It's either "How can you represent those people, how can you defend those people, how can you sleep at night, how can you live with yourself?
How can you?
There is no question that better displays a person's ignorance.
The average American believes in our Constitution, but only parts of it. They believe the First Amendment protects them when they say anything they want to say, but not others who say things that offend them. They believe the Second Amendment allows them to carry a gun, period. They believe the Fourth Amendment is only to protect drug dealers, and that the police can come into their house anytime they want because they have nothing to hide. They believe the Fifth Amendment allows them to remain silent, even though they never would, and that if someone accused of a crime remains silent, it should be evidence against them to infer guilt.
And most people believe the Sixth Amendment guarantees people the right to counsel in all criminal prosecutions, unless they are poor, guilty, or in today's America, accused of terrorism.
To be clear, most people believe the United States Constitution is meant to protect them, and not those who they think are guilty of a crime.
Take Elizabeth Cheney. She's on a campaign against current Department of Justice Lawyers who previously represented Gitmo detainees pro bono. She's part of the group behind this YouTube video.
The question is asked - if these are the lawyers defending these accused terrorists, who will..... ready? .......keep us safe?
It's been the mantra of the Right since September 11 - they, and not anyone else, are the ones who will keep us safe, and if we go against them, in any way, even mild disagreement, we will be less safe.
Nothing gets people more interested and excited than the notion that they may be unsafe. Scaring people, making them believe they are unsafe, you know, terrorism, is an easy way to get people's attention. It's done every day in Congress, state legislatures, local city counsels, courtrooms, schools, everywhere.
And it will never stop. It's like negative ads in political campaigns. We can criticize them all we want, but they work. Fear, works.
There are people, though, that understand how our system works - that the highest respect is due to those who take on the most controversial cases, criminal and civil. Any lawyer who agrees, volunteers, or is drafted to represent someone we all hate, deserves nothing but praise. It is easy to toil in uncontroversial cases day after day, it is a sign of character to take on a matter that will cause idiots like Elizabeth Cheney to engage in campaigns that are by definition, un-American.
Two years ago I enjoyed a few beers with Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift, the type of lawyer of whom I speak of here. He was defense counsel for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden. He appealed Hamdan's writ of habeas corpus petition to the U. S. Supreme Court, obtaining a ruling from the United States Supreme Court holding that the military commission was illegal, violated the Geneva Conventions and the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice. I still remember the exact table where we sat at Sloppy Joe's in Key West while I listened in awe to his experience representing a hated client.
We are shameful for not recognizing that the essence of a lawyer is to stand up for a client - any client. Our system of justice is not based on providing counsel to those clients that we determine are worthy of such counsel.
But I understand Elizabeth Cheney. She doesn't believe in the Constitution. She believes in her own form of terrorism - attacking Americans who seek to defend our way of life.
Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer.
Post to Twitter
Posts
I am reminded of Col. Harry Clarke who defended Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita in his war-crimes trial in Manila. Despite the incredible odds against him, he did his best for his client with no thought to his career or future. Sadly, he lost, but he lives on as an inspiration to attorneys who defend the un-defendable.
ReplyDeleteI do not practice criminal defense. Nonetheless, I believe that we need someone to counterbalance the power of the State. Any one of us could tomorrow be a defendant and everyone deserves a competent defense.
Lee
AMEN! Miss Cheney uses plain and simple McCarthyism. She believes in a jaundiced way of life where its okay to insult others, but the insulted can't defend themselves. She a few things, like Ann C---ter, that I won't say here, but I'll say in my Blog.
ReplyDeleteHank Ramey,
hankram.blogspot.com
Brian,
ReplyDeleteThe picture that graces your blog was never more apt.
And you've never written a better post.
Please know that even some of us who don't do what you do are grateful that you do it -- and understand how it serves to keep all of us free.
If you're so inclined, read the book "The Guantanamo Lawyers".
ReplyDeleteI was ashamed.
Terrific post, Brian.
ReplyDeleteThe average American is addicted to fear. It's only in the last decade that the media's become savvy enough to capitalize on it. Some metaphysical-type hippies think that fear is the opposite of love. Whether or not that is true, its certainly ridiculous and pathetic, and fear-based decisions are rarely, if ever, rational ones.
