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

1. #1
   On March 15th, 2010 at 2:58 pm, Anita said:

   Republican Senators SHOULD call a press conf & SHOUT that they lost the confidence in Eric Holder & alqueda-7 and call for their firing.

2. #2
   On March 15th, 2010 at 3:06 pm, Hangfire said:

   RICO the ACLU bastards NOW!

3. #3
   On March 15th, 2010 at 3:09 pm, iamsaved said:

   I’d say these lawyers should be charged with treason and summarily shot. There is no other word to describe their behavior. Hiding behind lawyer/client privilege rules is an abuse.

4. #4
   On March 15th, 2010 at 3:13 pm, letget said:

   I have no idea what the family of these leaked cia information could do if any of them were to come up dead. This holder and his team need to go to jail, but he holds the ‘do not go to jail’ card.
   L

5. #5
   On March 15th, 2010 at 3:14 pm, Flyoverman said:

   According to U.S. officials familiar with the issue, the current dispute involves Justice Department officials who support an effort led by the American Civil Liberties Union to provide legal aid to military lawyers for the Guantanamo inmates.

   Any bets one or more of these “Justice Department officials” are the same people whose identity Holder refuses to disclose?

   I’ll bet my house on that one.

6. #6
   On March 15th, 2010 at 3:20 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

   the ACLU’s blabbermouth program unmasking the CIA interrogators and secretly photographing them in their homes — pics which they shared with their jihadi suspect clients.

   Treat them as enemy combatants.

   Because that is exactly what they are.

7. #7
   On March 15th, 2010 at 3:29 pm, Sergeant Tim said:

   And al Qaeda’s lawyers have the nerve to brag about the victories they help killers achieve.

8. #8
   On March 15th, 2010 at 3:34 pm, TigerLady said:

   snort-worthy: “AG Holder: DOJ ‘On The Right Path’ Toward Open taking over the Government.”

   FIFY

   Banana Republic

9. #9
   On March 15th, 2010 at 3:34 pm, AlohaGuy said:

   On a related front, Debra Burlingame and Thomas Joscelyn have an explosive piece in the WSJ on Gitmo’s Indefensible Lawyers

   Thank you. Excellent piece.

10. #10
    On March 15th, 2010 at 3:36 pm, txvet2 said:

    What we really need is a list of every law firm and every single attorney at the firms who “represented” any GITMO detainee. Abuse of attorney-client privilege was so widespread that one can safely assume that each and every attorney committed it, and they should be held accountable.

11. #11
    On March 15th, 2010 at 3:48 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    This administration continues to help and befriend
    Communists and Jihadists.

    This is just one more “dot” in an ever-increasing collection of dots.

    Connect the dots.

12. #12
    On March 15th, 2010 at 4:16 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On March 15th, 2010 at 3:20 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Treat them as enemy combatants.

    That will make the scout snipers happy.

13. #13
    On March 15th, 2010 at 6:10 pm, bluesoc said:

    CIA counterintelligence officials oppose the effort and say giving terrorists photographs of interrogators has exposed CIA personnel and their families to possible terrorist attacks.

    This is ridiculous. Do they really think that terrorists, who are indiscriminate in their killing, would go through the extra effort to track down CIA agents to get revenge? It doesn’t make any sense.

14. #14
    On March 15th, 2010 at 7:16 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On March 15th, 2010 at 6:10 pm, bluesoc said:
    This is ridiculous. Do they really think that terrorists, who are indiscriminate in their killing, would go through the extra effort to track down CIA agents to get revenge? It doesn’t make any sense.

    Oh, ridiculous is it? You wouldn’t say that if it was YOUR family at risk! Wise up.

15. #15
    On March 15th, 2010 at 9:10 pm, Republicanvet said:

    The WSJ article by Burlingame and Joscelyn mentions Julia Tarver Mason as one of the treasonous whack jobs helping the enemy.

    A look at her bio shows she clerked for Sotomayor.

    Nice.

    How many morons claiming to be Republicans voted for Sotormayor?

16. #16
    On March 15th, 2010 at 9:43 pm, bluesoc said:

    A look at her bio shows she clerked for Sotomayor.
    Nice.

    First, the judge you clerk for says pretty much nothing about your politics.

    Second, did you notice that she does White Collar Criminal defense and that one of her clients is Pfizer?

    Finally, take a look at the “News” section on her bio. Did you notice all the articles written about her defense of guantanamo detainees? THIS is the reason partners from large firms take these cases. It is incredible publicity.

