The return of McCarthyism
Image by Getty Images via Daylife
The conditions couldn’t be more perfect. And with no shortage of candidates lining up to take on the modern day role of Joseph McCarthy, in what could easily become a repeat of one of the nation’s most disgraceful legacies, the question must be asked –
Are we entering a new era of McCarthyism?
It was one of the darkest stains on American history played out against the background of post-WWII fears that communists were invading the very fabric of American society. Fear abounded that the Reds had not only infiltrated our government but were spreading their communist manifesto to an unknowing public via Hollywood writers and other elements of society that our elected officials felt had undue influence.
Led by Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy and the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the nation descended into a nightmare of false accusations, turning friend against friend, and destroying lives without enough evidence to support an accusation of so much as crossing the street illegally.
In other words, these leaders set out to save what America is by doing everything that American is not.
We now find ourselves at a moment where some of our leading public officials are getting great TV coverage by suggesting that terroriss sympathizers and their allies are filling important roles in government just as they are spreading through our society.
Sound familiar?
My top candidate to proudly inherit the McCarthy mantle would have to be Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ).
Where McCarthy and friends went after the State Department in an effort to prove Foggy Bottom was lousy with communists (it wasn’t), as they attacked the Truman White House and the Army for also being infiltrated with commies (they weren’t), Kyl and friends have set out to attack the Justice Department which, Kyl claims, is crawling with lawyers who have shown themselves to be terrorist sympathizers.
During Attorney General Eric Holder’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, an appearance he requested to better explain his decision to try KSM and associates in New York City, Kyl chose to read into the record a portion of a particularly incendiary article written by Andrew McCarthy in the National Review. In the piece, McCarthy argues that Eric Holder, and the law firm where he was a partner before coming to the Justice Department, were aiding and abetting accused terrorists because they did pro bono (free) legal work in defense of some of these people.
Here the is the section Kyl read into the record.
This is chutzpah writ large. The principal reason there were so few military trials is the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers to derail military tribunals by challenging them in the courts. Many of those lawyers are now working for the Obama Justice Department. That includes Holder, whose firm, Covington & Burling, volunteered its services to at least 18 of America’s enemies in lawsuits they brought against the American people. (During 2007 alone, Covington contributed more than 3,000 hours of free, top-flight legal assistance to our enemy detainees.)
Via National Review
So incendiary were Kyl’s remarks, virtually stating for the record that the Attorney General and key Justice Department lawyers that came with the Obama Administration are terrorist sympathizers, the comments actually caused Holder to laugh out loud – unusual behavior during a senate hearing. But it was an unusual moment. It isn’t every day that a United States senator accuses the Attorney General of siding with those being accused of killing the Americans the AG is sworn to defend.
It is true that Holder’s old law firm Covington & Burling represented accused terrorists and they did so at no charge. Why would Holder’s law firm provide these services to the bad guys?
Because in the United States, we believe that everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense.
Why would Holder’s law firm take the matter of accused terrorists being held indefinitely without trial to the United States Supreme Court?
Because in the United States, we don’t hold prisoners indefinitely without a right to a speedy trial.
And, by the way, our conservative SCOTUS agreed that the Gitmo prisoners were entitled to file Writs of Habeas Corpus, so Holder’s law firm proved to be correct.
Yet, none of this means anything to Senator Kyl or those who agree with him. So terrified of terrorists are these people that they would toss overboard the most basic of what we believe in as a nation. This is precisely as McCarthy did in his hunt for communists to feed his desire for fame.
It never ceases to amaze me how those who would behave in this way cannot seem to grasp the concept that this is precisely what the terrorists have in mind. They want to terrify us to the point where we are willing to become more like them to save our lives. Is this not exactly what Kyl and friends are doing?
For those who think that suggesting Kyl – or others- are leading us into the next McCarthy era is an overstatement, I would be quick to remind you that McCarthy didn’t happen with an instant bang. He started just like this – a comment here and a comment there, all designed to fire up and frighten an already uneasy American public.