ReplyDeleteSo the Constitution of the United States applies to all citizens of the world?
ReplyDeleteI have always wondered if a criminal harmed the family member of a criminal defense attorney, would the criminal defense attorney press charges, or just let it go and not prosecute?
ReplyDeleteI do see you guys having a valuable role in the system, I just don't think I could stomach it. A friend of mine went from being a private criminal defense lawyer to being a prosecutor. He took a huge pay cut, but told me he sleeps much better at night.
Good evening Mr. Tannebaum:
ReplyDeleteSomething is missing from this assessment. Liz Cheney and her group are not against the right to lawyers for the Guantanamo terrorist-detainees. But rather the conflict of interest that arises from former pro bono defenders of the Gitmo terrorists now employed by our Justice Dept. with the duty to prosecute them.
Their former clients disqualify them from the posts they now hold. There is no issue to be taken with their previous work for terrorists, the issue is their ability to perform as vigorous prosecutors for the nation they are supposed to be protecting.
Furthermore, we are a nation at war. The men imprisoned at Gitmo are the enemy. Yes, they have the right to representation, but US citizens don't have to hire their lawyers.
Are these lawyers, who have represented terrorists, really the best men for the jobs at the Justice Dept.? I think not.
"Are these lawyers, who have represented terrorists, really the best men for the jobs at the Justice Dept.? I think not."
ReplyDeleteI disagree. A lawyer is akin a neutral mercenary or an actor. They can perform equally well for whoever pays their fee (or if they choose to go pro bono). The same council can work equally effectively for corporate America or its victims, depending on who pays the hourly fees. There are no shortage or prosecutors who become defense attorneys and I personally know one former defense attorney who became a prosecutor.
"I disagree. A lawyer is akin a neutral mercenary or an actor. They can perform equally well for whoever pays their fee (or if they choose to go pro bono)."
ReplyDeleteAnyone who thinks progressive ideology isn't involved in AG Eric Holder's running of the Justice Dept. and his decisions to hire these lawyers is fooling themselves. Read the recently released (withheld during Holder's Senate confirmation) briefs Holder wrote regarding terrorists, Miranda warnings for enemy combatants, Presidential authority to hold terrorists indefinitely, etc.
Holder's decision to hire these lawyers & refusing to identify several of them to the Senate and the American until intense pressure was applied stinks to high heaven.
In a sterile, perfect world, lawyers are supposed to be impartial arbiters for their clients. The Obama Administration is NOT neutral. These people mean to fundamentally change EVERYTHING about our nation. AND THEY MUST BE STOPPED BEFORE THEY DESTROY US.
FairWitness,
ReplyDeleteI am by no means enamored of some aspects of the legal profession, but I would suggest to you that whatever lawyers Holder hires will act according to his direction. If Dick Cheney hired the very same lawyers, they would also act according to his directions. It is like hiring a member of the world's oldest profession or a band to play a particular song. Most lawyers work for money, not principle. Only a very few are willing to accept the fiscal limitations that serving a "cause" (whatever the cause) entails.
At least Dick Cheney knows how to deal with terrorists. The mamby-pambies in the Obama Administration have no respect for law-abiding, competent Americans and bow to the terrorist sponsors across the world.
ReplyDeleteThe US Justice Dept. is not the venue to operate in an alternate universe. The killers of al Qaeda want all Americans dead. They couldn't care less about politics.
AG Holder and his al Qaeda defenders are not the right men for this job. They won't protect us. Furthermore, these lawyers have already shown they don't care about money --- TWICE!! Once with their pro bono work for terrorists and now as US government lawyers, who earn far less than those in the private sector.
Get real, would you? These guys don't like a strong America, they want to give Miranda warnings to terrorists. They already have!!! The underwear bomber?
Holder wants to give KSM & 7 others civilian trials in Federal Court in New York City, for crying out loud. Wake up! This is dangerous as hell.
