DOJ: Department Of Jihad?

IBD editorial

War On Terror: The Justice Department employs nine lawyers previously involved in the defense of terrorist detainees. This is a colossal conflict of interest. Just whose side are they on?

From the dropping of a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party to the decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammed in a civilian court within blocks of where the World Trade Center once stood, the actions and attitudes of the Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder toward the thugs and terrorists who threaten us has grown curiouser and curiouser.

We may now have a clue as to why. Last November, Sen. Charles Grassley, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked the Justice Department how many of its lawyers had defended terrorist detainees over whom the department holds sway.

Grassley knew from earlier press reports of two such lawyers who worked on behalf of detainees at the liberal organization Human Rights Watch. He wanted to know how many more there were. Last Friday, Holder answered nine.

“To the best of our knowledge, during their employment prior to joining the government, only five of the lawyers who serve as political appointees in those components represented detainees,” Holder said in a letter dated Feb. 18. “Four others contributed to amicus briefs in detainee-related cases involved in advocacy on behalf of detainees.”

So the decision to Mirandize the Christmas bomber, Umar Abdulmutallab, and to quickly get him lawyered up was made by a department populated by leftist lawyers who believe terror is a law enforcement matter and who have tried to get off those actively trying to kill us.

We still have no official answer to what the Justice Department would do if Osama bin Laden were captured.

“It’s like they’re bringing al-Qaida lawyers inside the Department of Justice,” said Debra Burlingame, whose brother was the pilot of the plane driven by terrorists into the Pentagon, following KSM’s plan.

We still have not been told all the lawyers’ names. Like the detainees they represented, presumably they have the right to remain silent. So much for transparency.

Lawyers in private practice are free to choose their clients and their reasons for defending them. But these lawyers are in the employ of the American people and have the task of prosecuting those who try to kill them. Some chose to defend enemies who are making war on America. We have a right to know who they are, who their clients were and why they defended them.

As Michelle Malkin reports, Holder is a former partner at Covington & Burling, a law firm that contributed more than 3,000 hours to detainee litigation in 2007 alone. The firm has worked on behalf of a dozen Yemenite detainees who are seeking civilian trials on American soil.

Holder played a central role in the granting of clemency to 16 FALN terrorists in 1999, when he worked for the Clinton Justice Department. The terrorists claimed responsibility for more than 130 bombings and incendiary attacks in the U.S. and Puerto Rico from 1974 to 1983, killing six and wounding scores.

As deputy attorney general, Holder was responsible for signing off on all clemency matters forwarded to the president. In this case, he recommended that clemency be granted despite vehement opposition from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Prisons and his own Justice Department.

We are reminded of the case of Lynne Stewart, attorney for Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, the “blind sheikh” who was the architect of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. She was later found guilty of charges she had illegally “facilitated and concealed communications” between Rahman and his fellow terrorists.

We wonder if she could have found a job in the Holder Justice Department.

Read the original article IBD

Understanding Narcissism is Understanding Obama

Posted by Steph C

It’s often quite difficult to talk about once having been an abused spouse because it elicits expressions of sympathy and overshadows the point of the posts or articles. It’s not about sympathy for me but looking out for my country. I’m okay. We are not okay.

There have been a few times when I’ve said that Obama reminds me of my ex-husband. My ex-husband is not a black man. You see, I lived with a narcissist for 23 years. That experience is why I recognize the same in President Barack Obama.

Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include (Source: Mayo Clinic):

Believing that you’re better than others
Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
Exaggerating your achievements or talents
Expecting constant praise and admiration
Believing that you’re special and acting accordingly
Failing to recognize other people’s emotions and feelings
Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
Taking advantage of others
Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
Being jealous of others
Believing that others are jealous of you
Trouble keeping healthy relationships
Setting unrealistic goals
Being easily hurt and rejected
Having a fragile self-esteem
Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional

You can look at that list all day long and not understand what you’re seeing in Obama without some examples.

During the last months/weeks of finalizing my divorce from the narcissist in my life, one of my friends confessed something to me one day. She lived on a hill in a wooded area that had been discovered to have old Indian burial grounds. I seemed to have a knack for finding things like that. One time when my husband and I were visiting I had gone off looking for something. She and he struck up a conversation about me, her telling him things about me he apparently didn’t know but should have after 23 years of marriage. The problem was, he didn’t recognize those qualities in himself and I was not a separate person from him in his world. It was when he asked her who she was talking about when it dawned on her that he didn’t even know me.

The narcissist sees everyone in his life as extensions of himself (or herself, although clinical narcissism is more common in men). They are not recognized as separate entities with individual strengths and weaknesses. This country as a whole, is now an extension of Obama. We are not separate beings with our own thoughts and failings or strengths and weaknesses.

The matter of the terrorist trials being held in New York give us an example via Politico.com:

“I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him,” Obama told NBC’s Chuck Todd.

When Todd asked Obama if he was interfering in the trial process by declaring that Mohammed will be executed, Obama, a former constitutional law professor, insisted that he wasn’t trying to dictate the result.

In Obama’s mind he’s setting right a wrong, according to the view of his world. It’s inconceivable that his right thing would be very wrong for those whom it most concerns, namely those who experienced deep loss from the attack on the World Trade Center. 9/11/2001. And he exhibits no understanding they would feel any different about the issue.

““What I said was, people will not be offended if that’s the outcome. I’m not pre-judging, I’m not going to be in that courtroom, that’s the job of prosecutors, the judge and the jury,” Obama said. “What I’m absolutely clear about is that I have complete confidence in the American people and our legal traditions and the prosecutors, the tough prosecutors from New York who specialize in terrorism.”

Read the rest of this article on RedState.