-
A Lebanese Charm Offensive
January 12, 2013 | 12 comments
-
Softness at the NSC
November 26, 2012 | 20 comments
-
Anti-Business as Usual
June 20, 2011 | 62 comments
-
National Public Internet
June 14, 2011 | 31 comments
-
This Property Is Condemned
June 13, 2011 | 25 comments
Washington Prowler
Nameless Abettors
The administration is reluctant to identify the lawyers in its employ who previously provided legal counsel to suspected terrorists and enemy combatants.
One reason for the ongoing battle between Sen. Chuck Grassley and the Department of Justice over the identities of as many as 13 to 16 current Obama Administration political appointees who provided legal counsel to suspected or convicted terrorists and enemy combatants being held in detention, is not so much what these lawyers did before joining the administration. Rather, says a Department of Justice source, it stems from the administration’s own attempts to identify any official paper or email trails of those DOJ attorneys that would reveal not just past but current efforts — since their appointment, in other words — to influence administration or department policies on the legal treatment of suspected or indicted terrorists and enemy combatants.
The most intensive review of documents over the past several weeks, says the source, has focused on the little known Law and Policy office, which resides in the National Security Division inside the department. The NSD, parts of which had previously resided inside the Criminal Division, also houses an Office of Intelligence Policy and Review. “When some of these political appointees came into the Administration, I think it was safe to say that there was keen interest on their part to influence policy here,” says the source. “At the highest level, people want to know how big a mess this really is. Were there emails or memos shared among the political appointees or the NSD staff that could create problems for us, for example.”
Grassley has for months been requesting the names and positions of all Obama Department of Justice attorneys — almost all of them political appointees — who prior to joining the administration worked directly or indirectly for suspected terrorists or enemy combatants. On February 19, Grassley received a five-page letter from Attorney General Eric Holder’s office claiming that at least nine lawyers at the department either represented detainees or worked on amicus briefs on detainees’ behalf. But the letter did not reveal the names of those lawyers.
But DOJ sources say there may be as many as 16 political appointees — including Holder — who represented detainees, worked on or signed onto amicus briefs on detainees’ behalf, or provided legal counsel to organizations that actively sought to reverse Bush Administration anti-terrorist and detainee policies. These groups included the leftist organizations Human Rights Watch and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Those names, sources say, may include:
• Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, a partner at Jenner & Block and former classmate of Barack Obama’s at Harvard who was brought in to serve as chief counsel to Deputy Attorney General David Ogden.
• Brian Hauck and Donald Verrilli, both of whom worked with Perrelli at Jenner & Block, are also senior officials at DOJ; Hauck is counsel to the associate attorney general; Verrilli’s portfolio as associate deputy attorney general includes advising on national security matters.
• Lanny Breuer, Holder’s former partner at Covington & Burling, and current head of the DOJ’s criminal division.
• Tony West, assistant attorney general for the Civil Division, who represented “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh, and has strong ties to leftist former Democrat House member and current Oakland mayor, Ron Dellums.
• NSD attorney Jennifer Daskal, who served as a senior counsel for Human Rights Watch.
• Principal deputy solicitor general Neal Katyal, who served as lead counsel for the Guantanamo Bay detainees in the Supreme Court case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
(Both Daskal and Katyal were cited by Grassley’s staff in a letter to Holder on this issue back in November.)
• James Garland, another Covington & Burling former partner, who is now Deputy Chief of Staff and Counselor to the Attorney General. Garland’s duties do not involve national security matters, but he is tasked with advising Holder on all matters related to criminal prosecutions and civil matters that aren’t covered by national security. In that capacity, he may have been involved in deciding how the Christmas Day bomber, Umar Abdulmutallab was dealt with once it was determined he would be tried in criminal court.
