Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentOther - Politics & Government · 1 decade ago

What do you think of Andrew McCarthys Letter to Eric Holder?

Andrew C. McCarthy

May 1, 2009

By email (to the Counterterrorism Division) and by regular mail:

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General of the United States

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Holder:

This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.

The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.

Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America’s “commitment to the rule of law.” Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [adminstration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (Emphasis added.)

Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.

For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.

There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, ha

5 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I think Mr. McCarthy is smart enough to know he was involved in a criminal conspiracy and is desperate to cover his own ***. Just because you only contribute one component to a conspiracy doesn't mean you didn't do anything wrong. He knew the reason he was being asked to use his official position to write that opinion was because others were going to be breaking the law and Bushco wanted to set up their defense in advance. Any court in this land would recognize that as premeditation.

    Guilty! We'll warm up your cell for you, Mr. McCarthy.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I think Andrew McCarthy has no idea what he's talking about. Nobody in the administration, whether Obama, Holder or anyone else, has even suggested releasing trained jihadists in the Us or elsewhere. Anyone who is a trained jihadist would certainly be tried and convicted, so there is no question of simply releasing them. This person, whoever he is, needs to get his information from better sources than conservative blogs.

    I do need to say that I liked him in St. Elmo's Fire, but not so much in Mannequin.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Why would they even have invited the star of "Weekend at Bernie's"?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I think he sounds like a desperate rat trying to justify his complicity in Bush's war crimes.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Not much. Thanks for the cut & paste ...

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.