More pressure on the Holder/DOJ stone wall: Who are the al Qaeda 7?
Keep America Safe keeps the heat on corruptocrat AG Eric Holder over the terror lawyers in the DOJ:
***
Related: Last month, I posted the must-watch video on KSM’s confession. So many people clicked over that the site went down. It’s back up and ready for viewing/sharing. Pass it on:
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Fast and Furious showdown: Holder/Obama defend bloody culture of contempt; Update: Fortress Holder, Stonewall City; vid clips added, Dems advise, “Don’t answer”
February 2, 2012 09:16 AM by Michelle Malkin
158 CommentsAttention: Obama’s coming to Arizona, Ground Zero of his Fast and Furious debacle
January 23, 2012 02:08 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 CommentsThe Year in Obama Scandals — and Scandal Deniers
December 28, 2011 12:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
122 Comments
The Brian Terry Memorial Act passes
December 15, 2011 06:08 PM by Michelle Malkin
21 CommentsThe murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry: One year ago today
December 14, 2011 11:11 AM by Michelle Malkin
70 Comments
Holder, Blago, Richardson: Triangle of Sleaze
December 9, 2011 09:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
125 CommentsCapitol Hill hearing/vote watch: Holder, Corzine, Cordray; Update Holder: Nobody lied; Corzine: Don’t know where $ went; F&F impeachment?; Issa turns up heat; Holder “possibly” will clean house; vids added
December 8, 2011 09:41 AM by Michelle Malkin
157 Comments
The Johnny-come-lately anti-Eric Holder brigade
November 30, 2011 10:31 AM by Michelle Malkin
65 Comments
The Accountability Charade
November 18, 2011 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
123 Comments
Categories: Eric Holder,Gitmo
Patterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hitAmSpecBlog
» Weekend Political Wrap-UpJustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidGateway Pundit
» White House Says They Won’t Budge on HHS Birth Control Mandate: “Our Position Is Clear” (Video)Gateway Pundit
» Sarah Palin on HBO Palin Movie: I’ve Created More Impersonators Than Obama’s Created Jobs (Video)
Can we waterboard Chertoff until he tel’s us which of his pals at C&B went to DOJ?
Not sure there is value in knowing the names of the individuals that the DOJ hired, only that they follow the law.
I can be convinced, however what would be the benefit of knowing who these individuals are? They did their jobs as lawyers for defendants, and now they are doing their jobs for the DOJ.
My only concern is that they follow the law.
Is there not one set of cajones collectively on any Congressional oversight committee?
zzzzzzzzzz-
Don’t you understand “Conflict of Interest?” You can’t play both sides of the fence and expect to have any integrity. Oh, wait . . .
Ensuring that these “lawyers” have a valid license to practice law might be a nice thing to know.
Besides, if I have to pay for them, baring any need for National Security, I want to know who I am paying for.
But, but, but,…that’s hard!
zyzzyg,
Like I said you bring it on yourself.
You assume that Chertoff would even realize he’s being waterboarded. Perhaps Bush’s worst appointment.
Do you understand what conflict of interest is? One variable includes timing. You can’t represent clients who are in opposition to one another at the same time. Do you understand this?
These lawyers are not representing the DOJ and Al Qaeda defendants at the same time. No conflict of interest. Understand?
Yeah, a lawyer can represent a drunk driver one day and then represent the victim of the drunk driver the next.
But, not at the same time.
OK, that is fair.
That is me agreeing with you.
However, to be consistent, all DOJ lawyers must demonstrate they are licensed to practice law. Do you agree? Are you prepared to be consistent?
To be consistent you would want to know everyone who is working for the Government because you pay for them.
On this, we disagree. However, like before, I can be convinced.
Make an argument justifying a need to know everyone working for the Government. It is not enough that we pay their salaries.
Nope, not true.
You managed not to comment on my post, or throw out an invective. There is no requirement for anyone to take me to task for any reason.
It is not about me.
One of the guiding principles of a free government is that it is fully accountable to the people, who are the approving authority for the governemnt to even exist.
The Declaration of Independence, the basis for our Constitution states, “Paragraph Two, Part One, the key concept is that “just powers” of Governments come only “from the consent of the governed.”
The Freedom of Information Act is consistent with the spirit of the above statement. It is Holder’s OBLIGATION and DUTY to make the information available.
We do not serve the government. Its sole existence is to serve us.
I would hope so…..
When is enough is enough? Enemy combatants and traitors need to be executed posthaste.
Valid point. Are the taxpayers paying his fees on both cases? No. There has to be a separation at some point. Ever heard of a non-compete clause. These guys are playing both sides against the middle on my dime and I’m sick and damn tired of it.
Absolutely! I don’t just throw my money around and I don’t want the money the government confiscates from me just thrown around and wasted. That’s how we got in the mess this country is in now.
zzy; your argument is exactly why lawyers are thought of as whores. They be doing john then they be doing john’s wife, but not at the same time. Ethics must be maintained.
In principle, I understand Z’s point in a way. An officer of the court has an obligation to be the advocate for his client or employer.
However, what is at issue here is that these seven, while defending terrorists, went well beyond their legal obligatons and gave “aid and comfort” to the terrorists.