Others may include John Bies (another Covington refugee), and Stuart Delery, Chief of Staff and Counselor to the Deputy Attorney General (and a former partner at Wilmer Hale, the home of former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick, who in 1995 put in place the policies that limited the ability of criminal investigators from accessing intelligence agency materials to investigate and possibly prevent terrorist acts). More junior advisers to senior officials at DOJ, as designated by the “counsel” title as compared to the more senior “counselor,” are Eric Columbus, Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General (a Wilmer alum), who worked on the Supreme Court case, Boumediene v. Bush, which established that detainees had the right to access U.S. courts, Chad Golder, Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General (Wilmer associate), and Aaron Lewis, counsel to the Attorney General (another Covington alum). Jonathan Cedarbaum, deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel (who served as a Chief of Staff to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia). Another senior political appointee with an interest in the issues in question may be Rajesh De, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy, who prior to joining a D.C. law firm worked on the 9/11 Commission as a legal counsel.
Ironically, say DOJ sources, while Holder and his staff continue to work hard to protect the identities of those attorneys who provided legal advice to suspected or convicted terrorists, several of the attorneys in question are believed to have been instrumental in the efforts of Human Rights Watch and CREW to leak to the media and Democrat supporters on Capitol Hill, the names of CIA interrogators of enemy combatants and suspected terrorists, as well as the locations of foreign-based U.S. secure holding facilities and various interrogation techniques used on terror suspects and enemy combatants.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (94) | Leave a comment
More Articles by The Prowler
More Articles From Washington Prowler
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/01/nameless-abettors
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The (Real) Great Divide
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- The End of the Castros?
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussien O'Staling| 3.1.10 @ 6:37AM
This isn't much of a surprise, except for Holder. He should resign over this and immediately. Basically what you have here is a judicial ACORN type group in at the highest levels of the Justice Department, utilizing taxpayers funds to develop policies to protect terrorists.
This dovetails nicely with the fact that the Obama administration engages in Orwellian word parsing, refusing to use the word terrorists in preference to domestic trouble makers.
Lu Dumak| 3.1.10 @ 11:06AM
I hope all the fools that voted for this regime are happy watching this country being destroyed. Obama and his henchmen are evil to the core. It is unbelievable how the main stream media cannot see country being destroyed and think it will not affect them. They must be the most stupid people on the face of the earth. I hope this Countrycan survive until Nov. and wake up to this evil.
Deborah D | 3.1.10 @ 11:30AM
Up is down. Wrong is right. Anti-Americans have "rights" and Pro-Americans don't. Is this Orwell writ large or what?
I'm with you, Lu Dumak, as far as the Pravda Press is concerned. They are like the three monkeys -- see, hear and speak no evil as it pertains to their beloved Obama and his increasingly anti-American administration.
SC Mike| 3.1.10 @ 6:53AM
Hmmm. Given that last paragraph and the potentially deadly mischief they are up to, are the attorneys in question merely partisan hacks or antiwar activists, or are they on the other side?
Lifesart| 3.2.10 @ 3:16PM
They are neither. They are lawyers who followed the law and the DUE PROCESS that Rehnquist and the Supreme Court REPEATEDLY ruled those detainees are entitled to.
Valerie| 3.2.10 @ 8:41PM
There's a potential conflict of interest, here, and that means, at minimum, the information needs to come out.
Jim O'Brien| 3.1.10 @ 7:34AM
Obama and Holder are working hard to protect the terrorists, by giving them the rights of an American citizen in our judicial system.
What will Obama do after the terrorists explode a dirty bomb (radioactive) in NYC , or detonate an EMP device over the U.S.? When these foreign enemy combatant Islamist killers are caught, will Obama insist that our soldiers read the killers their Miranda rights?
Obama and Holder are giving aid and comfort to the enemy, right now. This is treason.
Copyleft| 3.1.10 @ 8:10AM
I at first wondered why they'd want to conceal these attorneys' identities--after all, they'd done nothing wrong. The right to legal counsel in a legal hearing is, of course, automatic and inviolable, no matter what the defendant is accused of. Surely no REAL American questions such a thing?
