Holder admits nine Obama Dept. of Justice officials worked for Detainees

*received through the Paul Rever Network. --
FYI-News To Know About

WINSTON MID EAST ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY February 22, 2010


Holder admits nine Obama Dept. of Justice officials worked for
terrorist detainees, offers no details By:

Byron York Chief Political Correspondent 02/19/10 3:52 PM EST
Forwarded with commentary by Emanuel A. Winston, Middle East Analyst
& Commentator

We are just beginning to learn of President Barack Hussein Obama’s
manipulation of the American legal justice system and his inclusion
of either Muslims or Anglo-Arabist attorneys who represented
"Jihadist" (warriors for Islam) detainees. Muslim Islamists play by
their own Koranic-driven laws using American laws as cover for their
"Jihad" against America.

As Rashad Hussain, a Muslim attorney for President Obama was outed as
a Muslim who supported Terrorist money funding via Prof. Sami
al-Arian who was arrested and convicted for transferring money to
Hamas and now serving a prison sentence.

There is less and less doubt that President Obama is forging his
Administration with Arabists who do not wish America well.

I wonder if the Constitution provides for the recall of a President
who could be considered an enemy of the State, in addition to the
cabal of "The President’s Men" whose history shows an extreme bias
against America’s open Judeo-Christian society. The Obama era will go
down in history as a shameful period for America entitled: "Obama’s
‘coup d’etat’ ".

COMMENTARY BY EMANUEL A. WINSTON

###

From: "David P. Steinmann" Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010
To: a1

Subject: More Obama radical stuff: Nine Justice Department officials
worked for terrorist detainees




Holder admits nine Obama Dept. of Justice officials worked for
terrorist detainees, offers no details By:

Byron York Chief Political Correspondent 02/19/10 3:52 PM EST

Attorney General Eric Holder says nine Obama appointees in the
Justice Department have represented or advocated for terrorist
detainees before joining the Justice Department. But he does not
reveal any names beyond the two officials whose work has already been
publicly reported. And all the lawyers, according to Holder, are
eligible to work on general detainee matters, even if there are
specific parts of some cases they cannot be involved in.

Holder's admission comes in the form of an answer to a question posed
last November by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley. Noting that one
Obama appointee, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal,
formerly represented Osama bin Laden's driver, and another appointee,
Jennifer Daskal, previously advocated for detainees at Human Rights
Watch, Grassley asked Holder to give the Senate Judiciary Committee
"the names of political appointees in your department who represent
detainees or who work for organizations advocating on their
behalf…the cases or projects that these appointees work with respect
to detainee prior to joining the Justice Department…and the cases or
projects relating to detainees that have worked on since joining the
Justice Department."

In his response, Holder has given Grassley almost nothing. He says
nine Obama political appointees at the Justice Department have
advocated on behalf of detainees, but did not identify any of the
nine other than the two, Katyal and Daskal, whose names Grassley
already knew. "To the best of our knowledge," Holder writes,

during their employment prior to joining the government, only five of
the lawyers who serve as political appointees in those components
represented detainees, and four others either contributed to amicus
briefs in detainee-related cases or were otherwise involved in
advocacy on behalf of detainees.

Holder says other Obama appointees, like Holder himself, came from
law firms which represented detainees but did no work on behalf of
the terrorist prisoners. But other than Katyal and Daskal, Holder
does not reveal any names of any Obama appointees, nor does he
mention the cases they worked on.

And what are they recused from, anyway? Very little. Holder writes
that Katyal has not worked on any Guantanamo detainee matters but has
participated in litigation involving detainees who continue to be
detained at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan and in litigation involving
[Ali Saleh Kahlah] al-Marri, who was detained on U.S. soil." As for
Daskal, "she has generally worked on policy issues related to
detainees," Holder writes. "Her detainee-related work has been fully
consistent with advice she received from career department officials
regarding her obligations."

As for everyone else, Holder lists no names and no cases, but in a
paragraph filled with modifiers, he makes it clear that all the
lawyers who had advocated for detainees are free to work on general
detainee matters.