That “above and beyond” effort, if it is confirmed, should disqualify them as their objectivity is demonstrably compromised. The reason that having their names is important is that this vetting of their impartiality must occur.
Holder, not being forthcoming only casts further doubt on their objectivity and frankly, his. What is he hiding about these seven?
Work for al Qaeda, go to DOJ, dismiss charges against al Qaeda, go back to work for al Qaeda at C&B, get bonus…
I mean really…
Taking the proper measures on the battlefield to ensure there is nothing more in the pipeline, will help to take care of the problem.
Timing is not the determinant of conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest on its own merit. While timing may be one aspect of determining a conflict, it is not the sole determinate.
Are we saying that a lawyer can represent Khalid Muhammed one day and then go to the DOJ and make policy in regard to the prosecution of Khalid Muhammed or participate in the prosecution? The DOJ part of that would result in a conflict of interest. It can be mitigated but is still a conflict.
True.
That is me agreeing with you.
True.
That is me agreeing with you.
FOIA I agree with. Though I am uncomfortable with knowing the background of every single DOJ employee. Suggesting that an FOIA be done on any single employee would mean the person in the mail room would be subject to it as well. It is only consistent.
I am comfortable with the Senate’s role of ‘advise and consent’ on specific categories of employees, our employees, that we pay for.
We just disagree on how far down the chain we go to find out about any individual employee in the DOJ, or any other department.
Yes, there are things that should be known. I think that the bar of ‘just cause’ is too high to file an FOIA request on any single Government employee.
Yep.
That is me agreeing with you, again.
That is you agreeing with me. Good for you.
Thank you.
Which case? With regard to the terrorists and that same lawyer working for the DOJ. Yes, we are on the hook.
With regard to the drunk driver and the victim of the drunk driver, not necessarily. When a person can not afford an attorney one will appointed for them, and . . . yes, paid for by us.
There is and it is called time. This variable is a crucial element to the issue on ‘conflict of issue’ that you first raised. Acknowledge it, or don’t.
Yes.
No. The lawyers are advocates for their clients at the time they represent them. Are you more concerned about the money instead of our laws being followed?
Agreed. We should not waste money.
I believe following the law is not a waste of money. Do you agree?
Yeah, and that is our system. First the lawyer represents John, and then the lawyer represents John’s wife.
As long as they follow the law, all we have is outrage, though we maintain civility and no anarchy.
Yeah, lawyers are a doubled edged sword.
Yes, sometimes we are only left with our principles. Abandoning our principles can lead to anarchy, arbitrarianess and capriciouness. I like rules, standards, and our Constitution.
Hmmm, that is an interesting assertion. I don’t know and would like more information. What exactly did these lawyers do that can be characterized as above and beyond their legal obligations? What was the aid and comfort given? Don’t get excited, I don’t know and am only asking questions.
So, your assertion is not true? It has to be confirmed. Very well, how are the assertions confirmed? Releasing their names is not necessary to confirm whether they provided ‘aid and comfort’. Just the transcripts from the court proceedings, any briefings, and communications to others on behalf of their clients, etc.
I disagree. First a determination of transgressions should be established. Unconfirmed assertions are not a valid reason to release names. Provable charges first along with their names. Yes. Yeah, I am not for the potential of character assassination unless we are prepared to prosecute. Yeah, I am all about the law.
I’m sorry but this is laughable. It amounts to ‘when did you stop beating your spouse’?
I agree, collect the data, and should it merit moving forward, then do so. And, in moving forward that requires releasing the names of the lawyers at that time, and not before.
Are you suggesting that the lawyers involved in defending the terrorists are now somehow involved in dismissing the charges against them?
Beyond idle speculation, guessing, and soliciting an emotional response, do you have any proof that this has happened?
I mean really. Do you have any proof?
I thought that was the subject of this blog.
Ok, to be fair, John McCain went thru a congressional hearing to determine whether he was constitutionally eligible to run for president as a natural born citizen, but Nobama did not. Are you prepared to be consistent?
On the idea that we need to see a list of gov’mint employees: no, I don’t want to see everyone, but I should have the ability to see it if I felt it necessary. Holder won’t reveal the lawyers ’cause they have something to hide.
All we need is the military trial, then a firing squad at dawn for the moon god worshipers.
This country has lost it’s way. Kill the enemy, and let G-d sort it out.
ROPMA!
The subject of the post is “More pressure on the Holder/DOJ stone wall: Who are the al Qaeda 7?”
Now how about some intellectual honesty? Though the question was directed at another poster, you are welcome to answer it.
OK, a bit of a tangent from the subject of this thread, but I will bite.
I was unaware that Sen McCain had gone through that process. Do you have a link?
And, if Sen McCain went through it, so should every candidate for President when there is a question of citizenship.
Yep, I am consistent. Are you consistent on every issue?
There are some three hundred million of us. Should each of us have the ability to see whatever we want if we felt it necessary? There should be cause and that is about the law. Do you like the law?
Do you have proof, or is that just speculation on your part? Instead of concluding there is something to hide based on no evidence, how about concluding AG Holder is protecting those individual’s privacy?