But then I realized... they're worried about harassment from the Constitution-hating nuts of the fringe right. No "real Americans" are involved in this campaign--only terrorized, pathetic little anti-American nutjobs who are itching for the chance to throw rocks at U.S. attorneys upholding the Constitution.
And in that case, the attorneys' right to privacy should be respected. Because they're doing more to help the U.S. than any number of Tea Party losers could ever imagine. Well done!
Troll Watch| 3.1.10 @ 8:24AM
Copyleft is losing it if he ever had it. I like the REAL American deal. He is becoming a caricature of what he claims to hate.
ggoblue| 3.1.10 @ 9:22AM
haha what they are worried about is the next election. there a reason no liberal ever runs as a 'liberal'. but the cat is out of the bag this year. november will be here soon enough. now ram that healthcare thru and guarantee us 2012 too, ok?
Conan the Grammarian| 3.1.10 @ 9:42AM
I do not not question the righht of defendants to the right of legal counsel, but I doubt that these lawyers were court appointed. And I certainly want to know who volunteered to defend the terrorists. They are fifth columnists, hiding behind constitutional principles in order to destroy the Constitution. I wonder if Copyleft will live long enough to enjoy Sharia law once the Constitution is gone.
Copyleft| 3.1.10 @ 2:38PM
Not if you get to destroy it first!
I'm curious: WHY do you want to know if they volunteered? How does upholding the Constitution threaten the Constitution (there's some Orwellian logic for ya)?
Missy| 3.1.10 @ 10:57PM
We don't care if these traitors volunteered, we just want to know their names. Got a problem with "TRANSPARENCY," LibReader/Copyleft?
If these democrat gals and guys are just upholding the Constitution, why hide their names?
Or is transparency only necessary when it's used to threaten the security of your country?
NavyBrat | 3.1.10 @ 1:41PM
Copy Leftist. Please tell me how a person is afforded the rights of our Constitution if they ARE NOT A CITIZEN?!!! No answer you give will be sufficient because the only answer is that a NON CITIZEN, especially one who wants to KILL AS MANY AMERICANS as possible, is not entitled to such protections. Go hug a suicide bomber. Maybe you can convince him you "understand his pain" before he pushes the button.
Copyleft| 3.1.10 @ 2:37PM
Sorry, Brat; noncitizens do indeed have Constitutional rights. That's simply a fact, as numerous cases have demonstrated.
Start with James Madison's "Report on the Virginia Resolutions"
"As for natural persons, key rights-related provisions including the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments), and the 14th Amend. due process and equal protection clauses, are phrased as applying to "all persons." These rights therefore have been construed as offering substantial protections to non-citizens residing within the U.S." (From HRCR.org)
Constitutional Rights of Noncitizens, http://nlg.org/resources/kyr/kyr_English2004.pdf
"Do Noncitizens Have Constitutional Rights?" http://www.slate.com/id/1008367
Short answer: The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, along with every other right that references "persons" or "people" (rather than "citizens"), applies to noncitizens and citizens alike.
Do some reading before opening your mouth next time. Just because you don't WANT them to have any rights doesn't change the fact that they DO.
NavyBrat | 3.1.10 @ 2:55PM
Crappy Leftist. Guess someone should've told the military commissions that executed those Nazi saboteurs back in WWII that those poor wretches had "constitutional rights." There ARE NO RIGHTS accorded enemies on the battlefield, except the Geneva Conventions, & countires are very "selective" as to when they follow them, if all all (see Japan, N. Korea, N. Vietnam, Germany, etc). There is only one difference. NATION STATES are signatories to those accords. Al Qaeda is neither a signatory or a nation state. The rights of their fighters on the field of battle are questionable, at best. Again, please do us all a favor & start your "Hug a Suicide Bomber Campaign." At least when YOU go, you can absorb most of the blast caused by someone you & your President thought should have "Constitutional rights."