It worked – and it will work again if we aren’t very careful. People like Jon Kyl are far more dangerous to the American way of life than any terrorist could ever hope to be. So, while we certainly need to defend ourselves from those who would do us physical harm, we need to be at least as vigilant in protecting ourselves from the Jon Kyls of the country-people who would destroy the very system that they pretend to be defending.
Failure to remember the darker aspects of our history may succeed in keeping terrorists away from our shores, but will it really matter when the real damage will have been done on the ‘inside’ by Americans like Jon Kyl?
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by rickungar, Tweets Tube. Tweets Tube said: The return of McCarthyism http://bit.ly/1VLfnt [...]
Hello Rick,
When precisely did McCarthyism ever end? I know that the senator himself has been dead for sometime but his tactics and strategy seem to have never left us. After all, if it ain’t broke, why fix it and Mr. McCarthy’s methods still seem to work.
Interesting comment. I can’t really think of a time since McCarthy when this was going on inside the government. Villifying other politicians and segments of society is the norm – but calling out people like the AG in a Senate hearing for being a terrorist sympathizer, to me, raises it to another level very similar to McCarthy era.
In response to another comment. See in context »But I could be wrong. Maybe you can point out some examples of how this has been happening all along?
Hello Rick,
I would suggest that the entire George W. Bush administration practiced an unapologetic brand of McCarthyism for eight years. Everyone who was not with Mr. Bush as against him. Everyone who was against him was coward if not actually a member of al Qaeda and probably both. If one took some of Sen. McCarthy’s speeches simply substitute the word “communist” with “terrorist” you have some of Mr. Cheney’s speeches.
In response to another comment. See in context »Pelosi is a better fit to the McCarthy mold…she would send Americans to jail for not signing up for Obamacare…..do they get a trial?
There will be a lot of trials……
Holder….crackhead Holder should be put on trial with KSM….this guy is the communist McCarthy was hunting for
Ah, you must remember that the far right has gone a long way to defend McCarthy with Jonah Goldburg of the National Review and Ann Coulter leading the charge. Goldburg says he was a lout but right because there were Soviet spies in the United States government and Coulter claiming not a single person was harmed by the inquiry. While this ignores the fact that McCarthy never uncovered any spies or that in Coulter’s world being branded a traitor and losing your job and income is not harmful.
I think that you are right about this coddling terrorists line that is emerging. Fort Hood plays right into it and plays into Coulter’s premise that Democrats cannot be trusted with the national defense, an area that the public does seem to favor the republicans. Of course she has written a book that claims that the entire democratic party are traitors.
Whether it sticks is up to Holder and his terrorist trial and in how Obama and the Pentagon handles the Fort Hood debacle.
Ah, mr. UngAr, yet again I think a few things need to be added to your column.
Let’s skip past the part where you simply bash Republicans, not wrong, but not productive, and get to where you talk about the legal arguments about this.
1.) “Because in the United States, we don’t hold prisoners indefinitely without a right to a speedy trial.”
Atlantic Monthly, two days ago:
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/as_many_as_75_detainees_could_remain_in_limbo.php
“Administration officials say they expect that as many as 40 of the 215 detainees at Guantanamo will be tried in federal court or military commissions . . . . and about 75 more have been deemed too dangerous to release but cannot be prosecuted because of evidentiary issues and limits on the use of classified material’ . . . If true, that means that there are 75 so-called ‘Fifth Category’ detainees who might be subject to indefinite detention without trial.”
2.) “It is true that Holder’s old law firm Covington & Burling represented accused terrorists and they did so at no charge. Why would Holder’s law firm provide these services to the bad guys?
Because in the United States, we believe that everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense.”