It appears that you prefer taking a legal rather than warfare approach to KSM and company. I agree with you. I see these guys more as POW's than average criminal defendants. However, the way to change that policy is not by going after DOJ lawyers who are only appendages serving the government in office. The way to effect change is to participate in the legal and democratic process so as to get folks who agree with you sitting in office. Vote. Donate money to a candidate or party. Contribute to advocacy groups that can pay lawyers you agree with to argue for your view in the courts. Work to manipulate the media. That is the game and the democratic process.
ReplyDeleteFairWitness,
ReplyDeleteAnother option if you feel strongly enough about it is to become a lawyer yourself. There is a political issue I care enough about that I have seriously considered that path for myself. That way the Cause I care about can get a voice in the courts without having to spend vast sums of money better spent on things (voter outreach, public relations, education, etc.) other than legal fees.
I will give you two examples of opposing types of people who have done just that. David Addington was Pres. Bush's legal point man supporting the approach you support for the war on terror. He wasn't there for the money, but for the cause. The same goes for ACLU types, who do not make money off their cases, but are willing to suffer public disgust and poverty for the higher principle of getting human slime released so they can prey on society some more. There are similar idealogical lawyers on both sides of the abortion debate who have gone before the courts.
The other value of a good lawyer in the political process is to sue the opposition so that they must spend all their money on lawyers instead of on the actual political issue in question.
I think of law as a specialized skill or weapon. If you don't have it, you lose. If can't afford it, you lose in court, regardless of the actual facts, truth or law. If you have a top attorney, then you may be able to literally get away with murder or muzzle your political opposition. Going without legal coverage if you have either a legal political, legal business or illegal criminal venture in mind is an invitation to disaster. That is why smart corporations and drug dealers have good lawyers.
This is why lawyers can charge such rates. You simply must have them to participate effectively in the process (whether that be as criminal defendant or for larger political or business issues). That dynamic doesn't enamor people to the legal profession ("I lost my house, job and car to pay your fees and still went to jail!" "I must come up with 300,000$ for your fees or I get sued out of existence for asserting protected free speech protest rights!"). However, that is the reality of our system. It can't be changed.
That last post was excellent. The truth is, I have much respect for most lawyers. A couple I actually hold in high regard.
ReplyDeleteEven the al Qaeda lawyers, I don't have a beef with their pro bono representation of Gitmo prisoners. Even if the terrorists are tried in military tribunals, they are entitled to legal representation to ensure they receive fair trials.
I simply take issue with these same lawyers now representing the American people in our struggle against terrorism. They don't belong in the Justice Dept., in my opinion.
You're also correct about the outcome of elections having consequences. I actually already knew that and feared what an Obama win would mean. I was right to be afraid.
I can only hope those who elected this regime are learning what colossal mistakes they made and will vote differently in future elections. In the meantime, we all will suffer the consequences of their ignorance.
As for me becoming a lawyer, not going to happen. Hubby and I own a small, jet aircraft maintenance business with 14 employees. We have and do vote and contribute to political candidates. We also write letters & call our Congressman and Senators frequently, not that they listen to anything we have to say.
Fair Witness and Anonymous, well both anonymous, thanks for bringing an intelligent debate here. Makes things interesting
ReplyDeleteFair Witness, you shouldn't make excuses for Ms. Cheney. Her type of attack cannot be masked as anything else but a continuation of the desire for detainees not to have lawyers, period. Her argument is just another take on the agenda. I am lucky to have several ultra conservative friends who make clear that this entire issue is geared towards not having lawyers for detainess, period. It's just like the anti-homosexual bigotry masked as "we just don't think anyone should have more rights than anyone else. It's simply not true, and academically dishonest.
There is no conflict, none. Defense lawyers go to work as prosecutors and vice versa every day. You may see a "moral" conflict, and I understand that, but there is no legal conflict.
You desire "vigorous prosecutors for the nation they are supposed to be protecting," as do I, but then state that lawyers are supposed to be "independent arbiters." Wrong. Lawyers are supposed to be zealous advocates, on both sides.
You question whether "these lawyers, who have represented terrorists, are really the best men for the jobs at the Justice Dept.? That's a different issue.