Copyleft| 3.1.10 @ 4:08PM
So, you have no counter to the facts I presented, but you'd like to pretend otherwise? Then you've moved from simple ignorance to active stupidity.
Congratulations. You are now qualified to host your own talk-radio show.
Sadly, you've lost this particular little debate, but I doubt that bothers you. After all, reality has a well-known liberal bias....
NavyBrat | 3.1.10 @ 4:29PM
I DID counter your supposed facts by mentioning the military tribunals held in WWII for Nazi saboteurs. You are the willfully ignorant fool who chose not to see what I wrote. As for your assertion of my intellect, I could care less.
"After all, reality has a well-known liberal bias.... "
Thanks for the insight into your pathetic, infantile worldview. No wonder most people think idiots like you operate in a completely different plane of reality. Liberalism would've had us grovelling to the Barbary pirates, the Kaiser, the Nazis, & the commies (I know this last one disappoints you). Please, continue your defense of mass murderers. You lefties are REALLY good at that.
Copyleft| 3.2.10 @ 8:21AM
Oh, you thought you were offering a counter-argument? I thought you were just raving again. Okay, I'll explain again why you're wrong, and I'll try to use small words so you can follow.
ANYONE in U.S. custody has Constitutional rights, whether they're a citizen or not. The Nazis captured in WWII had Constitutional rights too, including the right to representation and due process... which they received.
Soldiers on the battlefield have the protections of the Geneva Conventions, which--contrary to right-wing distortion--apply to what the SIGNATORY PARTIES do, not what their enemies do. In other words, WE signed it--therefore, by the terms of the U.S. Constitution, WE abide by it. Whether our enemies comply makes no difference; the treaty is binding on US.
Further, your whining about "enemies on the battlefield" is irrelevant here, since we're not in a declared state of war and there is no battlefield.
What else ya got?
Missy| 3.1.10 @ 11:05PM
We want the names, CL/LibReader! NOW!!
MikeBee| 3.1.10 @ 6:11PM
Copyleft,
Kindly explain to all of us, then, in light of your above comments/beliefs, where the crime of treason (and its punishment) fits in.
Nuno | 3.2.10 @ 6:06PM
Don't forget about one of the lawyers who had defended the Blind Sheik during the first Twin Towers bombing. Lynne Stewart is an ex-NY civil rights lawyer who was disbarred in 2005. She was convicted of passing messages from imprisoned terrorist Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman to his followers. She was an American!
Your missing the point.
Marc Jeric| 3.1.10 @ 2:27PM
Komrad Copyleft - I know you by the smell of communist dogma emanating from your words. Constitution, really? For jihadi terrorists? Have you already given them citizenship?
JimE| 3.1.10 @ 5:14PM
CL,
You are an idiot to be sure, but I doubt you are useful.
Tim| 3.1.10 @ 8:34AM
CrappyLeft:
What sort of Democratic system keeps the identities of it's employees secret?
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.1.10 @ 10:01AM
I shamelessly copy/pasted my questions to Mr. Klein yesterday here. I hope you folks think it is relevant in this conversation.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.27.10 @ 5:09PM
Thanks Mr. Klein.
Earlier today, being in a very upbeat mood, I wandered over to "Atlas Shrugs". I don't have a clue as to the factual substance to many of the articles there, but even a casual scan and headline "bold line" pick up......whew.
Then my mind cast back to the Japanese-American internment, early in World War Two. You know, one can look back in a rather cavalier fashion and honestly rage at the injustice, but on the other hand, one must remember that folks, especially on the west coast were justifiably frightened...by what they didn't know.
They knew many of the Japanese people were sincere Emperor worshippers...unto death though, and felt that our western defenses were stripped by the Japanese fleet at Pearl Harbour and in the Phillipines.
I am certainly not trying to justify the wholesale internment and confiscations, then, but I can certainly understand the widespread fears that allowed it to happen.
