Cheney And Kristol are Greasy Propagandists

[bloodyminded]

After you read the article, be sure to watch the Cheney/Kristol propaganda ad. It's astonishing.

by Glenn Greenwald

As I noted yesterday, the group run by Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol released what is certainly one of the more repugnant political ads of the last decade, if not the most repugnant. It's the type of McCarthyite act which would, if we had any minimal standards in our political culture, result in the shunning of Cheney and Kristol by all decent people (instead, it will likely land the Vice President's daughter on multiple Sunday talk shows where she can pose as an expert on national security). The ad brands Eric Holder's DOJ the "Department of Jihad" because it employs 9 lawyers who previously represented Guantanamo detainees (including Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who successfully represented the Guantanamo-plaintiffs in the 2006 Hamdan case before the U.S. Supreme Court). The ad darkly asks of these lawyers: "whose values do they share?," and labels 7 of those unidentified DOJ lawyers "The Al Qaeda 7." The premise of the ad is as clear as it insidious: any lawyers representing accused Terrorists are of suspect loyalties and allegiances, are devoted to "jihad," and are sympathetic to, if not part of, Al Qaeda (this profoundly ugly smear campaign began with the always-unhinged Andrew McCarthy in National Review, who branded such lawyers "terrorist sympathizers").

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

[BubberMiley]

It's pretty clear who are the ones who hate America and its freedoms.

[bloodyminded]

It's pretty clear who are the ones who hate America and its freedoms.

I doubt they even consider such matters, except to use as political footballs. What they care about is demonizing their opponents (including the ideals of the justice system itself) in order to increase right-wing power in the United States.

[bush_cheney2004]

I doubt they even consider such matters, except to use as political footballs. What they care about is demonizing their opponents (including the ideals of the justice system itself) in order to increase right-wing power in the United States.

....which is exactly what the ad is supposed to do. Not only did the administration cough up the names, but press coverage continues the "propaganda" pounding that fueled "right-wing" success in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts races.

Speaking of demonizing opponents, does anybody remember the 2006 LPC attack ads in Canada...propaganda that failed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Liberal_Party_of_Canada_election_ads

[Sir Bandelot]

Thats how things went bad in Germany post 1933. Goebbels et al was a propaganda genius, a pioneer in the field, even. It doesn't matter that due process REQUIRES someone to represent a defendant, in order for legal cases to proceed.

Lawyers defend murderers too, and by this reasoning they must be sympathetic to murderers, if not in actual league with them.

But that's the state of the union

[bloodyminded]

....which is exactly what the ad is supposed to do. Not only did the administration cough up the names, but press coverage continues the "propaganda" pounding that fueled "right-wing" success in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts races.

It uses fear by expressing distaste towards the principles of justice.

As in, anyone who acts as defense attorney for suspected terrorists doesn't hold American "Values."

And I wonder...will they now name Giuliani's firm as lacking "values" and supporting terrorism?

"The al-Queda 7"... What a bunch of frightened little losers this ad panders to.

[Pliny]

I doubt they even consider such matters, except to use as political footballs. What they care about is demonizing their opponents (including the ideals of the justice system itself) in order to increase right-wing power in the United States.

Right wing power must be what it's all about, however I haven't seen a grab for power and transformation of America greater than that of the Obama adminstration.

[Gabriel]

I just watched the ad, it's certainly a little overdramatic, but it certainly isn't even close to competing for the "most repugnant ad of the decade". I think it's entirely legitimate to question the wisdom of Eric Holder's selection of DoJ staff, especially if nine of them represented or advocated on behalf of Gitmo detainees.

Even though I'm not American, I do care about what goes on in American politics, and Eric Holder and his crew are concerning. From the infamous "nation of cowards" rhetoric he used shortly after being appointed to AG, to the brief excerpt of him in the ad discussing the takeover of American political power by "progressives", to his selection of the "Al-Qaeda 7", to his support for trying terrorists in civilian courts in NYC, there's a legitimate debate to be had regarding Eric Holder's suitability for the role.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Gabriel

[bloodyminded]

I just watched the ad, it's certainly a little overdramatic, but it certainly isn't even close to competing for the "most repugnant ad of the decade". I think it's entirely legitimate to question the wisdom of Eric Holder's selection of DoJ staff, especially if nine of them represented or advocated on behalf of Gitmo detainees.

