Common Sense Fails At Justice Department
Last night, a strident, rude, but constitutionally astute fellow brought to my attention a letter sent by the Justice Department to the Senate Judiciary committee, confirming that some of the recent appointees to prominent posts in the department had previously defended a number of Gitmo detainees.
Now I’m aware that theoretically a lawyer’s job is to to provide the best advocacy possible for their client, regardless of their own personal biases, whether that client is a terror suspect or the United States of America (the client who pays the bills at Justice). It doesn’t, however, take much more than a smidgen of common sense to come to the conclusion that an attorney willing to defend detainees, whether they’re guilty as charged or were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time during a random sweep, probably leans at least a little left of center. In the same respect, an attorney whose political bent leans to the right, would, while acknowledging the rights of these defendants to competent representation, almost certainly not volunteer for the gig.
There are precious few of us who can be “Fair Witnesses”‘, the fictional arbiters in Robert Heinlein’s classic “Stranger In A Strange Land”. These characters underwent intense training in disciplines ranging from pure logic to the intricacies of psychology before being certified as being able, with complete and utter neutrality, to see all sides of a picture and then resolve a dispute in an objective and fair manner.
But we, alas, are not Fair Witnesses. Swear as we might, with the sincerest of intentions , to an oath of neutrality and relentless advocacy, our beliefs and biases can’t be so thoroughly compartmentalized that they don’t play some role in our behavior. I hate to break it to you, but those attorneys on TV pursuing justice regardless of their own feelings are fictional characters.
At the very least, current Justice Department personnel who recently defended detainees or terror suspects should recuse themselves from cases involving defendants similar to their former clients, if for no other reason than appearance’s sake. And appearance aside, can they prosecute, with the same zeal, those whose cohorts they defended by choice?
If Gitmo prisoners or other terror suspects have civilian trials rather than military tribunals, the impartiality of all concerned should be as above reproach as we imperfect mortals, we less than fair witnesses, can muster.
3 Comments
Leave a Response
Additional comments powered by BackType
LK, you blockhead! So, for “appearance sake” any lawyer who parties at the White House under the guise of working for Justice, should pick and choose only “Pro-America” cases. I see. Basically, toss out the Constitution as being a conflict of interest document. You must be taking Rush meds.
First of all, the complete stupidity of not having these lunatics tried in a military tribunal escapes me. The simple answer, if there is such a thing, is to treat them as enemy combatants, cause – duh… aint that what they are!?!?!?!?!
Now, as for you, LK… STEP AWAY FROM FOX NEWS, buy a bottle of whiskey, and pretend that we actually have a functional government. It works! I sleep well dreaming of a Super Obama settling all the ills of the world. Yes, I wake up with a shock, miserable that it was only a dream, and angry as ever at the gridlock, tea parties, insurance companies, et al., but I DO sleep. Hey, LK… you think this is bad, wait til the big one – Sarah vs Hillary!!!! Whoa, my penis just shrunk like it was dipped in a cold pool!
Why? The House Ethics Panel just ruled that 7 Congressmen don’t have ethics conflicts passing legislation that would benefit clients of lobbyists who contributed to their campaigns. The DOJ just excused Yoo and Bybee. Should I go on? We’re in an ethical mess… where very few ethics abusers are actually being punished for their breaches.
I would, think, if anything, these DOJ hires would, at the least, be able to point out, from a “Devil’s Advocate” point of view, where certain cases are lacking, or where the DOJ can help make cases appeal-proof. Maybe these hires aren’t going to be trying terrorism cases, but maybe their experience might be good in the civil rights/EEOC area of DOJ, areas that were plundered and staffed with Liberty University ideologues by the last administration.
Hi Peter. Agree with your Devil’s Advocate thesis and their potential behind the scenes effectiveness. However, if they’re lead prosecuting counsels and they lose, the Obama administration takes another punch to the gut and they’re doubled over already. I’m operating on my thesis that what used to be called cynical is now an accurate gauge of what’s real. Stay in Touch.