17. #17
    On March 15th, 2010 at 9:49 pm, Marc said:

    For the Gitmo lawyers from Covington & Burling and Paul, Weiss, the driving factor is not so much ideology but a need for excitement and a need to be cool. These lawyers were the nerds in high school and in college. They never played varsity sports and never dated the cheerleaders. And they desperately want and need to feel cool, for once in their lives. The lawyers at Covington, Burling and Paul, Weiss make lots of money but their jobs are deadly boring and they know it. You can’t brag at the country club about appearing before an administrative law judge in some dusty federal office building and arguing about 32 CFR 543. It’s just boring. But all of a sudden, these nerdy lawyers have a chance to fly down to Gitmo, to sneer at American soldiers and pump fists with KSM and assorted unshaven antiAmerican rebels. To the nerds at Covington and Burling and Paul, Weiss, this is the ultimate in cool. You can imagine the stories they have to tell when they get back to the office. Instead of being the kid who didn’t play football, these nerdy lawyers can suddenly portray themselves as cool dudes, cats who went mano a mano with an American soldier and never blinked. Yes, all the lawyers at Covington and Paul, Weiss are liberals. But that is not what motivates them. It is the lifelong need to escape from being the nerds of the world. This is really the latest chapter in the “Revenge of the Nerds” movie series.

18. #18
    On March 15th, 2010 at 10:04 pm, Republicanvet said:

    On March 15th, 2010 at 9:43 pm, bluesoc said:

    blah, blah, blah.

    Defending such a POS says quite a bit about you.

19. #19
    On March 15th, 2010 at 10:04 pm, rightisright said:

    Liberals: bastards one and all.

20. #20
    On March 15th, 2010 at 10:40 pm, bluesoc said:

    Yes, all the lawyers at Covington and Paul, Weiss are liberals.

    You clearly don’t know much about the world of BigLaw.

    BigLaw lawyers are motivated by money and prestige. They take this work because it results in both.

    Defending such a POS says quite a bit about you.

    Rather than defending this “POS,” I’d say I’m critiquing the narrative proposed by most of the commenters – that these lawyers defend Gitmo detainees because they’re liberal. These are big time Corporate lawyers. If they really cared about social justice and radical leftwing ideologies, they would not be working for Paul Weiss.

    She probably makes $2+ million a year defending the biggest corporations in the world. That doesn’t sound very liberal to me.

21. #21
    On March 15th, 2010 at 11:34 pm, Marc said:

    OK, I will concede Blusoc’s point that there might one or two closet moderate Republicans at Covington & Burling and Paul, Weiss. It is possible you can find find one or two Lincoln Chafee style Republicans if you look hard enough.
    But Blusoc, you conceded my major point which is that these preppie lawyers, none of whom ever went to an NFL game or a NASCAR race in his life, are largely nerdy types who are out for some excitement and drama in otherwise profitable but dry as dust lives.

22. #22
    On March 16th, 2010 at 12:08 am, bluesoc said:

    But Blusoc, you conceded my major point which is that these preppie lawyers, none of whom ever went to an NFL game or a NASCAR race in his life, are largely nerdy types who are out for some excitement and drama in otherwise profitable but dry as dust lives.

    I’m with you all the way that they’re major nerds. And perhaps their motivation is excitement (although I still think it’s mostly about money/prestige).

23. #23
    On March 16th, 2010 at 8:16 am, Marc said:

    To Blusoc, Glad to see that we agree. I agree that there is a huge prestige thing going on with the Covington & Burling lawyers. Going before the US Supreme Court and arguing a habeas case gets lots of publicity and selfglorification. It sures beats attending an immigration hearing for an elderly Haitian woman in Miami who wants to stay in the US. That kind of dull, nonpublicity generating (but meaningful) pro bono work would not appeal to the lawyers at Covington, Burling.
    The lawyers there are major league nerds. The lawyers at Covington, Burling are the only people in the world who get aroused by reading a law review article about a change in rule making procedures at the FTC.

24. #24
    On March 16th, 2010 at 9:36 am, Flyoverman said:

    This should be a non-discussion. the basic problem is that none of the Gitmo detainees should have any access to U.S. Civilian lawyers.

    These detainees are military enemy combatants. They are POW’s. Some are simply that. Others are alledged to have committed war crimes. Those crimes are the jurisdiction of a military tribunal. The legal counsel these combatants should receive should come from military lawyers.

    If any civilian court had ruled otherwise the President as Commander in Chief should have told the court to take a hike.

    Charges against a U.S. citizen are another mattter. The people in Gitmo are neither civilians or U.S. citizens.

    I lay this one at Bush’s feet. He caused this one.

25. #25
    On March 16th, 2010 at 9:58 am, happyscrapper said:

    Blusoc…are you sure you aren’t one of zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz’s personalities? If you aren’t, you sure do sound like him sometimes! If you are, put a blusoc in it!