OK, call it paranoia...but are we in these days paranoid enough?
Similarly to the Japanese militarists, the last 30 years has seen a "militarization" in Islam. Not only that, but a mass Islamic migration into Europe and even into America has been accompanied by "Sharia" stuff......as well as direct attacks upon Christians and Jews in our western societies.
I don't know, Philip, it seems to me that we have a "potential" for a serious fifth column issue here and in Europe both.
Personally, I am concerned that suicide bombers here might get smart enough to become "re-usable" weapons to be released on our women and children.
There is no question in my mind that many of the scientists and engineers working away at creating nukes for Iran, got their training right here in American Universities and in European Universities
Whew,
combine 21st century technology with a seventh century "life values".......not a good combination.
You know, flipping the whole situation inside out, if there came a day when our government absolutely became anathema to my Christian commitment, I think I would act....though hopefully not like a seventh century barbarian.
I know it has been cussed and discussed...a lot, but the more I think about it, our "constitutional freedom of religion" just cannot seem to get its hands around a "religion of righteous murder of infidels".
We have indeed "turned the other cheek"...and I am concerned it is going to bite us on the other cheeks.
Thoughts?
Margie| 3.1.10 @ 10:59AM
If it isn't clear now that a vote for the Democrat party is a vote for the protectors of terrorists, and a vote against the Constitution, then it'll never be.
You have to really have your head deeply buried in the sand. Either that or you agree with these enemies of America.
"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" Amos 3:3.
Copyleft| 3.1.10 @ 2:44PM
Then it's not clear, Margie, and it never will be... primarily because it's LIBERALS who've been fighting to uphold the Constitution for the past decade, and so-called "conservatives" who've been trying to bypass or negate it.
The Constitution never promised you safety from terrorists; that's why you're so eager to toss it aside whenever danger looms. Fortunately, liberals won't let you and the other enemies of America get away with it.
Margie| 3.1.10 @ 2:55PM
You're laughably insane, Lefty Liar.
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" Is. 5:20.
JimE| 3.1.10 @ 5:17PM
CL,
You have been sniffing obama's ass too much. Go back to the mosque.
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 3.1.10 @ 6:30PM
Copycommie: Nor does the Constitution promise you Healthcare paid for by your fellow citizens, and that's why you're so eager to toss it aside whenever anybody wants a new "free" entitlement. Fortunately, Conservatives and Republicans won't let you, or any other Domestic enemy of America get away with it. Right back at you C.L.!!
I love your line, "Liberals who've been fighting to uphold the Constitution for the past decade", you are so very funny Copy, keep the jokes coming. I'm having a very tough week at work already (hell these past few weeks in general), and reading your funny posts here, never fail but to cheer me up.
Yosemeti Sam| 3.1.10 @ 12:13PM
" ... Ironically, say DOJ sources, while Holder and his staff continue to work hard to protect the identities of those attorneys who provided legal advice to suspected or convicted terrorists, several of the attorneys in question are believed to have been instrumental in the efforts of Human Rights Watch and CREW to leak to the media and Democrat supporters on Capitol Hill, the names of CIA interrogators of enemy combatants and suspected terrorists, as well as the locations of foreign-based U.S. secure holding facilities and various interrogation techniques used on terror suspects and enemy combatants."
LOL.
What's that saw - as in with friends like these who
needs enemies.
Man up, Holder et al - are thee for America or
for anti-Americans?
Pingback| 3.1.10 @ 12:20PM
Michelle Malkin » The latest on the Holder/DOJ national security cover-up links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Franklin| 3.1.10 @ 12:25PM
I have a question about the terrorists being discussed regarding the legal representation here. Were they American citizens?
Bill ESQ.| 3.1.10 @ 12:50PM
If I were one of these lawyers you guys worry so much about, why would I want you to know my name and address. I don't see any praises here, and I don't want to hear any complaints. Simple as that. Besides, what's next? You want to know if I got a fat check from some Saudi prince? You want to know if I have a vacation apartment in Dubai? Ever ask yourself if you can handle the truth?
