Holder admits nine Obama Dept. of Justice officials worked for terrorist detaine

[thundley4]

Holder admits nine Obama Dept. of Justice officials worked for terrorist detainees, offers no details

Attorney General Eric Holder says nine Obama appointees in the Justice Department have represented or advocated for terrorist detainees before joining the Justice Department. But he does not reveal any names beyond the two officials whose work has already been publicly reported. And all the lawyers, according to Holder, are eligible to work on general detainee matters, even if there are specific parts of some cases they cannot be involved in.

Holder's admission comes in the form of an answer to a question posed last November by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley. Noting that one Obama appointee, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, formerly represented Osama bin Laden's driver, and another appointee, Jennifer Daskal, previously advocated for detainees at Human Rights Watch, Grassley asked Holder to give the Senate Judiciary Committee "the names of political appointees in your department who represent detainees or who work for organizations advocating on their behalf…the cases or projects that these appointees work with respect to detainee prior to joining the Justice Department…and the cases or projects relating to detainees that have worked on since joining the Justice Department."

In his response, Holder has given Grassley almost nothing. He says nine Obama political appointees at the Justice Department have advocated on behalf of detainees, but did not identify any of the nine other than the two, Katyal and Daskal, whose names Grassley already knew. "To the best of our knowledge," Holder writes,
during their employment prior to joining the government, only five of the lawyers who serve as political appointees in those components represented detainees, and four others either contributed to amicus briefs in detainee-related cases or were otherwise involved in advocacy on behalf of detainees.

Holder says other Obama appointees, like Holder himself, came from law firms which represented detainees but did no work on behalf of the terrorist prisoners. But other than Katyal and Daskal, Holder does not reveal any names of any Obama appointees, nor does he mention the cases they worked on.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Holder-admits-nine-Obama-Dept-of-Justice-officials-worked-for-terrorist-detainees-offers-no-details-84799487.html#ixzz0g1j2VyXC

Maybe they were hired in case some terrorist couldn't afford their own attorney.

[Hawkgirl]

Disgraceful....Hannity needs to talk about this for his entire show.

[Mushroom]

I really don't see the problem.  After all, we are talking about lawyers after all.  And every scumbag drug dealer and murder in the system has at least one.

In fact, I see no more wrong as I would if the lawyer worked for a big corporation (which is something that Liberals claim is wrong).  All I care about first is if they are ethical, and that they try to do their duty to the best of their ability.

Then again, we are talking about lawyers.  And an "Ethical Lawyer" sounds kind of like an oxymoron.

[Hawkgirl]

I really don't see the problem. 

NO?  You don't see the conflict of interest? Obama is purposefully appointing lawyers who have ties to terrorists?? 

Nothing to see here, move along..

[thundley4]

The fact that Neal Katyal took a case representing a terrorist, pro bono, just to make his name means nothing. 

[Mushroom]

NO?  You don't see the conflict of interest? Obama is purposefully appointing lawyers who have ties to terrorists?? 

Nothing to see here, move along..

No more a conflict of interest as when somebody like President Bush appoints somebody who was a lawyer for a Corporation.

I care more about the individual and their character then who they have worked for.  And I do belive that everybody is entitled to a lawyer, even if they are a piece of coprolite child molestor or terrorist (neither of which should pollute the planet 1 second longer then required).

Now, if the lawyer is the type that tries to show the person is innocent, that I can respect.  If they try to show they were tortured and beaten by military members (when they are not), framed because they are Muslim, or that kind of garbage, then their character is flawed and they should not be placed into that kind of position.

[Duke Nukum]

But don't let anyone say dems are soft on terrorism...

[The Village Idiot]

No more a conflict of interest as when somebody like President Bush appoints somebody who was a lawyer for a Corporation.

I care more about the individual and their character then who they have worked for.  And I do belive that everybody is entitled to a lawyer, even if they are a piece of coprolite child molestor or terrorist (neither of which should pollute the planet 1 second longer then required).

Now, if the lawyer is the type that tries to show the person is innocent, that I can respect.  If they try to show they were tortured and beaten by military members (when they are not), framed because they are Muslim, or that kind of garbage, then their character is flawed and they should not be placed into that kind of position.

Corporations and terrorists are the same thing?

[thundley4]

Corporations and terrorists are the same thing?

To 0Bama and the left they are.

[Hawkgirl]

No more a conflict of interest as when somebody like President Bush appoints somebody who was a lawyer for a Corporation.

you're comparing apples to oranges.

[Mushroom]

you're comparing apples to oranges.

No, I am making a comparison, showing how each side complains at the nominees of the other side.

If a Republican nominates a corporate lawyer, the Democrats scream.  If a Democrat nominates an ACLU type lawyer, the Republicans scream.

I do not care about what they did before nomination, as much as I care about things like their ethics, and their ability to be impartial and follow the Constitution.

[The Village Idiot]

No, I am making a comparison, showing how each side complains at the nominees of the other side.

If a Republican nominates a corporate lawyer, the Democrats scream.  If a Democrat nominates an ACLU type lawyer, the Republicans scream.

I do not care about what they did before nomination, as much as I care about things like their ethics, and their ability to be impartial and follow the Constitution.

You don't go from defending terrorist to prosecuting them without raising questions.

[thundley4]

You don't go from defending terrorist to prosecuting them without raising questions.

Especially, defending terrorists and doing it pro bono.  I guarantee none of the corporate lawyers that President Bush appointed did pro bono work for corporations.

[Mushroom]

Especially, defending terrorists and doing it pro bono.  I guarantee none of the corporate lawyers that President Bush appointed did pro bono work for corporations.

First of all, everybody here needs to understand that a lot of what I am doing is (to use a phrase) "playing devil's advocate".  In my example I am throwing back the exact kind of response that Democrats typically use.

And even if they do it pro bono, that does not bother me.  As far as I am concerned, if every lawyer gave their services away for free (or at cost) it would go a long ways to reduceing litigation costs.

I am much more concerned with how they defend them, not why.  If they try to show mitigating factors to reduce a sentence or how the person was simply a bystander and not a participant, that is their job that is fine because it is their job.  And I also believe that everybody is innocent until proven guilty.

Then once they are proven guilty, hang them.

But, if the lawyer is of the type that tries to put the blame on the military that captured them ("Those AKs in his house was not really his, and they planted that IED detonator on him by the Fascist Marines"), then that lawyer is not fit to be a bedpan cleaner, let alone even a more important post like spitoon cleaner.

I do believe they have a right to a fair trial (a military tribunal, i.e. Nuremberg) before they are punished for the death of my brother soldiers.