There are only two choices: either Attorney General Eric Holder has nothing to hide, or he is trying to hide something. If the former is true, why does Holder refuse to put names to the seven anonymous Department of Justice attorneys whom he admits once represented terrorist detainees before joining the Obama administration? If the latter is the case, why is the old media ignoring the story?

Holder

Responding to an inquiry from Senator Charles Grassley, Holder admitted that nine DOJ attorneys had previously been involved defending detainees:

“To the best of our knowledge, during their employment prior to joining the government, only five of the lawyers who serve as political appointees in those components represented detainees,” Holder said in a letter dated Feb. 18. “Four others contributed to amicus briefs in detainee-related cases involved in advocacy on behalf of detainees.”

Who are these attorneys? How deeply were they committed to protecting the “rights” of irregular troops bent on destruction of western civilization?

Holder has released the names of exactly two: Neal Katyal, the DOJ’s principal deputy solicitor general:

Katyal-01

and Jennifer Daskal:

Daskal

w ho is part of Obama’s Detention Policy Task Force. Prior to assuming their positions in DOJ, both Katyal and Daskal were involved in defending suspected terrorists. Holder had nothing to lose in releasing those two names, since their histories had already been reported.

What about the remaining seven? Holder isn’t telling, prompting Liz Cheney’s Keep America Safe website to ponder the question: “Who Are the Al Qaeda 7?” Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller responded to that question with a self-congratulatory statement that was nothing more than a classic bureaucratic sidestep:

As we noted in a letter to Senators, the Justice Department’s attorneys are subject to ethics and disclosure rules as required under both Department guidelines and this administration’s own ethics rules, which are the strongest in history. One week after this Department secured a guilty plea from Najibullah Zazi for attempting to attack the New York subway system and indicted two of his co-conspirators for their alleged role in that attack, it should be clear that fighting terrorism and keeping the American people safe is our number one priority.

This “most transparent administration in the history of the republic” is looking more and more opaque every month and this episode is merely the latest example of the trend. The left, naturally, is outraged by the idea that someone might question the motivation of those charged with defending America against terrorists. “This is plainly unacceptable in the United States,” Ken Gude of the Center for American Progress, wrote in an e-mail. “Condemnation is not sufficient. This is pure McCarthyism.”

McCarthyism? Really? Was it “McCarthyism” when leftists gleefully exposed the corporate ties that supposedly twisted the views of members of the Bush administration? I seem to recall that, according to the progressive narrative, Bush’s advisors were pretty much running the country for the exclusive benefit of Haliburton. Government officials who hold key positions of power and influence have always been put under the microscope, as they should be. The proposition that Holder’s attorneys should somehow be exempt from this kind of close examination, particularly when they are engaged in a war on terror that threatens our very way of life, is ludicrous.

But then, the idea that we can prosecute that war effectively while treating terrorists to the legal niceties that one affords the local pickpocket is equally ludicrous. If Obama and Holder are determined to use the justice system to prosecute religious zealots bent on injustice, the least they can do is to ensure that the prosecutors involved in this quixotic effort have their heart in it. By refusing to even name the Al Qaeda 7, much less address their qualifications and motivations, Obama and Holder have demonstrated once again that national security won’t stand in the way of political correctness in this brave new hopey/changey era. It won’t be long, I fear, before we will pay the price their spectacular naiveté.