Even though I'm not American, I do care about what goes on in American politics, and Eric Holder and his crew are concerning. From the infamous "nation of cowards" rhetoric he used shortly after being appointed to AG, to the brief excerpt of him in the ad discussing the takeover of American political power by "progressives", to his selection of the "Al-Qaeda 7", to his support for trying terrorists in civilian courts in NYC, there's a legitimate debate to be had regarding Eric Holder's suitability for the role.

First of all, to even call them the "al-Queda 7" is intentionally dishonest. (I know, you threw quotes around it, as is proper; I mean Cheney and Kristol, not you.)

Second, it is very implicit--unmistakeable, really--that anyone who acts as a defense attorney for suspected terrorists is immediately suspect. Which is awful, truly awful. It's an indictment of the justice system itself.

Also--if we wish to hit the nationalists where they live--it's an indictment too of all the fine and upstanding military lawyers who have acted as the defense for suspected terrorists.

Now, of course, Kristol and Cheney, being political reptiles, will fully embrace the cognitive dissonance: that if these lawyers' "values" are suspect (their "values"! I can hardly believe the audacity); and if they are the "al-Queda 7"; then, by definition, all military lawyers who have acted as defense attorneys for suspected terrorists have suspect "values"...and also should be linked rhetorically to al-Queda. Kristol and Cheney won't go there...even though it is their argument!

The rhetoric is so blindingly stupid that no doubt drooling knuckledraggers everywhere will understand and embrace it.

Furthermore (like I said) we also have to condemn Giuliani's firm for doing precisely the same thing. Giuliani, evidently, lacks American values and has something vaguely to do with al-Queda.

It's all nonsense.

[Gabriel]

First of all, to even call them the "al-Queda 7" is intentionally dishonest. (I know, you threw quotes around it, as is proper; I mean Cheney and Kristol, not you.)

Second, it is very implicit--unmistakeable, really--that anyone who acts as a defense attorney for suspected terrorists is immediately suspect. Which is awful, truly awful. It's an indictment of the justice system itself.

Also--if we wish to hit the nationalists where they live--it's an indictment too of all the fine and upstanding military lawyers who have acted as the defense for suspected terrorists.

Now, of course, Kristol and Cheney, being political reptiles, will fully embrace the cognitive dissonance: that if these lawyers' "values" are suspect (their "values"! I can hardly believe the audacity); and if they are the "al-Queda 7"; then, by definition, all military lawyers who have acted as defense attorneys for suspected terrorists have suspect "values"...and also should be linked rhetorically to al-Queda. Kristol and Cheney won't go there...even though it is their argument!

The rhetoric is so blindingly stupid that no doubt drooling knuckledraggers everywhere will understand and embrace it.

Furthermore (like I said) we also have to condemn Giuliani's firm for doing precisely the same thing. Giuliani, evidently, lacks American values and has something vaguely to do with al-Queda.

It's all nonsense.

I don't think it's unexpected for people to hold reservations about lawyers who defend terrible people. Sure, I know someone has to defend them... but that doesn't mean I want that person... or even NINE of them, working at the DoJ. To be clear, the political ad states that nine of them either represented OR advocated on behalf of the terrorists. Does it surprise you that the broader public holds reservations about lawyers who engage in this type of activity? Lawyers make a choice about who they represent, nobody forces a lawyer to represent an OJ Simpson or a Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka. Again, I know SOMEONE has to do it, but perhaps the public doesn't want that SOMEONE operating in the broader public interest. If you don't get that, you're simply out-of-touch with the mainstream. You seem to disagree with that, which is fine, but that's life - and Cheney and Kristol possess a basic level of political acumen to recognize public aversion to lawyers who defend despicable people, and exploit it to advance their aenda of political opposition to Eric Holder. I partly agree with their position. As I said in my earlier post, this is just another story that contributes to the narrative about Holder being politically out-of-touch with mainstream America, and making choices that offend public sensibilities. Part of me agrees with the ad, I'm not a big fan of Eric Holder given what I've learned about him.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Gabriel

