Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The heat is being turned up even more on Liz Cheney, who has gone from someone I'd never heard of to someone I utterly despise in only a few short months. A group of very prominent legal scholars, including conservatives like Ken Starr, have issued a statement condemning her for attacking attorneys who defended Gitmo detainees and suggesting that they are on the side of terrorists. I'll reproduce the whole thing below the fold.
The past several days have seen a shameful series of attacks on attorneys in the Department of Justice who, in previous legal practice, either represented Guantanamo detainees or advocated for changes to detention policy. As attorneys, former officials and policy specialists who have worked on detention issues, we consider these attacks both unjust to the individuals in question and destructive of any attempt to build lasting mechanisms for counterterrorism adjudications. The past several days have seen a shameful series of attacks on attorneys in the Department of Justice who, in previous legal practice, either represented Guantanamo detainees or advocated for changes to detention policy. As attorneys, former officials, and policy specialists who have worked on detention issues, we consider these attacks both unjust to the individuals in question and destructive of any attempt to build lasting mechanisms for counterterrorism adjudications.The American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams's representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston massacre.
People come to serve in the Justice Department with a diverse array of prior private clients; that is one of the department's strengths. The War on Terror raised any number of novel legal questions, which collectively created a significant role in judicial, executive and legislative forums alike for honorable advocacy on behalf of detainees. In several key cases, detainee advocates prevailed before the Supreme Court. To suggest that the Justice Department should not employ talented lawyers who have advocated on behalf of detainees maligns the patriotism of people who have taken honorable positions on contested questions and demands a uniformity of background and view in government service from which no administration would benefit.
Such attacks also undermine the Justice system more broadly. In terrorism detentions and trials alike, defense lawyers are playing, and will continue to play, a key role. Whether one believes in trial by military commission or in federal court, detainees will have access to counsel. Guantanamo detainees likewise have access to lawyers for purposes of habeas review, and the reach of that habeas corpus could eventually extend beyond this population. Good defense counsel is thus key to ensuring that military commissions, federal juries, and federal judges have access to the best arguments and most rigorous factual presentations before making crucial decisions that affect both national security and paramount liberty interests. To delegitimize the role detainee counsel play is to demand adjudications and policymaking stripped of a full record. Whatever systems America develops to handle difficult detention questions will rely, at least some of the time, on an aggressive defense bar; those who take up that function do a service to the system.
Benjamin Wittes
Robert Chesney
Matthew Waxman
David Rivkin
Lee Casey
Philip Bobbitt
Peter Keisler
Bradford Berenson
Kenneth Anderson
John Bellinger III
Philip Zelikow
Kenneth W. Starr
Larry Thompson
Charles "Cully" D. Stimson
Chuck Rosenberg
Harvey Rishikoff
Orin Kerr
Daniel Dell'Orto
This won't actually do any good, at least in terms of convincing Cheney that she's wrong. She'll just continue to lie and claim that she was never questioning anyone's loyalty in the first place. But it could help convince some of those who would find her demagoguery convincing.
Politics
Comments
No small irony that Charles "Cully" D. Stimson is a signator given why he wound up resigning as deputy assistant secretary of state for detainee affairs.
Posted by: John Pieret | March 10, 2010 10:01 AM
I the NYT piece on this they ask Yoo for his opinion on this matter, and instead of saying whether terrorism detainees deserve legal counsel he says:
"“What’s the big whoop?” he asked. “The Constitution makes the president the chief law enforcement officer. We had an election. President Obama has softer policies on terror than his predecessor.” He said, “He can and should put people into office who share his views.” Once the American people know who the policy makers are, he said, “they can decide whether they agree with him or not.”"
I can't believe they hired this piece of shit in UC Berkeley. This answer makes me think he's definitely going to run for office.
Posted by: mikka | March 10, 2010 10:39 AM
It's a shame that all of these formerly good Christian conservatives have been brainwashed into becoming fascist socialist America hating MUSLIN atheists like that KENYAN Barack HUSSEIN Obama. Obviously while in the FEMA camps they were brainwashed and drugged into this TREASON.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 10, 2010 11:06 AM
>>>This won't actually do any good, at least in terms of convincing Cheney that she's wrong.
Of course not. Being a Cheney means never having to admit fault, even if said fault is as obvious as the sun.
If Liz learned anything from her dad it's that one's own perceptions can be made to trump reality itself.
Posted by: CHV | March 10, 2010 11:28 AM
Kenneth Starr is the voice of reason. That was a sentence I never thought I'd type. I think that indicates just how are into the crazy Liz Cheney has wandered.
Posted by: katydid13 | March 10, 2010 11:40 AM
katydid13 @ 5:
Actually he's one of the most reasonable constitutional scholars I've encountered. Certainly he has a stain for his role in the Starr Investigation of President Clinton. A new book which was recently published lays both a defense and an critique of his behavior on that case, it's titled The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr. I've only read some reviews of the book, not the book. When I've read his articles on constitutional law where he argues a position, he's pretty consistent at fairly articulating opposing views and making cogent arguments in response. He even concedes some liberal policy arguments which he previously opposed, e.g., Miranda.
I also thought his book First Among Equals: The Supreme Court in American Life was an outstanding book on the court in terms being very accessible to the average American who wants to better understand how the court works and how it affects us. In fact, I've lent it out to a nephew who was in high school at the time who was trying to decide whether to pursue a more technical career in engineering or get a more general education and consider law school. Yes his book makes his conservative position clear and I often disagreed; but it's humbly presented, is merely a minor portion of any description of a particular principle being reviewed, and never gets strident in pushing an agenda. In fact his book helped me take positions opposite of his given I preferred the arguments he presented contra to his own position.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 10, 2010 12:00 PM
How about Ms. Cheney being asked whether she agrees with her father on the issue of same sex marriage. In that regard, how about asking her if she thinks her sister should be allowed to marry her companion.
Posted by: SLC | March 10, 2010 1:45 PM
To follow up with my comment at #7, Ms. Cheney should be asked if she accepts her sisters' son as her nephew.
Posted by: SLC | March 10, 2010 2:07 PM
Re Michael Heath @ #6
Relative to Ken Starr, the question is why he made such a jackass of himself during the investigation of the Clinton/Lewinsky affair. Of course, at least some blame for the entire sordid mess has to be placed on then Attorney General Janet Reno who should have told him to fuck off when he approached her for permission to expand his investigation of the Whitewater affair.
By the way, does Mr. Michael Heath have any excuse for Ken Starrs' abominable treatment of Susan McDougal?
Posted by: SLC | March 10, 2010 2:38 PM
SLC @ 9 stated:
As I preemptively stated @ 6, no I do not. However I did point to a recently published book, The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr, that analyzes his behavior and others. I've read reviews that claim it includes concessions and regrets by Mr. Starr. I also wasn't championing Mr. Starr, merely pointing out he could be reasonable, contra to what the commenter @5 previously assumed before the blogged-about event, along with also noting that he has made contributions.
I have no appetite for attempting to defend him beyond that and instead point people to the recent analysis of his demonstrated behavior and his current position on that behavior that appears to exist in American Virtue.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 10, 2010 3:06 PM
@3.
MUSLIN atheists? Does this mean we can see through them?
Posted by: Keith Harwood | March 10, 2010 11:12 PM
Liz Cheney is a moron.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 11, 2010 12:00 AM