The DOJ’s Disgusting Double Standard In the O’Keefe Affair

Yes, when I heard yesterday, via Andrew Breitbart that James O’Keefe was denied an attorney for 28 hours, the first thing I thought of, was: @#$%&*???? Is it possible that they would grant an attorney to the panty-bomber (an enemy combatant who aimed to slaughter a plane load of people) after only 50 minutes…and they would deny a conservative activist an attorney for 28 hours????

Yes, it reminded me of Janet Napolitano’s Dept. of Homeland Security report on right-wing extremism, last year,  which signaled an Obama administration shift in the War on terror away from Islamic terrorists to imagined right-wing domestic ones.

Yes, this episode gives credence to the widespread notion that the Obama administration’s approach to terrorism is tragically wrong-headed and dangerous not only in terms of our personal safety, but in terms of our civil liberties, as well.

Ace of Spades broached this subject in his post about the dangers of treating enemy combatants like common criminals:

The point is: Either the government has the power to do something to a suspect or it does not. Either the Constitution forbids a certain practice or it does not.

Bush, the supposed idiot, established a bright-line distinction between citizen suspects and illegal combatants. Bush, the fascist cretin who couldn’t pronounce “nuclear,” set up an analytical structure wherein it was clear that citizen suspects were owed the full panoply of constitutional protections, and only terrorist illegal combatants were to be treated with lesser protections.

But Obama the Genius With the Nicely Creased Trousers has created a system wherein Mad Maxipad is sorta like me, as far as the law goes, and I, unfortunately, am sorta like him.

And instead of there being a bright-line distinction between us, I sort of have to trust that the Obama Administration will be restrained by its own conscience and judgment, because there isn’t any strong paper command about this any longer.

And how are they doing so far?

Well, gee: If Breitbart’s reportage is true, James O’Keefe was denied a lawyer for a full 28 hours.

Seems a pretty big departure from constitutional norms, doesn’t it?

But, you know, just as Mad Maxipad is sort of a citizen deserving some but not all citizen rights, James O’Keefe is now sort of a terrorist also deserving some but not all citizen rights.

And Andrea Shea King at Big Government elaborated:

When the Christmas Day panty bomber was arrested for trying to blow up himself and the plane he rode in on, he was questioned for approximately 50 minutes before an attorney was brought in to advise him.  What happened next?  Mister Burning Briefs clammed up.

Contrast that with James O’Keefe, American citizen, who was denied an attorney for 28 hours after he was arrested and accused of trying to tamper with the phones of Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu.  During that time, the FBI issued a press release on the arrest and leaked the criminal complaint.  The mainstream media salivated, while ACORN’s Bertha Lewis scambled to appear before TV cameras.

The Christmas Day bomber was given Constitutional rights and Miranda’d within an hour of his arrest but a U.S. citizen was not given a lawyer until more than a day had passed?

How — and why — did a terror suspect get kid glove legal treatment?  And as another conservative journalist asked, “Where was the ‘don’t rush to judgment’ media when someone killed innocents while shouting Allah Akbar?  But at the first hint of a scandal, they crucify O’Keefe?”

Could it be that one of the two is considered to be a clear and present danger to the Obama administration…and it ain’t the Islamic terrorist?

RELATED article by Byron York on the mounting pressure Republicans (and a few Democrats) are putting on Attorney General, Eric Holder:

…unanswered questions about the Justice Department’s terrorism policies are piling up on Holder’s desk. There are still questions about the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed decision, as well as the administration’s misbegotten effort to close Guantanamo. And a bipartisan group of senators wants to know who decided to cut short the interrogation of accused Detroit bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, granting him full American constitutional rights in the civilian justice system and killing the chance to gain potentially valuable intelligence about the al Qaeda group that sent Abdulmutallab to the United States on his deadly mission.

It is impossible to overstate how seriously Republicans view these issues, and, despite their weaknesses as the minority party, they are determined to get answers out of Holder. “He needs to go to Congress and say, ‘I made that decision. Here’s why,’ ” GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander said Sunday on Fox News. “And based on that, perhaps he should step down.”

So far, few other senators will go that far — Grassley won’t — but the demands for answers will only grow. Put them all together, and Holder is facing a very rough future.

I seriously hope that Republicans on the House judiciary committee and the Senate judiciary committee demand a full-scale investigation of this case.