[bloodyminded]

I don't think it's unexpected for people to hold reservations about lawyers who defend terrible people. Sure, I know someone has to defend them... but that doesn't mean I want that person... or even NINE of them, working at the DoJ. To be clear, the political ad states that nine of them either represented OR advocated on behalf of the terrorists. Does it surprise you that the broader public holds reservations about lawyers who engage in this type of activity? Lawyers make a choice about who they represent, nobody forces a lawyer to represent an OJ Simpson or a Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka. Again, I know SOMEONE has to do it, but perhaps the public doesn't want that SOMEONE operating in the broader public interest. If you don't get that, you're simply out-of-touch with the mainstream. You seem to disagree with that, which is fine, but that's life - and Cheney and Kristol possess a basic level of political acumen to recognize public aversion to lawyers who defend despicable people, and exploit it to advance their aenda of political opposition to Eric Holder. I partly agree with their position. As I said in my earlier post, this is just another story that contributes to the narrative about Holder being politically out-of-touch with mainstream America, and making choices that offend public sensibilities. Part of me agrees with the ad, I'm not a big fan of Eric Holder given what I've learned about him.

Yes, a lot of people hold these views about defense lawyers in general. And yes, they are dead wrong to think this way. People don't understand that innocent people need lawyers too. (And many suspected terrorist have already been adjudged not guilty).

Peopel also don't feel this way about prosecutors. Why not? It's an adversarial system (as it must be), and it's often based more on notions of "winning" than on justice. There are also important political considerations. Do people think that there's something magical that happens to a person who decides to become a prosecutor? That he's not going to try to convict people whom he might, in hius heart, suspect is actually innocent? Hell, this isn't even prosecutorial misconduct...and it happens all the time. All the time.

Defense lawyers are a crucial part of our system. they're not even a "necessary evil" as some people like to paint them. They are a good.

Being "out of touch with the mainstream" is not as principled a position as saying "defense attorneys should not be excoriated for defending suspects."

The second is a principled position by definition. The first is utterly devoid of principle.

The mainstream, on some issues (like this one) are fed endless streams of statist reactionary propaganda about "good" prosecutors and "bad" defense lawyers.

Sheer statism. Nothing more. Appeals to authority. Servility to Power.

And again, we're talking suspects. Suspects. I don't know why people have trouble with this concept.

The lawyers are not defending "terrorists." They're defending suspects. Any other justice system is an outright sham.

And yes, of course Cheney and Kristol possess expert political acumen. They are good propagandists. That's a skill, and a real one, but it's not especially admirable.

Also, you haven't addressed the hypocrisy. Why aren't we "suspecting" the military lawyers of lacking American "values"?

Why not Giuliani's firm?

Because...the first is military (and therefore sacred, Jesus on His Throne)...and the second is Republican, and mentions 9/11 all the time. (Hell, he ran his campaign on 9/11.)

So we can't take take them seriously, Gabriel...I mean on their own terms we can't take them seriously.

Edited March 4, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Gabriel]

Yes, a lot of people hold these views about defense lawyers in general. And yes, they are dead wrong to think this way. People don't understand that innocent people need lawyers too. (And many suspected terrorist have already been adjudged not guilty).

Peopel also don't feel this way about prosecutors. Why not? It's an adversarial system (as it must be), and it's often based more on notions of "winning" than on justice. There are also important political considerations. Do people think that there's something magical that happens to a person who decides to become a prosecutor? That he's not going to try to convict people whom he might, in hius heart, suspect is actually innocent? Hell, this isn't even prosecutorial misconduct...and it happens all the time. All the time.

Defense lawyers are a crucial part of our system. they're not even a "necessary evil" as some people like to paint them. They are a good.

Being "out of touch with the mainstream" is not as principled a position as saying "defense attorneys should not be excoriated for defending suspects."

The second is a principled position by definition. The first is utterly devoid of principle.

The mainstream, on some issues (like this one) are fed endless streams of statist reactionary propaganda about "good" prosecutors and "bad" defense lawyers.

Sheer statism. Nothing more. Appeals to authority. Servility to Power.

