“At least nine” Justice Department officials making decisions regarding detained terrorist suspects formerly represented detainees

Are foxes guarding the henhouse, or at least the detention facilities for suspected terrorists and other unlawful enemy combatants? Middle and high-level Justice Department political appointees in charge of policies about treatment of terrorists previously defended such individuals. This might explain some of the mis-steps and boneheaded decisions of the politicized Obama/Holder Justice Department regarding interrogations, detentions, and trials of unlawful enemy combatants.

I have posted before about the close connection between Holder (through his law firm) and the enthusiastic defense of such terrorists. From what I have seen and heard about (the former Georgetown law professor) Neal Katyal, he probably would make decisions in the Justice Department conscientiously and with fidelity to his position. I cannot say that about others, as I don’t know. But one is certainly entitled to deep suspicions.

Liberals frequently argue that one truly cannot put aside one’s beliefs and attitudes, even if those are unconscious (e.g., “unconscious racism”) and one has never displayed any overt bias based on them. It cannot, then, be possible to put aside the political and ideological beliefs that have led one to represent terrorists intent on killing Americans and to make such representation a significant part of one’s professional identity, as these lawyers have. As the article asks, can we trust these lawyers to protect the interests of Americans over those of terrorists? How will their prior livelihood in advocacy groups affect the way they balance the various considerations? After all, this is not just some lawyer who goes to work in the morning defending this or that minor criminal at the local superior court. Even as to those, there is likely to develop over time considerable sympathy for these criminals as against the concern for crime victims or for society as a whole. The article makes the correct point that this staffing of the Justice Department is analogous to hiring a lawyer whose professional identity is tied to representing organized crime figures and putting him in charge of the Justice Department’s (anti-) organized crime division.

At the very least, there is the appearance of a conflict of interest for such former “human rights lawyers.” That conflict may appear to be the same for lawyers for corporations, unions, environmentalists, or other interest groups, but there is a difference. While people might squawk somewhat about the business, labor, or environmentalist background of other Justice Department lawyers, those are not as suspect. These private interests are not seeking to kill Americans and to destroy Western culture by violence. The terrorists are.