Is that why “[i]n 2004, Holder helped negotiate an agreement with the Justice Department for Chiquita Brands International in a case that involved Chiquita’s payment of “protection money” to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, a group on the U.S. government’s list of terrorist organizations”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder#Private_practice
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/lawyer-for-chiquita-in-co_b_141919.html
Look it up yourself. There’s plenty of dirt there. I don’t think there’s anything alturistic about his motivation. I view it as self-serving.
You respond to critics from “the Right,” yet not critics from “the Left” or just people who believe in the Constitution, whatever you’d like to call them. How convenient. I guess that’s the only thing that’s important though when you’re dead set on making Republicans look stupid.
It’s Mr. Sarcasm! Welcome back.
In response to another comment. See in context »If there are things you would like to add, feel free to do so on your own blog. What would be useful would be to speak to the points actually raised in this piece. IN other words, if you don’t agree that defendants should be entitled to a vigrouos defense, tell us why -maybe even in your own words, assuming you have some, rather than refer to an article that I mention in the very piece. It is unlikely you will convince me by using references to dirt on Holder. If you want to attack Holder – attack Holder- but it has nothing whatsoever to do with my point.
By the way, you might take at the piece I wrote about Mr. Barr and friends. Do you still think my goal is to just make Republicans look foolish? OR maybe I just want to make foolish people look foolish.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ah, mr. UngAr, I thought you were up for defending your opinions. What a shame.
The point that I’m addressing with my Chiquita example is about Holder’s motives. You say that he is doing this out of altruism, but I’m pointing out that that altruism isn’t consistent.
BACK TO MY BLOG!!!
Always happy to defend a point of view. However when your response goes completey off topic, I’m left to defend something which has nothing to do with my point of view. You seem to feel that I have an obligation to address every other possible POV on a topic I elect to write about. I could do that but it would then become a treOatise and not a blog.
In response to another comment. See in context »While Holder’s involvement in the Chiquita matter may lead you to a low opinion of Holder, how does it give rise to questioning his motives in this matter? More importantly, what do you believe his motives are? I can’t help but notice you always avoid answering these direct questions preferring to share other’s points of view . So tell us… WhAt do you believe Holder is up to?
It’s all left-right, mr. UngAr, all left-right.
That’s all I ever see on this blog.
Granted, you might be right when you attack Republicans, but when you reduce it to “us vs. them” you miss the things that the Democrats are doing as well.
SO, I’ll guess we’ll just pretend I never wrote -trueslant.com/rickungar/2009/11/16/keene-norquist-barr-the-conservative’s-conservatives-back-nyc-gitmo-trials/- despite the fact that I wrote it just a few days ago and could not have been more complimentary of some of the best known Republicans and ‘right’ thinkers in the country?
In response to another comment. See in context »You don’t actually read the blog, do you? Most who do would know that I tend to be more critical of the Democrats – particularly those who act like Republicans. Nor have I been shy about criticizing Obama. So…sure you don’t have me confused with someone else?
In response to another comment. See in context »Blah, blah, blah.
Holder’s motives are completely self-serving. That’s the whole point.
“that came with the Obama Administration are terrorist sympathizers, the comments actually caused Holder to laugh out loud”
I’ve already shown how Holder directly defended a group classified as terrorists by the US (and even more importantly actually were thugs, killers.) I mean, there was just a story a few weeks ago about how Karzai’s brother, one of the top drug traffickers in Afghanistan, is on the CIA payroll. That’s within the Executive Branch, the same Executive Branch that Holder apparently thinks it’s abusrd would be called terrorist sympathizers. I mean, the list goes on in on. 2007 was the all time highest opimium yield in Afghanistan. Granted, that was Bush, but the same policies continue.
Again, my comment is completely related to what you wrote, because you attributed a motive to Holder, a motive which I’ve shown is inconsistent:
“It is true that Holder’s old law firm Covington & Burling represented accused terrorists and they did so at no charge. Why would Holder’s law firm provide these services to the bad guys?
Because in the United States, we believe that everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense.”
That is their reason: their beliefs. They are crusaders who act upon their beliefs. Of course, they completely contradict themselves half the time, but forget about that.