And again, we're talking suspects. Suspects. I don't know why people have trouble with this concept.

The lawyers are not defending "terrorists." They're defending suspects. Any other justice system is an outright sham.

And yes, of course Cheney and Kristol possess expert political acumen. They are good propagandists. That's a skill, and a real one, but it's not especially admirable.

Also, you haven't addressed the hypocrisy. Why aren't we "suspecting" the military lawyers of lacking American "values"?

Why not Giuliani's firm?

Because...the first is military (and therefore sacred, Jesus on His Throne)...and the second is Republican, and mentions 9/11 all the time. (Hell, he ran his campaign on 9/11.)

So we can't take take them seriously, Gabriel...I mean on their own terms we can't take them seriously.

Wait a minute, you're now suggesting that the ad in question is attacking ALL defense lawyers. I don't see that being the case. Perhaps there is a general resentment to defense lawyers in the broader public, but there is a particular resentment towards lawyers who defend despicable people that most reasonable folks know are guilty of terrible crimes. This resentment is what the ad is tapping into, IMO. You're also incorrectly lumping all suspects into one category - not all suspects are equal. Of course theoretically/technically all people charged with crimes are innocent until proven guilty - but we all know better than that. Some suspects have widely-believed (and accurately believed) to be guilty prior to their convictions. Do you doubt that Major Nidal Hassan committed the mass murder at Fort Hood? Certainly you do not. You are being facetious in merely describing him as a suspect. This may be true in the realm of the courts, but here on an online discussion forum we're more free to be completely honest about these things. Of course philosophically he is innocent until proven guilty, but we all know he is guilty - and there is an understandable resentment among the public towards those who would work towards protecting him. I can tell you that I would probably not think highly of a lawyer who represented a despicable person, and I certainly would NOT want that lawyer operating in the public interest (i.e. a position at DoJ). It's my right to feel that way.

I'm sure you're right about some prosecutors pursuing cases more aggressively than necessary, given the nature of the adversarial system. This is also wrong. Given the reality that we're living in 2010, and that Canada and the USA provide the maximum freedoms to those charged with crimes in accordance with the rule of law, I have a hard time believing that prosecuting attorneys, on the whole, engage in as much unsavoury conduct as their defense attorney counterparts - at least with respect to high-profile criminal cases.

I reject your argument that your position is based on principle while the mainstream's position isn't. I consider myself an intelligent and rational individual, and I completely understand and agree with folks out there who harbour reservations (or even resentment) towards those who defend despicable people. How can you tell me, honestly, that this position isn't based on principle? The principle the mainstream (myself included) is standing on is right vs. wrong - your position (which I concede is principled in a different way) is grounded in adherence to protocol and not passing value judgments on necessary components of the legal process (specifically the right of all accused persons to a defense). Perhaps I am more emotional than you are, because I simply cannot turn off my moral conscience and view defense attorneys who defend terrorists and murderers dispassionately as operating solely towards a necessary function of our legal system (a "necessary evil" if you will). I look at these lawyers and see them defending animals, which they are of course free to do, but I am also entitled not to like it and NOT want them operating in the broader public interest. Can't you concede that?

Edited March 4, 2010 by Gabriel

[bush_cheney2004]

It uses fear by expressing distaste towards the principles of justice.

So what? The "principles of justice" have always been overrated. Justice sips meekly from a fountain called Power. Justice turns child molesters free to re-offend. Great.

"The al-Queda 7"... What a bunch of frightened little losers this ad panders to.

Nonsense...it's shorthand American media speak that even you lap up like a dog. You can't escape it even if you tried....just like "Adscam", or "xyz-gate".