That reminds me of the Clarence Thomas hearings, where people were arguing the merits of whether Anita Hill's accusations should disqualify him from the appointment. After some vigorous debate, I remember someone saying "but aren't there better qualified people?" That's when I realized the Anita Hill accusations were being used by some to get rid of him, having nothing to do with the merits of the accusations. I reject that type of false debate.
You also say that the Obama administration wants to give Miranda warnings to terrorists and that they already have. Every terrorist detainee under Bush was read Miranda.
And Fair Witness, I think Elizabeth Cheney would wholly disagree with your best point:
"Even the al Qaeda lawyers, I don't have a beef with their pro bono representation of Gitmo prisoners. Even if the terrorists are tried in military tribunals, they are entitled to legal representation to ensure they receive fair trials."
Thank you, Mr. Tannenbaum, after you pointed it out, I realize I am talking out of both sides of my mouth. You're correct, lawyers are supposed to be zealous advocates for their clients. I simply don't trust Eric Holder or the former al Qaeda defenders to zealously prosecute the same clients they used to defend. Because it is the US Justice Dept that wants to try them in Federal Court. How can they possibly be advocates for the US Government after representing the accused? Isn't that a conflict?
ReplyDeleteI don't know if the goal of Liz Cheney and her group or any of the other "ultra conservatives" is to deny lawyers to enemy combatants. I have not heard that argued, only that these lawyers aren't the right men to be in the Justice Dept. I agree with that assessment, I think they're disqualified because they already have confidential information relating to the accused. I also wonder if they would rigorously prosecute them, because they accepted their cases pro bono, something that generally shows sympathy for the accused.
The Miranda warnings given during the Bush Administration occurred before current laws covering terrorists and enemy combatants were in place. What the Bush Administration did in the past doesn't matter. Current law is what's pertinent.
Not sure what to say about your comparison to the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. I do want Eric Holder and these lawyers removed from the Justice Dept. They're ACLU ideologues and it's my view that the ACLU cares only for our enemies' rights. The ACLU has done a very effective job destroying much of the protections law-abiding citizens used to possess to defend themselves from criminals and others who mean to do us harm. America's Justice Dept. should be led by and staffed with legal professionals who respect our way of life. Eric Holder doesn't and I suspect many of the lawyers he's hired don't either. I want them all gone from our Justice Dept.
"Defense lawyers go to work as prosecutors and vice versa every day. You may see a "moral" conflict, and I understand that, but there is no legal conflict."
ReplyDeleteVery true. In the state where I work there was a highway patrol trooper. The man was the OVI guy for his agency Just racked up tons and tons of good solid OVI arrests and did enforcement training for that area. He retired from law enforcement, went to law school...and now has a practice that centers around OVI defense work. :-)
Brian,
ReplyDeleteThere IS a strong argument to be made for treating non-US citizen terror detainees as POW's (essentially according to Geneva Convention standards), but NOT as criminal defendants with the full panoply of civil rights (and lawyers to assert said rights) accorded your clients. Captured Axis soldiers in WW2 didn't get civil trials before a jury for violating US law. Can you picture something along the lines of "Feldwebel Schmidt did knowingly attempt to commit murder by firing a howitzer a US Army encampment," as a criminal charge to be tried in front of a US jury? They were held as POWs under a completely different legal framework. That framework has its own legal environment which must be respected (i.e. no waterboarding!), but it isn't the criminal law world you know and live in either.
The Obama administration has the right to and did choose to take the criminalization path instead, but that isn't the only legal option available.
first time I have read your blog- it rocks!
ReplyDeleteI am disturbed by the seemingly growing distain for the defense- it appears that people believe that the prosecution is the standard for justice and the defense is simply trying there best to get around it. Where did this notion begin? Why are most ignorantly blind to the amount of power a prosecutor has and the wrong that comes with such unchecked authority?
A comment I hear often- that makes me want to scream is about the OJ trial-
For example, when the casey anthony case is discussed and it is questioned whether she can receive a fair trial, many who think she is guilty respond stating that regardless of the evidence, media exposure and fame, OJ was found not guilty...
