Thursday, November 19, 2009
What kind of mileage and ratings do you think you can get attacking the Obama Justice Department for hiring lawyers who worked for terrorists?
Whatever the American public might think about the legal principle that criminals in general and terrorists in particular have the right to counsel, I think the public would really draw the line at having attorneys who VOLUNTEERED to represent our enemies coming to work at the Justice Department that is supposed to be keeping us safe from those enemies.
I know attorneys are fond of claiming that representing someone doesn't mean that the attorney buys into and shares their client's political philosophy (notwithstanding evidence to the contrary such as this, an attorney who represents a crook isn't necessarily a crook himself) but I'm pretty confident there's a much higher likelihood that attorneys who VOLUNTEER to represent terrorists would be at least somewhat more supportive of the terrorists than attorneys who thought terrorists were scum who should be taken out back and shot and thus wouldn't have volunteered to represent them.
And with the fight against terror being the life and death matter that it is, is there any justification for the Justice Department to hire attorneys who are more likely than not to be at least somewhat supportive of terrorists? Shouldn't we be able to agree that VOLUNTEERING to represent terrorists ought to disqualify someone for employment at the Justice Department... the Pentagon... and the White House?