Edited March 4, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

Wait a minute, you're now suggesting that the ad in question is attacking ALL defense lawyers. I don't see that being the case. Perhaps there is a general resentment to defense lawyers in the broader public, but there is a particular resentment towards lawyers who defend despicable people that most reasonable folks know are guilty of terrible crimes. This resentment is what the ad is tapping into, IMO. You're also incorrectly lumping all suspects into one category - not all suspects are equal. Of course theoretically/technically all people charged with crimes are innocent until proven guilty - but we all know better than that. Some suspects have widely-believed (and accurately believed) to be guilty prior to their convictions. Do you doubt that Major Nidal Hassan committed the mass murder at Fort Hood? Certainly you do not. You are being facetious in merely describing him as a suspect. This may be true in the realm of the courts, but here on an online discussion forum we're more free to be completely honest about these things. Of course philosophically he is innocent until proven guilty, but we all know he is guilty - and there is an understandable resentment among the public towards those who would work towards protecting him. I can tell you that I would probably not think highly of a lawyer who represented a despicable person, and I certainly would NOT want that lawyer operating in the public interest (i.e. a position at DoJ). It's my right to feel that way.

I'm sure you're right about some prosecutors pursuing cases more aggressively than necessary, given the nature of the adversarial system. This is also wrong. Given the reality that we're living in 2010, and that Canada and the USA provide the maximum freedoms to those charged with crimes in accordance with the rule of law, I have a hard time believing that prosecuting attorneys, on the whole, engage in as much unsavoury conduct as their defense attorney counterparts - at least with respect to high-profile criminal cases.

I reject your argument that your position is based on principle while the mainstream's position isn't. I consider myself an intelligent and rational individual, and I completely understand and agree with folks out there who harbour reservations (or even resentment) towards those who defend despicable people. How can you tell me, honestly, that this position isn't based on principle? The principle the mainstream (myself included) is standing on is right vs. wrong - your position (which I concede is principled in a different way) is grounded in adherence to protocol and not passing value judgments on necessary components of the legal process (specifically the right of all accused persons to a defense). Perhaps I am more emotional than you are, because I simply cannot turn off my moral conscience and view defense attorneys who defend terrorists and murderers dispassionately as operating solely towards a necessary function of our legal system (a "necessary evil" if you will). I look at these lawyers and see them defending animals, which they are of course free to do, but I am also entitled not to like it and NOT want them operating in the broader public interest. Can't you concede that?

???

Can't I concede that you are looking at the matter through your "moral conscience" while I am shutting mine down for the sake of legal protocol?

Good Christ, no.

Unlike yourself, I will not assume you are avoiding moral issues for the saqke of legal niceties.

Instead, I will happily report that we are both concerned with the moral aspects, but reach differing conclusions.

Again, it copmes down, in the end, to the difference between suspects and the guilty. You name a name, and expand your argument out infinitely from that one example.

so are you saying that "we all know" that all these suspects are "suspects" in legal name only...and that they're actually guilty?

Because if so, it's a remarkable claim.

My claim is that we don't know; while your claim is that...we do know? Seriously?

Again, I wish to underline the fact that moral consideraitons are all I'm concerned about here.

As for your point about lawyers who knowingly represent the guilty, I've got a couple of remarks:

First, there have been a lot of people exonerated from prison--even from death row, in the U.S.--who were "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" to be guilty. Often with multiple, disinterested eyewitnesses.

Those defense attorneys were no doubt much hated for their "despicable" actions.

Even though it turns out they were on the side of jsutice...and the prosecutoirs...well, that's not so clear, is it?

So even the most obvious cases can be open to less outraged judgement.

But more to the point, why are these defense lawyers the ones who are despicable and shouldn't serve the public's trust?

what about people who sit on the Board of Directors for WalMart...a company that was PROVEN to be profiting handsomely from sweatshop labour so egregious that it's a small step up from slavery...how come they aren't bad for the public trust?

That's Hillary Clinton, by the way.

How about the Bush dynasty's various dealings with unsavoury types, from the Nazis to the Saudis, for business purposes. (Never mind the undoubted immoral excesses of their other business dealings.)

Is morality important for lawyers...but is to be derided as "leftist" or "shrill" (the typical platitudes) when talking about the businessmen who practically run North American politics? Why?

Are former prosecutors suspect? I doubt there's a single long-term prosecutor who has never at least suspected he might have incarcerated an innocent man or woman.

And if a prosecutor even slightly suspects such a thing, it is flagrantly imnmoral for him NOT to expend his energy trying to find the truth out and fix the problem. One case of this is worse than a hundred defense lawyers knowingly defending a guilty man.

Also...again...what of Rudy Giuliani? Not "despicable?

Why not?

