There is what I consider a fascinating argument going on within the pages of the Washington Post and beyond over nine Justice Department attorneys and who they represented before they were asked to do their current jobs.

To lay some context for my fascination with the subject, know that a certain person I know quite well was once a police officer and has an embedded hatred for defense attorneys. He really isn’t rational about it at all, but given what he’s seen it’s understandable why he might be bitter.

This also falls the week after it was pointed out in a “Meet the Press” segment that the arguments about reconciliation on health care reform are the same ones we’ve heard before, though the arguers have switched places. The conversation about these attorneys is fascinating on its own, but in that greater context it is even more interesting to me. Of course, one of the arguers in this case asks the question, “Where was the moral outrage . . . ?”

The WaPo argument didn’t start with where I’m sending you, but it’s a good place to begin for the uninitiated.

Marc A. Thiessen asked the following question in his column, published Monday:

“Would most Americans want to know if the Justice Department had hired a bunch of mob lawyers and put them in charge of mob cases? Or a group of drug cartel lawyers and put them in charge of drug cases? Would they want their elected representatives to find out who these lawyers were, which mob bosses and drug lords they had worked for, and what roles they were now playing at the Justice Department? Of course they would — and rightly so.”

He asks that question because nine Justice Department lawyers once represented people accused of terrorism. Two were known, but Attorney General Eric Holder didn’t name the other seven until Fox News told everyone.

Thiessen thinks Americans still have the right to know how these attorneys are working within Justice. He writes:

“Americans have a right to this information. One lawyer in the National Security Division of Holder’s Justice Department, Jennifer Daskal, has written that any terrorist not charged with a crime ‘should be released from Guantanamo’s system of indefinite detention’ even though ‘at least some of these men may … join the battlefield to fight U.S. soldiers and our allies another day.’ Should a lawyer who advocates setting terrorists free, knowing they may go on to kill Americans, have any role in setting U.S. detention policy? My hunch is that most Americans would say no.”

What most Americans would say, however, might be unconstitutional. Eugene Robinson takes serious issue with the organization Keep America Safe, which ran the ad that appears at the bottom of this post asking to know the identity of the “Al Queda Seven.” Robinson wrote:

“A group that Liz Cheney co-chairs, called Keep America Safe, has spent the past two weeks scurrilously attacking the Justice Department officials because they ‘represented or advocated for terrorist detainees’ before joining the administration. In other words, they did what lawyers are supposed to do in this country: ensure that even the most unpopular defendants have adequate legal representation and that the government obeys the law. “

Robinson quotes conservative attorneys, including Kenneth Starr, who think what Liz Cheney and the group are doing is “maligning the patriotism” of attorneys who have taken positions on points that get arguments from both sides. Robinson argues that’s the whole idea:

“But maligning is apparently the whole point of the exercise. The smear campaign by Cheney, et al., has nothing to do with keeping America safe. It can only be an attempt to inflict political damage on the Obama administration by portraying the Justice Department as somehow ‘soft’ on terrorism. Even by Washington’s low standards, this is unbelievably dishonest and dishonorable.”

Robinson hosted an online discussion of the issue Tuesday and the rhetoric on both sides was just as, if not more, fiery:

San Francisco, California: Would you feel the same way if the Bush Justice Department hired lawyers who helped defend members of the KKK? If not, you’re a hypocrite. No need to respond, I know the answer because I occasionally read your columns, plus I’ve seen your act on MSNBC. Yes, I am one of the six people who has actually watches MSNBC from time to time.

Eugene Robinson: Keep watching. No, it wouldn’t bother me if Justice hired a lawyer who represented KKK members. They deserve legal counsel too.

Someone later pointed out to “San Francisco” that it was the ACLU that defended the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill. “Yeah, that’s right. Did your head just explode?”

Stopped by Costco Monday afternoon. In the lot I saw a car with a “Hillary 2008” sticker.

The “08” was crossed out and replaced with a handmade “12.”

Chris Henry’s story about the search for shuteye actually opens a door to talk about health care reform.

Late last year I finally decided to have the test done for sleep apnea. I’ve pretty much been sleepy since 1976, when I started high school. I attributed it then to, of all things, not getting enough sleep. Go figure. I was attending early morning seminary (Religion classes for LDS high schoolers) before school every day, but was going to bed at normal times.

Where it really became pronounced was after I quit working night crew (Midnight-8 a.m.). I went on a Mormon church mission to Chile (Concepcion, as it turns out. I’ve got dear friends I’m really worried about.) and never did seem to adjust to a regular sleep schedule. At least that’s what I thought, that those months on the night crew messed up my body’s sleep schedule. All through college and beyond I’ve battled pretty much daily with the urge to fall asleep at my desk, or at city council meetings, or in class, at church. Oddly, I’m fine when I drive, assuming I get a few hours sleep the night before.

