The bureaucrat in charge of Guantanamo Bay policy tries to start some dark rumors about the law firms assisting in defending the detainees there. He suggests that companies might want to boycott the law firms, and worse, implies they might be funded by terrorists themselves. Because rule of law is a scary, scary concept.
Fortunately, most everybody seems outraged over this. The Washington Post wrote a scathing editorial that describes what, exactly, was said:
MOST AMERICANS understand that legal representation for the accused is one of the core principles of the American way. Not, it seems, Cully Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs. In a repellent interview yesterday with Federal News Radio, Mr. Stimson brought up, unprompted, the number of major U.S. law firms that have helped represent detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
"Actually you know I think the news story that you're really going to start seeing in the next couple of weeks is this: As a result of a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request through a major news organization, somebody asked, 'Who are the lawyers around this country representing detainees down there,' and you know what, it's shocking," he said.
Mr. Stimson proceeded to reel off the names of these firms, adding, "I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out."
Asked who was paying the firms, Mr. Stimson hinted of dark doings. "It's not clear, is it?" he said. "Some will maintain that they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart, that they're doing it pro bono, and I suspect they are; others are receiving monies from who knows where, and I'd be curious to have them explain that."
Condemnation has been fast and furious, from a variety of sources. Steve Benen, Michael Froomkin, Lindsay Beyerstein, Kevin Drum and Paul Horwitz aptly represent the liberals. On the right, we have critcism from Eugene Volokh, Andrew Sullivan, and Jonathan Adler.
Adler says that the administration official might just have been shooting from the hip, rather than expressing an official view. Potentially. But as Horwitz points out (via The WSJ Law Blog), another story in the Wall Street Journal also quoted a "senior administration official" making similar noises. That doesn't make it a policy, of course, but it starts to look more like a talking point (of one of the more abhorrent varieties). So while Adler is looking for quick repudiation from the administration, that seems very unlikely.
Other voices on the matter:
Richmond Democrat
Desert Beacon
Gun Toting Liberal
Amazingly, I did not find a single person--left or right--defending Mr. Stimson. Then again, outside the VC contributors and Mr. Sullivan (both relatively moderate and always thoughtful and fair-minded), I didn't see any conservative bloggers talking about it either.
Questions for Mr. Schraub: Why do you call the comments "dark rumors about" the law firms? Is there something wrong with publicising the names of law firms are representing the accused terrorists? Do you know that every one of these law firms is not getting paid by a terrorist organization? I have seen a lawyer testify in a U.S. Federal Court (about a totally different matter) claiming all he knew about his client, his client's instructions, and the payments received was a P.O. Box in Panama. I'm not saying the firms mentioned in the Guantanamo case are as bad, but do you see anything wrong with someone looking into it? Do you automatically trust these law firms? You see, the problem I have is that when there is proof of attorney misconduct including: lying in court, fraud upon a court, and failing to provide mandatory disclosure the reaction by all "regulatory" bodies (composed of other attorneys) is to thrust their heads into the sand like an ostrich and ignore it all. I see you want to be a law professor. Dude, the real world USA is filled with dishonest lawyers who operate above the law.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you want specific facts, ask me. I'll give you a link that will nock your socks off.
"I didn't see any conservative bloggers talking about it either."
ReplyDeleteShould we assume that any time liberal bloggers aren't talking about a particular liberal excess that they endorse it?
Or is your standard of suspicion only applicable to conservatives?
If you don't know about the methods of McCarthyism, look it up and read about how simple statements about things like "dark rumors" resulted in major consequences for those who were the subjects of those "rumors."
ReplyDeleteI believe the Attorney General has repudiated these comments. It is appalling that any administration official, and a lawyer to boot, would make these statements, but it's somewhat reassuring that the Administration's head lawyer spoke up fairly promptly (for a non-blogger...).
ReplyDeleteWhen I read what you write, I can hear you saying it. Amazing.
ReplyDeleteAnd sorry I have no insightful comments on what you said. I want to say that the "anonymous" comment posted last night was from me, but I would be lying.
anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou clearly aren't familiar with the full text of what Stimson said. Listing the firms who represent accused terrorists is fine -- in fact, if you check these firms websites, THEY ADVERTISE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE DOING THIS PRO BONO WORK. It ain't a secret, dumbass; it's something they use to sell big corporate law firm work to idealistic liberal law students. "Join Paul Weiss, and sure we represent Scooter Libby, but we ALSO help Gitmo detainees!"
Your attempt at worldly wise cynicism notwithstanding, you're extremely ignorant about what the world of big law firms is like. Most of the firms involved in Gitmo work aren't guys who get paid by a Panamanian PO Box -- as Stimson alluded, they're representing the Fortune 500, and the attorneys there frequently have worked for the DOJ themselves.
National Review tried to get some outrage going some time ago and had no luck -- I'm unsurprised that Stimson ended up retreating on his comments.
The "dark rumor" Stimon attempted to spread is that these attorneys *aren't* working pro bono (for the public good, i.e. free) but actually are getting paid by some nefarious source. Note that Stimson didn't have the courage to specify any firms that are getting paid by Al Qaida -- that would have made him liable for defamation -- but instead said vaguely, "Some will maintain that they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart, that they're doing it pro bono, and I suspect they are; others are receiving monies from who knows where, and I'd be curious to have them explain that."
If that type of factually-unsupported remark doesn't constitute a "dark rumor," what does?
I THINK STIMSON CUTTY IS SICK AND EXHAUSTED...SHOULD BE RELIEVED FROM HIS LIFE RESPONSIBILITIES AND ADMITTED TO SOME HEALTH INSTITUTION........THAT IS THE ONLY POLITE COMMENT I AHVE TO SAY ABOUT HIM.... GUANTANAMO BAY SCANDAL MUST BE CLEANED AND CLEARED.....SHUT THE FACSILITY DOWN....IT IS A DISGUISTING ISSUE FOR US AMERICANS....WHEN WE ARE 2 FACE TALKING ABOUT HUMANITARIAN ISSUES AROUND THE WORLD.....WE ARE TORTURING THE UNPROVEN GUILTY PEOPLE AND ALSO NOT TREATING ENEMY OF THE WAR ACCORDING TO THE U.N. LAWSAND GENEVA CONVENTIONS.....THINK...THINK HARD...WHO WE ARE RESPONSIBLE TO....PLEASE....THINK....ALAS...
ReplyDelete