course, if there was a lawyer with a long track record of doing pro bono work *just* for white supremacists (or terrorists, or child molesters), I don't think either party would appoint them to a position of responsibility.

There's also an asymmetry to your argument- being a white supremacist isn't a crime, and many white supremacists openly admit their stance on race. That doesn't mean that there can't be Constitutional principles in play, but it does IMO differentiate the situation from people who are only *accused* of belonging to bad organizations. So someone who serially defended people accused of terrorism isn't the same as someone who serially defends admitted white supremacists accused of crimes.