| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
The Republican War on the Justice Department
Submitted by John Smith on Wed, 11/18/2009 - 11:01
First, the Bush Administration stuffed the Justice Department with 150 graduates of the Regent Law School - a 4th (i.e. bottom) tier law school.
Second, Republicans politicized the US Attorney's office, firing those who weren't deemed "loyal Bushies".
Third, 53 Republican Senators stood by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, even after he disgraced himself and his office by claiming "I don't recall" to avoid answering questions 64 times when testifying before a Senate committee.
Fourth, the current crop of Republicans are simply stalling the confirmation of Obama's judicial nominees, using anonymous holds to prevent the up or down vote that they used to think was so important.
Fifth, major Republicans are denigrating the good men and women who work in the Justice Department by insisting they cannot possibly handle the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial - this despite the fact that there have already been over 100 successful terror trials in our courts (compared to less than 10 military tribunals).
And now this: Rep Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is drafting legislation to prohibit the Justice Department from trying KSM.
Since 9/11 there have been 119 U.S. court cases against 289 people accused of terrorism-related crimes and associated with al Qaeda or other Islamist extremist groups.
Of the 214 defendants whose cases were resolved, 195 -- 91 percent -- were convicted. Many of the acquitted still did not walk free because the government subsequently brought new charges against them or detained them for immigration violations.
Federal prisons on American soil already hold 216 international 139 domestic terrorists. All of them were tried. All of them were convicted. None of them have escaped.
This military tribunal system that is proposed as an alternative? Basically, it doesn't exist. The Bush administration got 3 convictions in 8 years.
We have the greatest justice system in the world. Why are the Republicans intent on tearing it down?
PS: Mayor Bloomberg - please seriously consider running for President.
Promos
Recent blog posts
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
1 comments
TaylorD
0 comments
FMeekins
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
cringinghere
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Recent comments
-
Joseph Hertzlinger
-
samuelajanaku
-
Robin1
-
OzarkGuru
-
dean2
Search
Links
The American Scene
Conservablogs
Election Projection
FiveThirtyEight.com
Jonathan Martin
Marc Ambinder
Megan McArdle
Patrick Ruffini
Pollster.com
The Foundry
Government Bytes
Race 4 2008
Real Clear Politics
RedState
Ross Douthat
Soren Dayton
Infrastructure
America's Future Foundation
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
American Majority
Club for Growth
Election Journal
Heritage Foundation
ATR Blog
Leadership Institute
NewsBusters
Sam Adams Alliance
Republican National Lawyers Association
Republican Liberty Caucus
Washington Watch
National Taxpayers Union
NetRight Nation
Good Lefty Blogs
MyDD
Open Left
Swing State Project
Comments
Troll
Don't feed this John Smith troll.
Or you could explain
all the ways the Republicans have in fact upheld the ideals of our judicial system and demonstrated their faith and confidence in it.
Please only feed RBill Troll!
Please do not offend him. He will prove you wrong! You will lose! and/or he will call you a troll.
When did "conservatives" become such bedwetters?
It's almost enough to make me nostalgic for the fake cowboy swagger of the Bush years.
John Smith cites chapter and verse about our justice and correctional systems' proven ability to try, convict and imprison terrorists, not to mention assorted serial murderers and other distinctly unsavory types. We either have faith in our laws and justice system, or we don't.
I guess it's not terribly surprising that so-called "conservatives" who are hell-bent on proving their thesis that government is the 'problem' by driving it into a ditch when they have the wheel would assume that everyone involved in our justice system is incompetent, but if we don't have any faith in the rule of law we might as well pack it in now. Of course, there are some notable names on the right (Bob Barr, David Keene, Andrew Napolitano and Grover Norquist) who are willing to publicly support trying KSM in civilian court, but they're being drowned out by the bedwetting, scaremongering FauxNews brigade, aided and abetted by urine-soaked grandstanders in Congress like Rep. Shadegg.
I'm so embarassed that John Shadegg is my representative. I feel compelled to note that not everyone in his district or Arizona is so willing to give up on the rule of law and our nation's competence.
Newsflash for the bedwetters: al-Qaeda and other terrorists still know where NYC is whether or not KSM is brought there for trial. What is to stop them from acting to free KSM from Guantanamo? It's as if the nuts imbue him and other terrorists with overwhelming Supervillian powers. It's giving KSM and others like him far too much undeserved credit to do them the honor of considering them 'warriors.' They are criminals, pure and simple --mass murderers. And they should be tried and convicted under our system of laws that has served us so well since the Founders created it.
Wasted effort
http://articles.directorym.com/Jurisdiction_Federal_Vs_State_Court-a9352...
I imagine that Eric Holder
I imagine that Eric Holder can make a more informed decision as to appropriate venue/jurisdiction than I can (as a non-lawyer) based on a website.
