newjerseynewsroom.com

BY JULIE ROGINSKY

COMMENTARY

Who knew John Adams was a terrorist sympathizer?

In 1770, amidst public opprobrium, the future president defended the British officers charged with murdering American colonials at the infamous Boston Massacre. Adams, with full knowledge of the political repercussions of his decision, nevertheless felt that the accused British soldiers were entitled to a fair trial. A jury acquitted six soldiers; two were convicted of manslaughter.

What was good for the founding fathers is apparently no longer acceptable. Today, Liz Cheney, the daughter of a man who once held the same office as Adams, is leading a movement to demonize current Department of Justice attorneys who — both in and out of uniform — had previously defended Guantánamo detainees. Apparently, the right to counsel that is enshrined in our system of jurisprudence doesn't apply to those who really, really want to do us harm.

Cheney labels these Justice Department attorneys "the al Qaeda 7" and implies that they sympathize with terrorists — an allegation as ridiculous as claiming that attorneys who defend rapists and murderers condone rape and murder. In a move that would make Joe McCarthy proud, she has demanded that the Justice Department name names to root out the terrorist-sympathizing fellow travelers in our government's midst.

What is this manufactured crisis really all about? Unlike Sarah Palin, Liz Cheney is not ignorant of facts. Unlike Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, she does not need to manufacture drama in order to attract ratings. As an attorney, she is surely aware that the Supreme Court — no band of wide-eyed liberals — ruled that detainees at Guantánamo are entitled to appeal their detention in a U.S. court.

Instead, it is a reflection of where we are today in our political discourse.

The same type of disingenuous grandstanders who went on Communist witch hunts in the 1950s have hijacked the conservative movement today. Much like the Red Scare 60 years ago, politicians who obviously know better are exploiting our fears to score political shots that tear at the fabric of our Constitution and malign who we are as a nation.

Those who support providing a speedy trial to Guantánamo detainees — some of whom have been held for nearly a decade without charges — are accused of sympathizing with terrorists. Those who support trying admitted 9/11 mastermind Sheikh Khalid Mohammed in federal court are accused of inciting attacks against the homeland.

On Sept. 11, 2001, I was working for then-senator Jon Corzine in Washington, who asked me to stay with him throughout the day. As a result, I was able to be with members of both houses of Congress as they were evacuated together to the Capitol Police headquarters several blocks from the Capitol.

At the Capitol Police complex that day, with no press and fewer staffers present, Democratic and Republican members alike rose to the challenge facing our nation. There were serious disagreements about how to proceed with the day in the absence of steady communication with either the congressional leadership or the executive branch. But no one, despite those disagreements, accused anyone else of a lack of patriotism or employed the jingoistic language so prevalent in the debate since.

The events of 9/11 should have given our politicians a common purpose, as they did that day and in the days immediately following.

Instead, they have been manipulated to pose a challenge to our Constitution and our values that would have made our founding fathers cringe.

It would be wise to remember that Liz Cheney's tactics are nothing new. John Adams lost clients due to the populist anger directed at him for representing British soldiers whom the common Bostonian believed to be murderers. Abigail Adams wrote that she was worried for the safety of their family as a result of this public fury.

Yet Adams persevered and became our nation's first vice president less than 20 years after the Boston Massacre trial. There is no doubt that he would reject — as history will reject — Cheney's tactics against attorneys who represent the best of our values, even in the face of populist anger.

Julie Roginsky is a Democratic consultant who appears frequently on CNBC.