The reasons I never suspected apnea were because I had lifestyle issues I could point to, I don’t remember anyone talking about it until the 1990s, and also because I didn’t start snoring until I became overweight. I had a friend who had it, but he always snored loud enough to frighten cats.

When I got married my wife said that once in a while when I sleep I will go silent, then make that noise when I remember to breathe. There’s also the issue of the legs kicking. Those are apnea signs.

Last year I had another friend who got a CPAP machine and said the difference was amazing. So I decided to finally talk to my doctor about it. She told me that people who get treated for sleep disorders and have them solved with something like CPAP find the change to be “transformative.” I liked the sound of that.

The problem was I was changing insurance coverage. To keep the same traditional plan I had it was going to represent a huge pay cut. So I opted for what President George W. Bush touted, the health care savings account.

The savings account system basically means instead of paying huge premiums I pay a much smaller one and set as much as I want (up to federal limits) aside to pay for medical costs. My insurance company pays nothing (save some discount on prescriptions, and physicals and other preventative things) until I reach $2,800 per event or $3,500 overall. After that it’s all free. The positive with the account is that if we spend nothing this year (Like that’s going to happen.) We keep it all. The potential negative, though, is we will avoid going to the doctor unless it’s pretty darned necessary.

Then again, maybe that’s not a negative. I decided to not do the sleep test, because it would have blown through my entire deductible. We kind of like the idea of having money in the bank next year, which would mean less need to set as much money aside for health care. Nothing might drive the health care cost down more than people opting to be cautious about spending money on it.

The downside is if this is really a serious issue. Instead of getting this checked out further, I’m risking lifestyle changes I should be making anyway will solve the problem. I’ve lost some weight and will continue doing so for quite a while. I’m doing better at getting to bed at an earlier hour. Still, it’s tough to not doze off during some meetings on the sixth floor of the Norm Dicks Government Center, or in the Port Blakely room at the county administration building. There are witnesses.

It was not an easy decision to wait on the sleep test. For a while I was getting pretty excited about the prospect of living life on sound sleep, or finding out that I didn’t have a problem that wasn’t self-inflicted.

The question, one that we’ll be asking for years, is what the cost to society is for having people avoid treatment, to have people at less than their optimum health? I’m confident that my work has been fine. Anything I’ve missed in this job hasn’t been because I was literally asleep. But I know vigor, which I’ve mostly attributed to the right dose of Diet Coke. How much more productive might I be, I wonder, if the right amount and kinds of sleep became a regular thing for me. I’d like to find out.

For now, I’m willing to wait.

I spent the morning hanging out with Tim Sheldon in Shelton and Olympia and back to Shelton. I’ll have a story later on the man with two elected offices.

The blogging will be light this week. By “light” I probably mean “there will be none until Friday.” I’m planning to attend a council meeting Wednesday night, but besides that will be away from my desk until Friday. See you then.

In the meantime, how about those chickens?

Ed Friedrich wrote this weekend about the number of jobs locally created by the economic stimulus. Some commenters were critical of the story, because he reported that people got hired. So, if we report that the Twins beat the Mariners, does that make us Twins fans? If you believe that, then here’s more fodder for you. Earlier in the “Kitsap Reader” section above I posted a link to this column, which reports economic analysts saying the stimulus worked.

Also of note was Chris Dunagan’s piece on the potential environmental implications of Norm Dicks becoming chair of Defense appropriations. It is possible he’ll have more environmental clout for this district by giving up the chairmanship of Interior.

NPR does a nice piece on Keli Carender, our own tea party pioneer.

A man who grew up in Bremerton and now lives in Arizona is running as an independent against U.S. Sen. John McCain, who seeks re-election. You remember McCain, right? He’s a Mavericky Republican who ran for president as Sarah Palin’s runningmate, was a POW and has a wife and daughter who support gay marriage even though he doesn’t.

Ian Gilyeat, should he be successful, would be the third independent in the Senate. The other two, Joe Liebermann of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, caucus with the Democrats, though Lieberman has bucked the party often. Three Republicans are challenging McCain, as are three Democrats and one other independent.

Gilyeat explains his independence on his site:

“It is my purpose as the next U.S. Senator from Arizona to protect our most fundamental principles and values; independence, self-reliance and Constitutional positions. I will do this by maintaining an independent position from political parties, special interest groups and favored lobbyists. The independent position is needed in Congress (in the Senate and House of Representatives) in order to freely work every major debate from a position of principle and moral certitude without being burdened by the party line.”