This page was last updated on March 12, 2010.
The rule of law; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 12, 2010.
The editorial neglected to mention Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) initially asked for the subject information back in November to make sure there were no conflict of interest situations regarding “terrorism and detainee policy.” That is, to learn if any lawyers who represented Gitmo detainees were now involved with developing “terrorism and detainee policy.”
My primary response to the editorial is Lynne Stewart. Who is Lynne Stewart? Ms. Stewart was lead defense attorney for terrorist Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman (aka, The Blind Sheik). Abdel-Rahman was convicted of seditious conspiracy to blow up NY landmarks and was sentenced to life in prison. According to Wikipedia, “In 2005, Stewart was convicted on charges of conspiracy and providing material support to terrorists and sentenced to 28 months in prison. Her felony conviction led to her being automatically disbarred. She was convicted of helping pass messages from her client, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian cleric convicted of planning terror attacks, to his followers in al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, an organization designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States Secretary of State.” One co-defendant was sentenced to 21 months and another was sentenced to 28 years.
Is referring to the subject lawyers (political appointees) as “The Al-Qaeda 7” a bit over the top? Perhaps, but it should not overshadow the issue raised. FYI, there are at least nine lawyers in this group, but AG Holder has already named two. That begs the question, if Mr. Holder named two of the lawyers, why not name them all? Selectively naming the lawyers simply reinforces the perception - correct or not - that Mr. Holder is hiding something.
Does representing an alleged terrorist make you a terrorist or a sympathizer? Of course not, but why attempt to hide their names?
The editorial sets up a straw man to attack when it concludes with “If Cheney and her kind would jettison the rule of law to deny suspected terrorists the right to an attorney, they could do the same to you.” English is my first and only language, and there’s nothing in the subject ad that remotely talks about denying “suspected terrorists the right to an attorney.”
As for the Times use of the term “principled conservatives,” keep in mind “conservatives” can be “principled” only when they agree with the Times. When these very same people take positions opposed by the Times, they are “right-wing populists who pose as conservatives,” or worse. For example, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is a “principled conservative” when it comes to the McCain/Feingold law supported by the Times and when he eschewed conservative principles, but he was a right-wing extremist when he ran against the Times candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).
Finally, it’s not surprising the editorial neglected to note Fox News Channel identified the subject lawyers nine days ago, with confirmation by the DOJ. That was two days after the ad first appeared on YouTube.
© 2004-2010 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.