Seek| 3.1.10 @ 1:01PM
A great many Washington, D.C. law firms are run hard-Left "idealists" who take on the sleaziest and most subversive clients imaginable at anywhere from $500-$1,000 per billable hour. It's no surprise that Covington & Burling is thick with this scene; they're one of the worst.
NavyBrat | 3.1.10 @ 1:46PM
The following is completely accurate in describing those who give aid & comfort to our sworn enemies under the guise of "patriotism."
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."...Cicero
How right he was.
Copyleft| 3.1.10 @ 2:40PM
I couldn't agree more... the fascists and cowards who want to undermine the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution are the TRUE threat to America, far more so than any number of religious nutjobs with knives and anthrax.
But don't worry--liberal determination will keep these enemies of America at bay!
NavyBrat | 3.1.10 @ 3:01PM
"I couldn't agree more... the fascists and cowards who want to undermine the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution are the TRUE threat to America, far more so than any number of religious nutjobs with knives and anthrax."
You oughtta know. Just look at how good a job you & your ilk in the gub-ment are doing now.
"But don't worry--liberal determination will keep these enemies of America at bay!"
Just like that "liberal determination" that caused the Clinton's to cancel a Tomahawk strike on Bin Laden due to the proximity of members of the Emirates Royal Family? Or the "liberal determination" that said "the system worked" in the wake of the testicular terrorist? Yeah, tell us all about that incredible effective "liberal determination."
PS. Would this be the same "liberal determination" that couldn't pass a health care bill given an ENTIRE year & a Congressional supermajority? You are one laughable individual. Pray, continue to amuse us with your infantile rhetorical flailings.
victor| 3.2.10 @ 12:58AM
Liberal Reader:
"But don't worry--liberal determination will keep these enemies of America at bay!"
You mean "liberals" such as Lynne Stewart and Michael Ratner?
Those determined liberals?
Remember that old saying?
The only good commie is a dead commie?
lucy| 3.1.10 @ 2:23PM
"several of the attorneys in question are believed to have been instrumental in..."
So basically, you've got a big fat zero. You've spoken to a bored DoJ employee who's passing on rumors.
But it's not for nothing, for your efforts you get a bunch of 2010 truthers here to praise you, people who think the DoJ is in league with terrorists. The original truthers were certifiable, and the retreads are just as crazy.
Anyway, well done for egging them on, when this all done I'm sure Orly Taitz will have something for you to work on.
Missy| 3.1.10 @ 11:01PM
Well, Lucy, if everything is hunky dory over at DOJ, why won't they just release the names?
What's the prob, moron?
Lucy| 3.2.10 @ 8:17AM
There's no reason for the government to respond to enquiries that are of the truther variety.
No good can come of this - as much as I recognize the enmity felt towards Obama and Holder, the premise of this particular inquiry is completely ridiculous.
Missy| 3.2.10 @ 3:54PM
"Truther variety?" Did you make this up all by your lonesome, Lucy? What a clever little fascist you are! You democrats are the Truthers. LOL
What is DOJ afraid of? If there's nothing to hide Holder should be cooperative, right?
What's ridiculous is your fascist liberal hypocrisy.
Pingback| 3.1.10 @ 2:37PM
Treasonous Terrorist-Sympathizing Holder « Mellon's Musings links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Northern Rebel| 3.1.10 @ 3:22PM
copyleft:
You are living in your bizarro world, safe from all the harm that befalls others due to your values, or the astonishingly lack thereof.
How sad, yet ironic if you, or the dear leader's family was in the vicinity of an act of terrorism by one of the scumballs you are so eager to protect.
Make no mistake dimwit, they would kill you and your family just as quickly as they would mine.
Think about that, as you re-load your crackpipe.