No, in reality, Holder et al. are opportunists who take whatever issue they think will further them at that moment.
And yet, all I’ve asked of you is to simply tell me what you believe Holder’s motives are in this situation. You still can’t manage an answer. You say his motives are self- serving. Okay. How???? You’re all over the place – everywhere except just answering a question. Why?
In response to another comment. See in context »Hey, Rick,
My comment isn’t about what you wrote. It’s about you. I have been wondering where you have been since our lunch at Il Moro; glad to see you are still biking. Would love to get in touch–assuming you remember me! L. Parker from New World (remember the R Friedenberg confab–Fox wanted him for the rewrite and he kept saying no?!)Hope this isn’t inappropriate, but I didn’t know how else to get a hold of you!
All the best, Laurie
Hi laurie!
In response to another comment. See in context »What a pleasant surprise. It’s been forever!! I’d love to get in touch. You can send me an email with your email through True/Slant suggestions. I can’t put mine here because, as you can see, there are those who would use it inappropriately!!!
Look forward to hearing from you!
This all quite entertaining…I would like to point out that Holder got Chiquita to plead guilty of all charges and that Chiquita is not on the terrorism list but an American company and they were far from alone in being forced to pay extortion money to terrorists.
I would also like to point out that most large law firms do pro bono work under the American Bar Association’s pro bono challenge. To take a case that may lead to the supreme court or an appellant court over the issue of reinstating habeas corpus is not a bad thing.
Lastly the idea that 75 people may be too dangerous to release and impossible to try because of abuse or lack of evidence is not have anything to do with Holder. Congress chose not to declare war and then proceeded as if they had.
Gitmo was created with stupendously bad legal advise and opinion from the Bush administration. Only congress and the supreme court can undue the damage.
libtree- very well put!!!
In response to another comment. See in context »Libtree09, you’d clearly fit in well here as you’re not showing the full story either. Yes, Holder defended Chiquita. Why did he defend Chiquita? Because they had been using a Columbian terrorist organization, as designated by the US, to protect their crops.
The rest of your comment is fine. You might actually not fit in as well here as I thought.
mr. UngAr, you repeatedly ask me for mr. Holder’s motives. I’ve already given what I believe they are, but I can repeat it.
Holder’s reason for presenting the tier system of justice: protecting executive power.
Holder’s reason for being lambasted by the right: the people who you mention are insane.
Holder’s reason for representing Chiquita: I’m guessing to get in good with the higher-ups, raise his profile, and show that he’s the kind of person who would do something like that for the right people.
I don’t know what other things I could address.
How does the decision to hold the trials in NYC protect executive power?
Any chance Holder represented Chiquita because they were a client of his law firm – and that’s what his law firm does for a living – represent companies as lawyers? Do you really think they make their client decisions based on impressing some higher ups???
In response to another comment. See in context »Stupid,
Who is not understanding something?
I’m not talking about the decision to hold some trials in NYC. I’m talking about his decision only try some people. What about this bigger picture do you not get?
I think everybody has a choice in what they do, and if employer asks someone to do something that conflicts with someone’s morals they can quit, whether it’s defend a terrorist organization, or argue against the constitution, such as Holder’s done with his detainee arguments, his telecom spying arguments (“ATT is an ‘intragovernmental’ agency” – look it up), his reprehensible arguments against gay marriage, and I’m sure many more.
Holder does this by choice, just like Greg Craig, one of the top lawyers in the White House, chose to leave last week, amidst contraversy of when Guantanamo would close. Greg Craig actually wanted Guantanamo to close, and didn’t want to simply say it.
People are responsible for their actions, and eventually you can’t just say, “It’s their job.” If you don’t think Holder defending Chitiquita (formerly United Fruit who has a long history of overthrowing Central and Southern American countries (ie Guatemala)) is a bad thing for the world, perhaps you should ask those people who were victimized by the death squads.