Why?
Because he's a Democrat?
You surely didn't agree with Gonzalez' decision to keep him at Gitmo.
The genius of Gitmo
The genius of Gitmo was that it was outside of everybody's jurisdication, so nothing that was done there would ever be reviewed.
As Gonzalez proved with his 64 "I don't recalls", he is not a man that holds up to scruitiny very well.
Holder has the balls to go into the court system where there are rules, standards, judges, and an appeals system.
I guess...
... you didn't know that the gov has decided to try at least five detainees in Military court.
Balls? uh, no... Politics. This decision with KSM is all politics and nothing about "rules, standards, judges, and an appeals system".
You really need to stop parroting the MediaMatters/ Huffpo talking points and think for yourself for once, troll.
As you can see from the OP, RBill,
I'm perfectly happy to think for myself and marshall facts and argument to make my case all by little self.
If military tribunals are the best way to try KSM, why hasn't he been tried by a military tribunal? He has been in custody since March 2003. What was the Bush Administration waiting for?
Why is it "politics" to try KSM in the courts?
He was a source of intel...
He was being used for intel for a few years (it takes time to fully exploit the intel.. it can take years).
There were also numerous challenges being made by the ACLU and other civil rights groups and those had to work their way through the system. That can take years.
The military courts, by Holder's own admission today, are acceptable place to try these enemy combatants and that system is going to be used for some of the detainees. THAT fact alone proves the politics involved in trying KSM in the Federal System. The whole thing is for show to the "rest of the world" that the Obama administration isn't the Bush administration. There's no other reason to do it. It's all for show.
I see
So he's been singing like a bird since March, 2003 and that is why he couldn't be brought to trial.
Do you not find it interesting that with something like 600 men imprisioned in Gitmo, the Bush Administration could only get 3 convictios in military tribunals?
Is it your contention that the other 597 were also busy singing like birds and that is why they couldn't be tried?
How many votes does "the rest of the world" get to cast in the 2010 election? How many electoral college votes will they have in 2012?
Because he's a Democrat? No,
No, because he's the top attorney for the U.S. Government and I refuse to buy into the theory that the government handles everything incompetently. That may be true at times and of some things, but it is not true about all things at all times.
Bottom line, he is a prosecutor and prosecutors rarely pursue cases they don't expect to win. In this case, as noted below, if there is a jurisdiction problem, the court will hear that on the first day of the case. Maybe the judge will agree with you, maybe not, but I find it hard to believe Eric Holder would stake his reputation on bringing this case only to see it thrown out on the first day of hearings.
I might as well join the chorus asking this repeatedly: If KSM should have been tried in a military tribunal, why didn't the Bush administration ever bring the case?
I will take a judge's opinion over a attorney's
Even if he did get an opinion from an attorney other than himself.
Not that agree that people who are guilty should not be punished, I just think the "war on drugs" which takes away all moneys from them should not be used to deny them a fair trial.
But I was not blindly behind Alberto Gonzales
Didn't classified information get leaked from the WTC I trial?
You really can trust giving ACLU lawyers access to discovery in civilian court. Not.
Ace, maybe after someone blows up a cactus you'll figure this out but the upshot of this is to make it more desirable to be caught killing civilians that unformed military. Not sure that makes a whole lot of sense.
The Bush Administration
achieved three convictions via military tribunals. Over the same period of time, 195 convictions were achieved in courts. Your scaremongering is pathetic.
who, where, when , for what crime?
John, good thing you don;t practice law, usually evidence is required before making such charges. I'm sure George Soros has some for you.
27 Generals and 5 Admirals have something to tell you
www.thenextright.com/john-smith/27-generals-5-admirals-call-for-an-end-to-fearmongering-over-ksm-trial
so?
What if the rest of the flag officers disagree. Your point is?
Ironman! WTF?!
You wanted to see some evidence to John Smith's specific claim/charge. He provided it by way of the statements made by the generals(not Soros):
Are you so thick?
The question is not "What if the rest of the flag officers disagree" with the 'opinions' expressed by the generals, but would everyone else/some/anyone disagree with the specific evidence/facts(the one that is quoted above) in their letter? But then in Ironman's "what if" alt-history world, anything is possible! While you are at it, don't blow so hard about your rational profession. It's like a quack trying to sell snake oil by displaying his science degrees.
Please "Do not answer a fool according to his folly"
Remains, RBill has sound judgement for his post:
On the topic of rumors of war against the Justice Department ... [ Zzzzz. Courts have two sides, attorneys are always at "WAR" when they are not at the golf course. The war right now is about jurisdiction, Zzzz ]. ... Do let me know when something different than normal court procedure takes place.
Another vote for "move along, nothing to see here".
Thank you for seconding RBill's motion to move along because there is nothing to see here.