Copyleft| 3.1.10 @ 4:07PM
I'm more than willing to face danger in the name of upholding American ideals. But you'd rather be safe than free.
Which of us is the real American again? Think of that as you fondle your Uzi in your little bunker of cowardice and hatred.
jeff| 3.1.10 @ 4:47PM
Copyleft, its obvious that you are an intellegent individaul. Its also obvious that you live in the world of liberal ideals and as a result most of that inteligence is lost. Sorry to say that I don't have your ability to spout nonsense and make it sound intellegent. I do, however, have the ability to determine right from wrong and you are wrong. God help this great nation if your view become the norm. Do yourself and us a favor and go to a web site where you are welcomed, say the Hufington Post or Move-On,org.
tonypal| 3.1.10 @ 10:51PM
Really, it's obvious he's intelligent?
Copyleft| 3.2.10 @ 8:23AM
Ahh, it's "obvious," eh? That must save you the trouble of having to actually defend your ideas. Very handy!
I, on the other hand, know right from wrong and can EXPLAIN why due process and adherence to the Constitution are right--and why bypassing it is wrong. Wonder why the fringe right can't do the same?
JimE| 3.1.10 @ 5:19PM
CL,
You are only one fondling anything,.
NavyBrat | 3.1.10 @ 4:53PM
"I'm more than willing to face danger in the name of upholding American ideals."
Please. The only "danger " you've ever faced is getting a drink thrown on you by some woman who is impervious to your "charms." Think about THAT as you sit in your basement, fondling yourself over an Obama poster while waiting for Mommy to finish your laundry & dinner.
Missy| 3.1.10 @ 11:04PM
Sorry, Brat--that ain't no 'woman' throwing a drink in CL/Lib Reader's face.
Copyleft| 3.2.10 @ 8:24AM
Sorry, Brat--but once you've resorted to ad hominems and personal assumptions, everybody can tell you've lost the debate.
Better luck next time! Try getting some facts for that one, they might come in handy.
Missy| 3.2.10 @ 3:56PM
Don't think so, CL/Lib Reader--you're the only loser here.
We want the names now!
Pingback| 3.2.10 @ 2:52AM
The Justice Department Defends Terrorism « drkatesview links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.2.10 @ 7:17AM
Register to Vote | Muscle Car Insurance Las Vegas links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ken (old Texican)| 3.2.10 @ 1:02PM
Copyleft,
It is pretty obvious that you never have been, nor ever plan to be, in harm's way.
Well...........I would guess that a lot of the folks working in the Trade Towers...would be friends of your's. Those upstanding liberals are dead.
You are stupider than dead.
Margie| 3.2.10 @ 6:14PM
CopyLeftist sounds so very happy while he obfuscates his days away here. Can one obfuscate a day away? Hmm, I guess if anyone could it would be a Leftist.
I hope he's at least getting minimum wage for his "work" for his boss, Axelrod!
Pingback| 3.2.10 @ 6:39PM
Cheney Wants Names Named | Global Stump links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.2.10 @ 6:39PM
Cheney Wants Names Named | Global Stump links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.3.10 @ 11:07AM
Nameless Abettors « My Thomson Gitmo links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
No Conflict| 3.3.10 @ 5:43PM
I don't see a conflict of interest. If I am a big supporter of unionization, and I also represent labor unions, there is no conflict of interest. If I support an interpretation of the Constitution whereby foreigners receive due process rights, and I also represent foreigners in court, where is the conflict?
Pingback| 3.11.10 @ 3:45PM
Cheney Wants Names Named « Hindgrindr links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.6.10 @ 5:55AM
Nameless – Rising | Maserati Automotive Marque links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
new suv car | 6.8.11 @ 10:16AM
This is the perfect blog for anyone who wants to know about this topic. You know so much its almost hard to argue with you (not that I really would want...HaHa). You definitely put a new spin on a subject thats been written about for years. Great stuff, just great! New Car Release