I don’t see how you can say how defending them is out of a concern for justice. Did Robert Shapiro, Johnny Cochran, et al, defend OJ Simpson out of a concern for justice? Give me a break.
Even if he were simply just doing it because that’s what he was told to do, and needed to make a living, I think we should want more of a moral compass from the top lawyer in the land.
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh, wait, libtree09, I misread something.
“Lastly the idea that 75 people may be too dangerous to release and impossible to try because of abuse or lack of evidence is not have anything to do with Holder. Congress chose not to declare war and then proceeded as if they had.”
Nope. The DOJ is deciding how to try some people, and they’re choosing to leave some people in “indefinite detention.”
Know what? You don’t get to take a section out of something someone wrote in the Atlantic and present it as fact to make your argument.
The reason these 75 people are a problem is the direct result of the evidence against them being highly questionable while they remain too dangerous to let free. Why is the evidence so highly questionable? Because of the Bush Administration’s tactics which poisoned the evidence. So, again, what is your solution to this problem? The Justice Dept. has made it clear that they are searching for an answer. So, you aren’t happy that KSM is being tried properly and you aren’t happy that people deemed to be too dangerous to release but can’t be tried because of tainted evidence are not being simply set free. What exactly is it that you would like????
Oh – and you continue to hose with being unfair to Republicans despite my pointing out two or three times now an article that was highly complementary to key GOPers. You may think that simply ignoring it will make readers forget – but they won’t. They read it.
Finally – because i know you have trouble staying on point – this article was about the signs of McCarthyism creeping back into our life. Yet you want to rant with your sarcasm on an entirely different topic. As i’ve said, if you want to make an off topic point, why not just write on the topic on your blog rather than divert the discussion on the topic presented?
In response to another comment. See in context »How much more clear can I make what I want? As I’ve said, a trial for everyone. You can’t simply choose not to try some people because you think you’ll lose.
I love how I can’t quote things and “present them as fact.” Perhaps you don’t like things that are too factual, mr. UngAr, maybe you only like fiction to be presented as fact. I, on the other hand, take a different view.
In response to another comment. See in context »Okay, lets back up here…Holder’s law firm did not defend the terrorists and secondly perhaps Chiquita is a client of said law firm. I am not clear how Holder was defending a terrorist organization.
Columbia is awash with rouge armies since the days of Escobar, blaming Chiquita is similar to blaming a bar in 1930’s Chicago for being part of Capone’s gang. All the American agriculture companies paid the terrorists. All of them. Columbia blamed them for something they could not control.
Yet even in the face of this, Holder looked at the situation and found Chiquita guilty, leaving open civil damages.
How that translates into supporting or defending the terrorist is beyond me. In fact the decision clearly showed a severe downside in dealing or paying terrorists to protect your crops.
Remember this is Columbia where the American army can rid the terrorists, in fact American forces and mercenaries are in the area and can not protect American companies nor oil pipelines.
I am not trying to be contentious here or arguing for the merits of the justice department decision in regard to Gitmo, but I really don’t see the connection to Holder and terrorists in the case you cite.
This is the bottom line for me: The guys who inflicted damage to New York should be dragged into court in New York and tried. The only thing that would be better would be a New York terrorist cop arrested the man.
Those who were picked up in Afghanistan as part of a sweep of the Taliban fall under military jurisdiction.
Lastly you quote…that means that there are 75 so-called ‘Fifth Category’ detainees who might be subject to indefinite detention without trial.”
This is a paramount problem to not only the DOJ but America but I direct you to the quote and the work “might” as in this is a problem not yet solved, as I said, the DOJ has been painted in a corner by bad legal advice. Can you come up with a solution that does not call Holder to a Senate Committee that asks: Are you or have you ever been a member of a terrorist organization?
libtree- I don’t think he wants to hear you. You ask a sensible and direct question which I have found is not his ‘thing’.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] The return of McCarthyism (trueslant.com) [...]