OBAMA, HOLDER AND THE AL QAEDA 7: AIDING AND ABETTING THE ENEMY

MCCARTHY/WSJ/OP-ED:

[ACCORDING TO THEIR DEFENDERS] The Gitmo lawyers now working at the DOJ had acted in the "American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients," the letter intoned.

[AS IF] the terrorists' cause was comparable to John Adams's defense of British soldiers prosecuted for the Boston Massacre.

The left-leaning press chimed in, directing its wrath at a favorite target, the word "Cheney"—in this case, Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney and co-director of Keep America Safe.

The ad was portrayed as a right-wing smear of attorneys who had performed an honorable service, an assertion said to be proved by the fact that Gitmo lawyers had prevailed in some important Supreme Court cases.

The fictional premise of these wayward complaints is that the Justice Department's al Qaeda lawyers stand in the same shoes as criminal-defense lawyers. The latter must represent even unsavory characters because the Constitution guarantees counsel to those charged with crimes.

To the contrary, the Justice Department's al Qaeda lawyers were volunteers, just as Mr. Holder volunteered in the Heller case.


Unlike the British soldiers represented by John Adams, the Gitmo detainees are not entitled to counsel.

They are not criminal defendants.

They are plaintiffs in offensive lawsuits, filed under the rubric of habeas corpus, challenging their detention as war prisoners.

The nation is at war, and the detainees are unprivileged alien enemy combatants.

By contrast, the United States was not at war with England at the time of the Boston Massacre, and the British soldiers were lawful police, not nonuniformed terrorists.

There is no right to counsel in habeas corpus cases. Thousands of American inmates must represent themselves in such suits—there is no parade of white-shoe law firms at their beck and call. Until 2004, moreover, enemy prisoners were not permitted to challenge their detention at all. The Supreme Court rejected such claims in the 1950 Eisentrager case, precisely because they damage the national war effort. Yes, left-leaning lawyers have convinced the Supreme Court's liberal bloc to ignore precedent and permit Gitmo habeas petitions. That neither makes these suits less damaging, nor endows the enemy with a right to counsel.

RTWT!

BY HIRING HOLDER AND THE AL QAEDA SEVEN OBAMA HAS EFFECTIVELY HANDED OVER TO OUR ENEMIES THE DOJ - DURING WAR-TIME - AND ESSENTIALLY COMMITTED TREASON.

AT THE VERY LEAST, OBAMA, HOLDER AND THE AL QAEDA SEVEN SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.

AT THE VERY LEAST.

I WOULD ACTUALLY PREFER TO SEE THEM ALL CHARGED WITH TREASON, TRIED, CONVICTED AND EXECUTED.