J. Christian Adams, the DoJ "whistle-blower" whose accusations of racial bias at the Justice Department were thoroughly discredited by the investigation done by the Office of Professional Responsibility, continues to inadvertently advertise how well the Civil Rights Division is now being run and how politicized the division was when he was chosen. In a piece for the Washington Examiner, he attacks several DoJ hires for having actual experience in civil rights.
For example, Varda Hussein:
Who were the particular clients Hussain spent so much time helping? Three Egyptian terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay. Although when the Venable firm wrote its internal newsletter that reported on this award, it called them merely "Egyptian clients," here's what they are: terrorists.
This gives you a little insight into how Adams thinks the law works. Although ostensibly concerned with DoJ enforcing the laws in a "colorblind" fashion, Adams thinks the law shouldn't apply to bad people. Someone who believes the rule of law is so important that it applies even and especially to odious people is exactly the kind of person who should be working at DoJ. On the other hand, if Adams were attorney general, he would refuse to hire the second president of the United States.
Next, Aaron Schuham:
Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez hired Aaron Schuham from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, one of the most hostile organizations in the United States toward organized religion.
Founded as a rabidly anti-Catholic organization in 1947, the group has taken the lead in stopping public expressions of faith. Schuham's new job in Holder's Justice Department? Protecting religious liberty. Attorney hires like Schuham's lead to reasonable questions about the administration's motivation.
Again, we're in founding father territory here, with Adams arrayed against James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. But let's be clear -- Adams actually complains in the op-ed that DoJ intervened on behalf of a teacher who had quit because she wasn't allowed to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca and keep her job. Adams, despite rising to prominence by accusing others of racial tribalism, accuses the Justice Department of supposedly not wanting to protect the rights of believers and then objects when it intervenes to protect Muslims.
Finally, Jonathan Smith:
Who did Holder pick to head the unit inside civil rights to bring civil rights lawsuits against police departments and prisons? Why none other than Jonathan Smith, formerly of the Prisoners Legal Services Project and the D.C. Legal Aid Society, two anti-police and anti-prison guard antagonist groups. Hopefully America's police unions will take note of Smith's hiring when deciding presidential endorsements next year.
So the Justice Department hired an attorney experienced in prisoners' rights to handle similar cases for DoJ. Adams objects to this for the same reason he objects to Hussain's representation of Gitmo detainees -- he doesn't think the law protects bad people. And all you have to do to be bad in the latter case is be poor.
Adam Shah picks away at a number of Adams' other distortions, including his wild claim that Attorney General Eric Holder prevented the launch of the Amazon Kindle. Adams also refers to South Carolina's policy of segregating HIV-positive prisoners in maximum-security facilities regardless of their crime, a policy he describes in Orwellian terms as "providing special treatment to inmates infected with AIDS." This is a policy so pointless, so draconian, that only two states still do it.
This is framed as an attack on the Justice Department, but it's actually backhanded praise. Whatever my frustrations with the administration on other matters, Obama and Holder have done a remarkable job of restoring the Civil Rights Division to its original purpose, and they've done it by hiring people who have proved they are so deeply committed to the rule of law that they were doing similar work outside the government. The last administration, by comparison, hired and promoted people like Adams on the basis of partisan loyalty, people whose experience in partisan politics leads them to believe the law should be applied in an exclusively tribal fashion, and are only outraged when they feel their tribe has been slighted.
