Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Conor Friedersdorf, who is rapidly becoming an indispensable voice in the blogosphere, catches Mark Levin inventing a straw straw man. He quotes Levin, writing in the National Review Online:
This lawyer issue re DOJ appointees has taken an odd turn. No one is saying or has said that lawyers are not free to represent whomever they wish or that anyone should be denied counsel because of their unpopularity. These are straw men, which made the letter signed by some of my friends all the more specious.
And then he quotes Andrew McCarthy, a fellow NRO contributor and the one who actually began the attacks on attorneys who defend terror detainees that was picked up by Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol:
Here is the legal profession's message for the American people: "We're just more important than you are." Members of any other profession or institution would be indicted for coming to the enemy's aid during wartime. Lawyers not only demand immunity from the ordinary duties of citizenship, but they insist that you admire them, or, at the very least, regard them as above criticism for volunteering their services to those trying to kill Americans.This is a ludicrous concept, so the profession has to engage in serial deceptions to sell it. Most prominent among these is the assertion that every one, no matter how unpopular, is entitled to counsel.
So much for that straw man, which turns out to be -- ironically -- a straw man itself. Of course, the problem here is that McCarthy, Levin and their fellow authoritarians have never bothered to distinguish between terrorism suspects and terrorists. If the Bush administration detained someone, according to these frauds, those people are automatically guilty and there is no need to even inquire any further on the matter.
It's hard to imagine a position more blatantly in violation of the most basic principles on which our entire system of justice is founded.
Politics
Comments
"Members of any other profession or institution would be indicted for coming to the enemy's aid during wartime. "
I imagine army medics, as one example, would be surprised to hear that?
Posted by: JohnV | March 17, 2010 9:30 AM
They show a marked disdain for the constitution but they learned it under the Bush regime where the bill of rights was trampled fairly regularly without any obvious downside.
Laws are for other people I guess. These guys want no part of it. They nullify swaths of the BoR and then call others living by those laws elitist, meaning anti-American.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 17, 2010 10:05 AM
"Members of any other profession or institution would be indicted for coming to the enemy's aid during wartime."
Except they're not the enemy - until they're proved to be the enemy in a court of law. It's that confusing presumption of innocence thing, getting in the way of a good ol' fashioned 'Texas necktie party' again, darn it!
"...those trying to kill Americans." See presumption of innocence above.
"Most prominent among these is the assertion that every one, no matter how unpopular, is entitled to counsel."
Actually the Amendments to the Constitution are, I believe, quite clear on this point. All have a right to counsel.
Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 17, 2010 10:34 AM
JohnV is correct. Medics, and all soldiers, are required to give aid to wounded people if they have stopped fighting or surrendered. Even if it is the guy that just shot you.
Posted by: Laen | March 17, 2010 11:07 AM
These people really need to follow their train of thought to it's conclusion.
This is the world they want to live in:
People are entitled to a defense attorney, only if someone (who?) decides they are innocent.
and/or
Defense attorneys should only represent clients who share their values and therefore representing a guilty party means they support the crime committed. (This pretty much makes defense attorneys the who from above.)
Posted by: penn | March 17, 2010 12:24 PM
The problem is that there is a whole heap of paranoia on the right that these pundits can manipulate. I have seen a number of comments by right wingers on forums that are seriously afraid that if the underpants bomber is given a standard civilian trial, there is a chance that he could walk free.
It's hard to make any headway against such delusions.
Posted by: tacitus | March 17, 2010 12:51 PM
The problem is that authoritarians believe that if you are accused, you are probably guilty. I see this all the time in the conservative kids in my high school classes. Basically the "if they arrested you, you must have done something wrong" mentality that is consistently and constantly expressed. Authoritarians will then, within the constraints of their own belief that the accused is guilty, logically and within that framework intelligently argue that the protections provided by the constitution are unnecessary hindrances placed upon law enforcement and the courts. Now if you think about it, if you know that the person is guilty, constitutional protections do seem to be a waste of time and effort.
So really, I don't think it is that authoritarians hate the constitution. The problem is they don't believe the accused to be innocent therefore the constitutional protections are a waste of time and effort. They should be reserved for those times when innocent people are charged with crimes ... in other words from the point of view of an authoritarian ... never.
I was even going to suggest that they would argue for those protections in the event they or someone they agree with is accused of a crime, but then when you think about it, quite often they actually are found guilty, so if they assume everyone is guilty, then they might like the protections for themselves to "get off" but it doesn't change their mind that everyone is guilty, it only means they benefited from protections that should go to the innocent but they were guilty, further entrenching the idea that accused=guilty.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 17, 2010 12:57 PM
Speaking of straw in the blogospheric wind, our fine hyperchristian buddies at covenantnews.com have just announced that we have the first gay vice-president in history:
Homosexual Pro-Abort Joe Biden Honors World Zionist Organization
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 17, 2010 2:16 PM
I swear, these people are THE most unpatriotic, anti-democratic MFs I can possibly imagine. It won't be fun to pull the Constitution out of the toilet when they're through wiping their asses with it, but it'll have to be done.
Posted by: How | March 17, 2010 2:39 PM
@Pierce
While i don't dare follow that link at work, I have to commend them on squeezing so much "value" out of ~8 words.
Posted by: JohnV | March 17, 2010 3:11 PM
dogmeatib | March 17, 2010 12:57 PM:
The relevant provisions of the constitution only make sense if one accepts that government officials make mistakes, and must deal with unknowns. To reject the idea that the arresting official can be mistaken is to reject one of the constitution's core structural principles. Authoritarians may not consciously hate the constitution, but they nonetheless reject its most important structural principles.
Posted by: llewelly | March 17, 2010 7:01 PM
Why does Mark Levin hate America? Why does he attack America during a time of war? Should he be indicted for giving aid and comfort to our enemies?
Posted by: Dr X | March 17, 2010 7:03 PM
Of course, you just know that if these people were ever (falsely) accused of a crime they'd just gladly use the legal services they are entitled to without ever being aware of the irony >_>
Posted by: axilet | March 17, 2010 10:02 PM
Damn - Post fail. I meant hypocrisy above =(
Posted by: axilet | March 17, 2010 10:03 PM
I don't think they reject the principle because the constitution doesn't explicitly state that officials can make mistakes. Again, remember, from an authoritarian mindset the government can't make mistakes. Don't get me wrong, I'm not giving them excuses or agreeing with them. To me the government, like any other entity run by people, makes mistakes and/or can be wrongly motivated, that's why I support the constitution, it tries to recognize and correct for that flaw in humanity.
I'm just pointing out that if you believe in an authoritarian system, and you believe that the authority is legitimate (gives them a nice "out" with Democrats in general and Obama in specific), then you believe that authority can't make mistakes therefore you being arrested/accused has to be because you're guilty.
It's a totally bassackwards way of looking at things, but I think that's likely the closest explanation you will get to why so many on the right act the way they do.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 17, 2010 10:30 PM