“James O’Keefe sat in jail for 28 hours without access to an attorney, while the U.S. attorney leaked the information about his arrest, helping the media frame it as ‘Watergate Junior,’” Breitbart said.


Pamela Geller focuses on the equally egregious media side of things.

Breitbart t.v: McCain: Holder ‘Has Obviously Botched This One Very, Very Badly’

Linked by Michelle Malkin, Buzzworthy, and Doug Ross, thanks.


Video: Obama’s SOTU Doublethink Doubletalk

From Reason T.V.:

My head was spinning by the end of it, too.

See Also:

John Boehner’s 10 Things Every American Should Know About President Obama’s Budget

Newsweek: White House Signals Pessimism on Cap and Trade

Time: Republican Surprise: 10 More Scott Browns

Scott Brown’s surprise victory in the Massachusetts Senate Race has given Republicans new confidence in challenging Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections. Here’s a look at ten GOP congressional contenders who could follow in Brown’s wake

Eric Cantor: Debt Limit Increase: A Look Inside The Numbers

Daily Inter Lake: America: Are we being ‘transformed’ and … if so … into what?

AlFonzo: Not Just Our Hard Earned Pay, Democrats Are Taxing Our Patience, Too

WSJ: A Tale Of The Two Terrorists

Mike Pence: Pence: “This Budget Is Insane”

Rep. Gresham Barrett (S.C.): The President’s Record Spending Budget Doesn’t Help The Party Of What?

Ed Schultz Describes West Wing As Shrine To Obama

Newsbusters found this vignette shared by MSNBC talker, Ed Schultz to be telling:

Here’s Schultz on his radio show Friday talking about meeting with Obama advisor David Axelrod at the White House the day before, along with fellow liberal radio host Bill Press and several other left-wing media types Schultz did not identify (click here for audio) —

SCHULTZ: First of all you walk into the White House, in the West Wing, and there are picture all over, I mean everywhere! Of President Obama! I mean, of his life in the first year as president of the United States. Now I don’t know if that’s the way it is with every president, but it was almost a shrine. I mean, well, here’s a picture of Obama the president with his kids over here. There he is getting on Air Force One. Here he is with some military people. Here he is on the line working the line at one of his campaign stops. I mean, just, it was just one picture after another! (laughs)

And so I got the message right away that there’s nothing but Obama fans in the White House which I think is a good thing. ‘Cause it’s always good to have the team together, right? (laughs)

Since, I have no idea what is standard fare for West Wing decor, I searched the web for some descriptions of WH decor under Bush, and  found this post written by a guy who had visited the White House two days before the 2008 election:

The ground floor entry area is pretty interesting, the walls lined with photographs of recent visitors, such as the Pope. (The White House Photo Office is down there too, so no wonder. The official photographers are the only ones allowed to take photos inside.) We could look into the Mess Hall, which is run by the U.S. Navy (and is separate from the president’s dining room on the first floor).

Another one, here, from September 22nd, 2004 :
Upon entering the building, we went into a small reception area where there were several large (approx. 18″ x 24″) and very recent photographs of President Bush on each wall.  Lonnie told us that the pictures are rotated on a weekly basis.  Most of the pictures were from the President’s visit to Florida the prior weekend. All of them were quite good.  I asked what was happens to them once they are taken down and was told that some are saved for use in the Presidential Library, and some are given away to the individuals appearing in the photographs with the President.
And I found this WSJ piece about GW’s last day in the White House:

Past and current Bush staffers attended a final gathering of 600 or so on Sunday night at the Spanish Ballroom, a 1930s dance hall maintained by the National Park Service in Washington’s Maryland suburbs. Mr. Bush, an early riser, stayed for all of five minutes, long enough to thank the attendees and tell them how proud he was of them. He left around 8:50 p.m. so he could be back at the White House before 9:30 p.m.

When aides returned to work at the White House on Monday morning, the big action photos of the president and First Lady that covered the walls were largely gone.

Sooooo, although no one had described the WH as a “shrine” to Bush, it seems that photos of the President and first family are pretty much the standard thing in the West Wing reception area. I’ve never been, so I didn’t know. I wonder if the Obama WH rotates the photos on a weekly basis like the Bush WH did?

I do find it interesting that noted  “genius envy” sufferer, Ed Schultz was invited to the White House for a meeting with David Axelrod. He must get his talking points directly from the WH spin machine.

That should work out well since both Axelrod and Schultz are so well known for their class and charm.