If you defend terrorists, what does that make you? A terrorist? A terrorist supporter? A sympathizer with a perverse cause and its horrific deeds? For what other possible reasons would you choose to defend the anti-American and anti-any religion other than Islam murdering scum who will cheerfully saw your head off with a serrated knife when you are no longer their useful idiot. Or, when they simply run out of other infidels to behead.
Unlike Congress, I thought I would ask those questions of our nation’s top law enforcement officer,Eric Holder, the United States Attorney General who worked for a law firm that defends terroristsand who has a history of defending terrorists. He appointed 9 terrorist defending lawyers to work on terrorist detainee issues at the Department of Justice and nary a mainstream eyebrow rose. In his race speech, he called us a “nation of cowards.” Spoken like a true Jihadi. Mr. Holder also has a history of working on the wrong side of justice as evidenced by his work to pardon federal fugitive Marc Rich.
Private lawyers can choose to take or not take cases. Sometimes they make their decisions based on money, sometimes on principle, sometimes because they are sympathetic to the accused. The lawyers who worked with the terrorist detainees chose to represent people who are making war on the United States. That’s certainly their right, but it’s entirely reasonable to ask whether they should now be working on detainee issues at the Justice Department. – Byron York, Washington Examiner
When Mr. Holder decided that we needed to try the 9/11 terrorists in New York, in our federal court system with full constitutional protections, it should not have shocked anyone. To paraphrase one of my favorite philosophers, Larry the Cable Guy, you don’t have to be the head cashier at Wal-Mart to figure out that Mr. Holder is more interested in putting the United States of America and George Bush on trial than he is in bringing justice to murderers. Here’s a thought Mr. Attorney General. They already pleaded guilty. They want to be executed….
As if it was not enough already, our Top Cop investigated whether or not the Bush administration Department of Justice Lawyers who provided legal opinions about enhanced interrogation techniques should be criminally prosecuted.
The Justice Department said it is nearing completion of an internal probe that is expected to recommend professional sanctions but no criminal prosecution for former department lawyers who authorized harsh Central Intelligence Agency interrogations. – Wall Street Journal
In the United States, we do not seek to criminally prosecute our political opponents and predecessors just because we dislike their methods. That is how communists like Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez would handle it. It is also how Islamists of the Ahmadenjad persuasion, some of whom currently reside in Islam friendly luxury suites at Guantanamo Bay, deal with their opponents.
Along with the lawyers who were providing the legal advice for which they were appointed, Mr. Holder thought he might also prosecute the Central Intelligence Agency interrogators who performed their legally sanctioned duties while defending our country from the Department of Justice’s favored defendants.
“It was my opinion we just can’t operate if people feel even if they are following the legal opinions of the Justice Department they could be in danger of prosecution.” Leon Panetta – Director CIA.
Finally, a statement I can agree with. However, Eric Holder’s Enabler in Chief decided it would be helpful to release classified interrogation documents calling the event “a time for reflection, not retribution.” I am certain that the terrorists who most benefitted from this nonsensical release are spending a lot of time reflecting. It makes me want to run out and apply for a job with the CIA.
Mr. Holder’s appointees are not satisfied with just protecting terrorist killers from the evil Untied States. They also appear to have the same in mind domestically. It is quite clear that Mr. Holder intends to protect and serve some entities. That is evidenced by his not pursuing the “New Black Panthers.”
In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs.
When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years—action that’s already illegal under existing law. – Wall Street Journal
It turns out that career lawyers at the Department of Justice who were pursuing the complaints against the New Black Panthers were overruled by Holder appointees.
Remember ACORN of voter fraud and advice on how to run a brothel staffed with minor, illegal immigrant girls. Nothing to see here either. Move along please.
At some point, it might be a good idea for someone in Congress to find spine enough to ask the President exactly who it is that his Attorney General is trying to serve and protect.