Share This Page

Obama's pro-terror lawyers

| Sunday, Oct. 14, 2012, 8:56 p.m.

Oct. 12 marked the 12th anniversary of the bombing of the USS Cole. It's a grim milestone as President Obama faces mounting questions about his administration's dereliction of duty during the murderous attack on our consulate in Benghazi.

Seventeen U.S. sailors died in the brutal suicide attack on the Cole as it refueled at the Yemeni port of Aden in the fall of 2000. Then-President Bill Clinton vowed to track down the Muslim terrorists. But a dozen disgraceful years later, Slick Willy's toothless promise has become a bitter punch line.

Now President Obama's foot-dragging administration, crawling with pro-terrorist lawyers, effectively undermines our nation's ability to detain, contain and destroy jihad threats.

Cole bombing suspect and former Persian Gulf operations chief for al-Qaida Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri has been in U.S. custody since 2002 and at Gitmo since 2006. In February 2009, Obama met with Cole families and promised them justice. Then, he stabbed them in the back by ordering the Justice Department to abandon the death penalty case assembled against the al-Qaida mastermind under the Bush administration.

That's right: The Osama bin Laden football-spikers in the Obama administration deliberately dropped the USS Cole ball on al-Nashiri's military prosecution because of their opposition to the Guantanamo Bay detention system. In 2011, the Obama administration reinstated the charges amid a widespread backlash against Attorney General Eric Holder's plans to bestow U.S. civilian trials in Manhattan to foreign Gitmo goons. But the trial has been plagued by yet more delays and left-wing lawyer antics painting al-Nashiri as a victim of American hegemony.

Team Obama's initial withdrawal from the prosecution came out of left field — literally. But it is no surprise to those who paid attention to Holder's radical ideological and corporate allegiances.

Holder joined the prestigious Covington and Burling business and corporate law firm after a quarter-century as a government lawyer. Covington and Burling's post-9/11 claim to fame? Representing 17 terror suspects held at Gitmo who hail from Yemen, long a safe haven for terrorists. Holder's law firm employed dozens of radical attorneys, such as David Remes, to provide the enemy combatants with more than 3,000 hours of pro bono representation. Covington and Burling secured victories for several Gitmo enemy combatants. And Remes, who garnered human rights awards for Covington and Burling before striking out on his own, now represents al-Nashiri.

In February 2010, GOP Sen. Charles Grassley forced Holder to acknowledge that at least nine DOJ attorneys officially represented or served as advocates for Gitmo detainees before joining the Obama administration.

Gitmo recidivists — a burgeoning Obama demographic that includes suspected Benghazi jihad plotter Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu — certainly are better off than they were four years ago. The question is: Can Americans at home and abroad really afford another four years of Obama, Holder and their soft-on-terror government attorneys sabotaging national security?

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies” (Regnery 2009).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.