[bloodyminded]

So what? The "principles of justice" have always been overrated. Justice sips meekly from a fountain called Power. Justice turns child molesters free to re-offend. Great.

Yeah, let's make the perfect the enemy of the good. Brilliant.

Nonsense...it's shorthand American media speak that even you lap up like a dog. You can't escape it even if you tried....just like "Adscam", or "xyz-gate".

I don't lap it up. That's for you effete little right-wing pussies. Obedient as a well-trained doggie.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah, let's make the perfect the enemy of the good. Brilliant.

But it's not even good...only a fool always holds unbridled "justice" in such high regard.

I don't lap it up. That's for you effete little right-wing pussies. Obedient as a well-trained doggie.

Sure you do....the "propaganda" works particularly well on Pavlovian canines of your ilk. Instead of whining about justice, pay attention to the game that you love so much but can't play.

[bloodyminded]

But it's not even good...only a fool always holds unbridled "justice" in such high regard.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Return to your continually-aggrieved sense of wounded patriotism, it suits you better.

Sure you do....the "propaganda" works particularly well on Pavlovian canines of your ilk. Instead of whining about justice, pay attention to the game that you love so much but can't play.

As for "the game," you're overestimating your wit and skill. You're a one-note troll.

[bush_cheney2004]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Return to your continually-aggrieved sense of wounded patriotism, it suits you better.

No...there are always big laughs to be had from your santimonious dreck. Don't worry, winter will be over soon and you can spend less time oogling the Americans.

As for "the game," you're overestimating your wit and skill. You're a one-note troll.

Yes, but I am an American, uber-nationalist troll. You always gotta go through my road....and pay the toll.

[Oleg Bach]

It's pretty clear who are the ones who hate America and its freedoms.

THE cheneyites should have done what was right when they were in power- a bit late now and arm chair critics with billion dollar bank accounts need not apply.

[bloodyminded]

No...there are always big laughs to be had from your santimonious dreck. Don't worry, winter will be over soon and you can spend less time oogling the Americans.

What's "sanctimonious" is the transparent whining you engage in to save America's fragile honour from those evil critics of US policies.

Yes, but I am an American, uber-nationalist troll. You always gotta go through my road....and pay the toll.

I don't consider stomping delicate little bullies to be a heavy toll. It's too easy.

Edited March 4, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

What's "sanctimonious" is the transparent whining you engage in to save America's fragile honour from those evil critics of US policies.

That's good for +2 on the smug-o-meter. US policies have nothing to do with honour....better get a better seat in that peanut gallery, eh?

I don't consider stomping delicate little bullies to be a heavy toll. It's too easy.

No..it's too easy because you don't have any choice in the matter. USA! USA! USA!

[bloodyminded]

That's good for +2 on the smug-o-meter. US policies have nothing to do with honour....better get a better seat in that peanut gallery, eh?

Again, it's ironic that someone so intent on defending America's good name [sic] would use the word smug.

And you don't have to pretend that you aren't an aggrieved patriot driven to trolling through an American inferiority complex. We already recognize this unfortunate fact.

No..it's too easy because you don't have any choice in the matter. USA! USA! USA!

Sure I have a choice. I could ignore you. I choose not to do so.

[bush_cheney2004]

Again, it's ironic that someone so intent on defending America's good name [sic] would use the word smug.

America's "good name" doesn't need defending...."please please love us" is a Canadian malignancy.

And you don't have to pretend that you aren't an aggrieved patriot driven to trolling through an American inferiority complex. We already recognize this unfortunate fact.

Goes well with your Canadian superiority complex...oh wait...that's too "nationalist" for you!

Sure I have a choice. I could ignore you. I choose not to do so.

...then pay the toll.

Edited March 4, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

America's "good name" doesn't need defending...."please please love us" is a Canadian malignancy.

Not in this case. You think you're Captain America, but with diapers and a shrieky voice.

Goes well with your Canadian superiority complex...oh wait...that's too "nationalist" for you!

Exactly. Now you understand.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not in this case. You think you're Captain America, but with diapers and a shrieky voice.

...that you can't keep your eyes away from. Dick Cheney's "greasy" bump and grind helps you get through the winter.