That comment is the perfect example of what I think is wrong with the justice system- as if those insisting on a fair trial and an effective defense team for a hated client like anthony would see the OJ trial as fair or justice!?
The discrepency of power and access to resources between prosecutors and defense lays the groundwork for injustice. The perceived omnipotence of prosecutors is almost as dangerous as the actual omnipotence they actually have.
"I think of law as a specialized skill or weapon. If you don't have it, you lose. If can't afford it, you lose in court, regardless of the actual facts, truth or law. If you have a top attorney, then you may be able to literally get away with murder or muzzle your political opposition. Going without legal coverage if you have either a legal political, legal business or illegal criminal venture in mind is an invitation to disaster. That is why smart corporations and drug dealers have good lawyers.
ReplyDeleteThis is why lawyers can charge such rates. You simply must have them to participate effectively in the process (whether that be as criminal defendant or for larger political or business issues). That dynamic doesn't enamor people to the legal profession ("I lost my house, job and car to pay your fees and still went to jail!" "I must come up with 300,000$ for your fees or I get sued out of existence for asserting protected free speech protest rights!"). However, that is the reality of our system. It can't be changed."
Excellent and truthful explanation of the legal system. This realization is exactly why law abiding people dislike what defense atty's do.
It amuses me to read the moaning of defense atty's ... "why does every body hate me?" and then end the crying session with an elitist style berating of the law abiding citizens. Quite often these pity parties also include a wish that those who dislike what they represent will need them someday. In other words, they hope everyone will someday turn criminal so they can be the cool kids! lol
Mr. Tannenbaum: I'd like to bring an NRO article, written by Andrew C. McCarthy, to your attention. It is very informative and shares some downright frightening information about some of the pro bono lawyers who defended Gitmo al Qaeda prisoners. This article "outs" these lawyers as the anti-American radicals they are. THEY DON'T BELONG IN OUR JUSTICE DEPT.
ReplyDeleteYou, sir, owe Liz Cheney an enormous apology. She was right to oppose these lawyers. Shame on you for not telling the whole story.
Here's the link to the article, Mr. Tannenbaum:
ReplyDeletehttp://article.nationalreview.com/429623/representing-al-qaeda/andrew-c-mccarthy
and you feel comfortable saying that without giving me the courtesy to first read the article? Doesn't sound very "Fair."
ReplyDeleteMr. Tannebaum, this information and their connection to the radical "The John Adams Project" group (ACLU affiliated) has been in the news for at least 18 months. Some of the very lawyers you have been defending here, giving the benefit of the doubt, used information gathered by this group to put American interrogators and their families at risk. The al Qaeda pro bono lawyers, now employed by the US Justice Dept., showed photos taken of American interrogators by this group to Gitmo al Qaeda prisoners in order to identify them. We now know these lawyers have been hired by Eric Holder. And I suspect not only did Liz Cheney know, but so did you.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm wrong about that suspicion, please forgive me. But if you did know it, then you left out the most important part of this story. Liz Cheney is trying to alert the American people to the threat the Obama Administration & Eric Holder's Justice Dept. pose to our national security. Her motives are not political, they're patriotic! And we have a right to know Obama & Holder are employing lawyers sympathetic to terrorists instead of the American people.
This is a very, very serious problem.
Fair,
ReplyDeleteLet me see if I understand this. We've been discussing this issue for a while now, and today you come across an article and feel comfortable saying that although you just found it today, the story has been in the news for a year and a half and you "suspect not only did Liz Cheney know, but so did you."
Ok.
Don't let me stand in your way of your suspicions.
Sir, please forgive me if I am being unfair to you. Perhaps the revelation that these lawyers are the same ones involved in illegal & treasonous actions has raised my hackles and clouded my objectivity. I apologize for unfairly accusing you of knowing about this. I admit to being disgusted by your assertions that the al Qaeda lawyers switching sides was not unusual or something to be overly concerned about. In fact, I think you're dead wrong! And now this article pulls all the pieces together.