The senior Department officials referenced above, like other
political appointees who are similarly situated, have recused from
particular matters regarding specific detainees in which their former
firms represent the detainee or another party and from decisions
relating specifically to the dispositions of particular detainees
represented by their former firms. These recusals pertain to
decisions relating to particular matters involving specific parties
who are or have been represented by their former law firms within the
relevant time period. However, as noted above, these senior officials
have been authorized to participate in policy and legal decisions
regarding detainee matters, in particular matters regarding specific
detainees whom their prior employer did not represent, and in
decisions relating to the disposition of such detainees. [emphasis
added]

Finally, it is possible that there are more than nine political
appointees who worked for detainees. Holder tells Grassley that he
did not survey the Justice Department as a whole but instead
canvassed several large offices within the organization.

Bottom line: Holder revealed no names beyond the two already publicly
known. He revealed no cases from which Justice political appointees
recused themselves. The letter, which will likely be interpreted on
Capitol Hill as a thumb-your-nose statement, is sure to anger
Republican senators more than satisfy them.


[edit on 2-3-2010 by Anti-Evil]

To me this shows there is international collusion to something. Be it two forces working against each other, or one force giving the appearance as two separate forces.

Not sure what to think about it...
We know war on terror is about as fake as a 3 dollar bill... I wonder what else is... ? I'll see what other members think about it... this might be something like you said...

A precept of the American justice system is that the accused are given access to a speedy and "fair" trial with representation.

Those lawyers that were ensuring that the system was fair and operated as intended are actually upholding a patriotic duty.

Yes, patriotic.

Here's more food for thought, have you considered that some of those Justice Department officials may have been serving in the military at the time, under orders to ensure a fair trial?

Perhaps the military lawyers are traitors too? No. Traitors are those who would discard our system of justice and condemn the men who ensure its fairness. If we are to do without good people to stand for the accused we are no better than the authoritarian states that we ourselves, condemn.

[edit on 3/2/2010 by clay2 baraka]

I may need to step back and observe this because I fear I may be overly suspicious, the first thought that came into my head as I was reading this was ... "This is an AIPAC piece, isn't it?"

I am no fan of our political party's (there's only one you know) game playing and the elite club that infects our government. But I do recognize that Obama is a lawyer, so it stands to reason that he would particularly 'engaged' in the 'legal' aspects of the conflict between us and 'every terrorist on the planet.'

I'm sure the Justice departments actual understanding of Sharia law was practically nil when we were launched into war.... Obama could be trying to compensate for that....

But still..., I tend to think they all suck wind. The lot of them.

reply to post by clay2 baraka


Your post, based purely on the assumption that NON-CITIZENS deserve Constitutional protection, is misleading! The Bill of Rights and subsequent Constitution are for United States CITIZENS - not enemy combatants and non-citizens.

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by clay2 baraka

 

Your post, based purely on the assumption that NON-CITIZENS deserve Constitutional protection, is misleading! The Bill of Rights and subsequent Constitution are for United States CITIZENS - not enemy combatants and non-citizens.

You couldn't be more incorrect:

The Equal Protection Clause was crafted after the Civil War in order to give the newly freed slaves legal protection. But it was specifically worded to provide protection of the rights of all "persons." Thus it has recently been used in the defense of the rights of non-citizens.

American Bar Association

A perfect example of REAL antisemitism. The majority of Semites in today's world are Arab and Muslim. There is no "Jihad" (aka Crusade) against America. And Hamas are the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people.

Lets rewrite those sentences using equivalent words/phrasing:

ORIGINAL: As Rashad Hussain, a Muslim attorney for President Obama was outed as
a Muslim who supported Terrorist money funding via Prof. Sami
al-Arian who was arrested and convicted for transferring money to
Hamas and now serving a prison sentence.

REVISED: As Ishmael Finkelstein, a Jewish attorney for President Bush was outed as a Jew who supported terrorist money funding via Mossad agents who were arrested but never convicted of transferring drug money to the Israeli government and are now living the good life in Israel.

Why is the second version racist but not the first?




[edit on 2-3-2010 by Crito]