Archive for the 'Justice Department' Category

March 19th 2009

Holder Opens Door To Terrorists

T

errorists … no wait, let me look up the right word … uh, man-caused disaster causers … may soon be released by our Atty Gen onto our shores, in a move that’s just sure to increase our safety.  (Why didn’t Bush think of that?  He was sooo concerned about terror … uh, man-caused disasters.)  Here’s the report:

Some of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners could be released into the United States while others could be put on trial in the American court system, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday. …

Holder told reporters at the Justice Department that the administration’s review, made on a case-by-case basis, would determine whether the prisoners need to be put on trial or whether they can be released.

“For those who are in that second category, who can be released, there are a variety of options that we have. Among them is the possibility that we could release them into this country,” he said. (Reuters)

That’s such a swell idea!  We can show them our way of life and how open and tolerant we are, and it’s just sure as fleas on dogs to win them over to our side, where they’ll be nice, complacent citizens contributing to the national well-being.

Or they just might blow a bunch of us up.

Tough call – but apparently an easier call for Holder to make than the call to keep open the one place on the planet that’s perfect for these thugs, Guantanamo.  And if the Islamists every stop their war against us and agree to live in peace, we can let them go, just like we let go of our German, Italian and Japanese prisoners when WWII ended.

hat-tip: Infidels are Cool

Share

1 Comment »

March 13th 2009

Word Games, Not War Games

O

bama’s Justice Department, unhinged in general and unfettered by the need to do real work like the inept Obama Treasury Department, decided today to play word games with terrorists.  Henceforth, Justice Department briefs will not use the word “enemy combatant,” says a statement:

In a filing today with the federal District Court for the District of Columbia, the Department of Justice submitted a new standard for the government’s authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. The definition does not rely on the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress’s specific authorization. It draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress. It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial. And it does not employ the phrase “enemy combatant.”

In other words, an “enemy combatant” is on its face a person who has provided “substantial” support to al Qaeda or the Taliban.  By removing the word from the federal lexicon, Holder & Co. are saying that the assumption of substantial support no longer exists.

The memo does not provide alternative nomenclature, so maybe we can help:

Guys found wandering around battlefields with AK 47s.

People named in al Qaeda and Taliban documents as guys who gave them substantial report.

Guys who repeatedly told Guantanamo personnel that if they’re released, the first thing they’re going to do is try to kill some Americans.

Camel-jockeys who know how to fly airliners.

People known to frequent crowded marketplaces with C4 vests.

FOBs (Friends of bin Laden)

Guys voted “most likely to succeed” upon matriculating from madrassa.

So Holder won’t hold al Qaeda and Taliban sympathizers who just had “insignificant or insubstantial support of al Qaeda or the Taliban.”  That, of course, will be determined by evidence; more specifically, lawyers for jihadists who will tell Obama-appointed judges their guys just don’t reach the significant/substantial threshhold. “Your honor, he just attended the same mosque and it was an unfortunate coincidence that he was picked up just after that major Taliban pow-wow.  Just a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

And then, after the guy’s four or five years of hanging out in Guantanamo with jihadiacs, the guy will get sprung … and will turn up next Tuesday with Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, doing his best to be significant and substantial.

Share

No Comments yet »

February 3rd 2009

Calling All Conservative Attorneys!

I

‘m looking for a few good attorneys, specifically conservative attorneys who don’t like government-sponsored race preference programs like affirmative action, who don’t believe homosexuals are a special class, and believe radical Muslims in our midst pose a threat. Here’s what I’d like you to do, today if at all possible:  File an employment application with the civil rights division of the Obama Justice Department.  Be completely upfront about your positions and your affiliations.  Oh, and be sure to say that none of these matter, because you are willing to take the lead of your boss and carry out the judicial policies of the Obama admin.

Don’t worry; this won’t cause you to lose your current well-paid job as a top-flight attorney doing whatever it is you do.  There’s not a snowball’s chance in Al Gore’s fantasy that you’ll ever be hired by Eric Holder’s Justice Department – and that’s exactly what we want to happen, because:

Holder promised senators he would review why career prosecutors in Washington decided not to prosecute the former head of the department’s Civil Rights Division. An inspector general’s report last month found that Bradley Schlozman, the former head of the division, misled lawmakers about whether he politicized hiring decisions.

As you recall, Schlozman’s big “crime” was creating a department that reflected the position of the administration, resulting in the most cooked-up, media-hyped phony scandal of the Bush admin. Now he’s going to be investigated by Eric “Elian Gonzales” “Marc Rich” “FALN” Holder?  Isn’t this a guy who understands a highly politicized Justice Department? Isn’t t his a guy how gets the concept of doing what your Commander in Chief tells you to do? So, my conservative lawyer friends, file those apps, so that when Holder presents his findings to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a friendly GOP senator can call all of you as witnesses, one by one, to testify that the pot is calling the kettle black char-impaired. If you need a little extra motivation, think of the foul, stinking pile of irony in this statement …

Holder’s chief supporter, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the confirmation was a fulfillment of Martin Luther King’s dream that everyone would be judged by the content of their character.

… and remember, it was the solid, conservative content of Schlozman’s character that caused Dems to condemn him.

Share

9 Comments »

September 16th 2007

A Judicioius AG Pick By Bush

Is President Bush Reading C-SM? A few days ago, as rumors were swirling that Bush was going to nominate Ted Olson to replace ex-AG AG, I wrote:

Yes, of course Olson is eminently qualified for the job — a penultimate lawyer, a good administrator — but really, what’s with Bush picking yet another unnecessary fight? The AG need not be a Weapon of Political Destruction,. There are plenty of guys and gals out there who are good party guys who know law and how to run a big operation.

I’m tired of these fights, these opportunities for the Dems to grandstand and tear down the GOP. Someone might want to advise Bush that it’s a Dem Congress.

Today we learn that Bush has selected a capable, but much less controversial nominee:

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Bush has settled on Michael B. Mukasey, a retired federal judge from New York, to replace Alberto Gonzales as attorney general and will announce his selection Monday, a source familiar with the president’s decision said Sunday evening.

Mukasey, who has handled terrorist cases in the U.S. legal system for more than a decade, would become the nation’s top law enforcement officer.

Besides being tough on terrorism and crime, Mukasey is accepted by Dems, having received an endorsement in the past from Chuck “Schemer” Schumer. The AP story also reminds us that Mukasey was on a short list developed by the libs at Alliance for Justice of Supreme Court nominees they wouldn’t oppose.

AP opines (in a news story, yet!):

Bush critics see the Mukasey nomination as evidence of Bush’s weakened political clout as he heads into the final 15 months of his presidency.

How about this alternative: Bush critics see the Mukasey nomination as evidence that Bush is (finally) going with consensus nominee so anyone but a shameless partisan will be forced to accept the nomination.

Prepare yourself: The shameless partisans will be railing shortly.

Share

No Comments yet »

With Obama winning the presidency by seven percent, we can't blame the media. Their laudatory coverage and refusal to extensively probe into Obama's background and [lack of] experience was at best responsible for five percent of his vote, the pundits tell us. Here is a compilation of over 100 significant instances of pro-Obama/anti-McCain bias during the 2008 campaign.

For all 'Media Bias 2008' – Click Here