ReplyDeleteMr. Tannebaum, there have been dozens of articles and commentary about the "research" surveillance conducted by the ACLU's "The John Adams Project." These "researchers" followed US interrogators around and photographed them at their homes, in their communities, with their families, for crying out loud. Those photos were then shown to the prisoners at Gitmo by their pro bono lawyers to identify them. The very same lawyers now in question at the Justice Dept. The very same Justice Dept. now trying to bring charges against the interrogators. The lawyers are supposedly involved in policymaking, whatever the hell that means. Do you not see ANYTHING wrong with this now that you know who these guys really are????? Even Fox News' Bill O'Reilly covered this extensively last year.
I am angry that the Obama Administration is loaded with radicals involved in destroying our country from several angles simultaneously. This is a radical machine hellbent on fundamentally destroying our way of life. The Justice Dept. is involved in this.
Does none of this disturb you? Do you have children? Do you want them to have freedom and opportunity in their futures? Do you not see what a threat this is to them? I sure as hell do!
Fair,
ReplyDeleteAgain, maybe I'm not being as clear as I would like.
I'm in my office, doing several things. You've sent me an article, that I assume you'd like me to read. I will read it.
But it doesn't help your cause to assume at this point that I've stopped everything to read it and that I should agree in total with you about what I read.
I'll be back to you
Thank you very Mr. Tannebaum. I appreciate your fairness. I must say I have all but come unglued at the revelation that these lawyers are the ones who used photos gathered by the ACLU. It's too much for me. I'm going to work now and try to put this out of my mind. I am sorry I jumped to the wrong conclusion. I hope you can forgive me for being so emotional. My frustration at being unable to do anything to thwart this radical agenda is making me irrational.
ReplyDeleteFair -
ReplyDeleteHere's what went down here: These were criminal defense attorneys. One claim against their clients was that they had confessed to crimes. The defendants argued the confessions were coerced. To help prove coercion, you need witnesses. To identify witnesses, you need to show your clients photos.
Not a "radical agenda;" just good freedom-loving American lawyers doing their jobs.
Mr. King, did you read the article posted today on National Review Online written by Andrew McCarthy or the two others linked on that article written by Debra Burlingame & Tom Joscelyn? Tell me there's no radical agenda here after you've read all 3. There most assuredly is.
ReplyDeleteFair, the problem is that you're getting your news from the National Review. Try this piece from Newsweek for a little less hysterical perspective:
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/03/19/holder-taps-fitzgerald-for-gitmo-photo-probe.aspx
Newsweek, eh? That publication has long since ceased to be a hard news outlet. Although the article confirms much of what was in the WSJ, Washington Times and National Review pieces. You really need to read those other articles because by the end of them you will be hysterical too. What these lawyers did is nothing short of treason and it's about a whole lot more than photos taken of secret US Intelligence agents. You bet I'm alarmed.
ReplyDeleteFair witness,
ReplyDeleteIt is legal to photograph people who are involved in the criminal justice process. It may be perceived (and even actually be) as a threat against the person photographed, but it IS legal. That means the ACLU types can take photos of Gitmo interrogators. Pro-life types can legally take photos of abortion providers. People can also follow, photograph and video ACLU lawyers as well (lets see how much THEY like it!).
Until that video/photography is actually used as part of a crime (which someday it very well may be in any of the examples I just cited) I am unaware of a legal way to prevent it.
One man's target surveillance is an ACLU lawyer's protected free speech, after all.
That said I am not a lawyer. A good enough attorney could make the case for or against such a thing. Heck, the same attorney might argue for OR against it depending on who paid the retainer.
The thing is, Anonymous, those photos wound up in the cells of Gitmo al Qaeda terrorist prisoners who were given said photos in violation of strict court-ordered guidelines. It may not have been illegal to take photos, but outing them to terrorists held at Gitmo most definitely IS an especially egregious, treasonous violation of law. Outing CIA agents, as Scooter Libby could tell you, is a major crime. The lawyers who are guilty of this are now among lawyers hired by Attorney General Eric Holder. I don't see how our country's national interests are served to have these lawyers now representing us in our Justice Dept. Rather than holding jobs in the Justice Dept., they belong behind bars themselves.
ReplyDelete