But before you go, it seems to be that when they were in power the Republicans were intent on politicizing the Justice Department and now that they are out of power they are intent on denigrating it. Moreover, it seems plain has the nose on my face that what they are proposing - try KSM in a military tribunal - will never work, given that such tribunals essentially do not exist.
If this is a workable alternative, why didn't the Bush Administration employ it? They've had him in custody since March, 2003.
Military tribunal is the only venue with Jurisidiction
If in your opinion that means "WAR" and you are troubled by your opinion then research it. I have no interest in changing your opinion on the issue. If you want to convince republicans they are at war, well that is foolishness. If you want republicans to post "NO" well that makes the post into one that is fishing for comments, and the word used to describe such posts is "TROLLING"
If there is a jurisdicition problem
Then the court will hear that argument on Day 1 of pretrial motions.
If the miltary tribunal is a workable alternative, why didn't the Bush Administration employ it? They've had KSM in custody since March, 2003.
Your opinion
You do not speak for Republican congressmen.
Eh?
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Try again. And while you are at it, answer the question: why hasn't KSM already been tried in a military tribunal?
Maybe that should of been your top post
nt
Why? Ask the folks who now work for Holder?
They kept bringing suit against the military commissions to delay the process. Their hands are not clean on this point.
The government is your friend - John Smith
If you think the government is a problem, I don't know why this is suppose to be out of character behavior to go after a government agency. The Left has pretty much etched in stone several wars against the Department of Justice at least since the 1950s. Knowing that, the Left can spare me the histrionic hypocritical BS.
The government is neither my friend nor my
enemy. It is my agent - it builds roads and trains armies and runs courts so that i don't have to do these things for myself. In return, I pay taxes and vote for the representatives that I think will do the best job carrying out these tasks.
Do you know many career DOJ/FBI types?
In my profession, I do. Let's just say no one is happy with what Holder and his political appointees are doing to the DOJ.
Let's also say they've been told not to comment on this due to concern over their careers. (Notice the "climate" at EPA for the cap and trade whistleblowers)
The response to the overly politicized Gonzalez Justice Department was not to make the Justice Department evenl more politicized with liberals under Eric Holder, who frankly is a political hack last seen giving Governor Blago a clean bill of health.
Want to stop the "war on the DOJ"? Appoint someone like fmr Atty Gen Michael Mukasey (I suggested Jose Cabranes for Obama) . a retired judge, to run the place apolitically.
When you decide to "draft" a bureaucracy to fight your political battles, you are in no position to become a peacenik when the other side ( and actually many career staff, too) resist.
But why let facts on the ground get in the way of your George Soros approved talking points.
When last we heard from Mukassey
Here's the last thing we heard from Mukasey. Rep. James Moran (D-Va.) has criticized Republicans for demagoging the KSM trial, saying “They see this as an opportunity to demagogue. They will seize on any opportunity to do that, and that means they’ll even take a stand that’s un-American. It’s un-American to hold anyone indefinitely without trial. It’s against our principles as a nation.”On Monday, Mukasay was asked to respond to Moran’s comments. “I think he’s lost touch with reality. He ought to get professional help, perhaps from Major Nidal.”
Oh yes, thats what we want back at the top of the DOJ.
Given your judgment on this matter plus your demonstrated inability to deal with facts, I think we all know what do you with your, shall we say rather sweeping claim that no one in the DOJ or the FBI is happy with the Holder DOJ. I'm sure in your fantasy world they'd all prefer to be working with a bunch of Monica Goodlings, but somehow that just doesn't pass the smell test. Given that you are, as you never tire of reminding us, a lawyer in suburban CT who does real estate conveyancing, how many G-men do you meet up with on a regular basis?
I went to a martial arts competition with a whole bunch
a week ago Saturday. And yep, they all thought Gonzalez was a tool too. And they are just as pissed about left wing politics screwing up their department.
By the way, citing James Moron--one of the sleaziest and most bigoted members of Congress-- as a reference pretty much puts you in the certified loon category, "Mr. Smith".
I'll stick to my AUSA and Special Agent sources, thank you very much.
But if I don't quote Moran
then you'll just say that Mukassey's remark was taken out of context. So I gave you the whole picture to show you just how stupid your suggestion was.
Yessiree, that is one sleazy and bigoted statement.
Your G-man claim? Not getting any more credible.
27 Generals and 5 Admirals have something they want to say to you:
www.thenextright.com/john-smith/27-generals-5-admirals-call-for-an-end-to-fearmongering-over-ksm-trial
Oh, the Irony - But, but, but Obama says it is.
Hmm, none of them work for the DOJ
You do understand the Constitution sets up different branches of government, right?
Why are military people opining on Article III courts?
Besides, you implied I didn;t know career DOJ folks, that is, before you hitched your wagon to that bigoted creep James Moron