Quote :

"Official Attacks Top Law Firms Over Detainees By NEIL A. LEWIS Published: January 13, 2007 WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 — The senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees suspected of terrorism said in an interview this week that he was dismayed that lawyers at many of the nation’s top firms were representing prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and that the firms’ corporate clients should consider ending their business ties. The comments by Charles D. Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, produced an instant torrent of anger from lawyers, legal ethics specialists and bar association officials, who said Friday that his comments were repellent and displayed an ignorance of the duties of lawyers to represent people in legal trouble. “This is prejudicial to the administration of justice,” said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University and an authority on legal ethics. “It’s possible that lawyers willing to undertake what has been long viewed as an admirable chore will decline to do so for fear of antagonizing important clients. “We have a senior government official suggesting that representing these people somehow compromises American interests, and he even names the firms, giving a target to corporate America.” Mr. Stimson made his remarks in an interview on Thursday with Federal News Radio, a local Washington-based station that is aimed at an audience of government employees. The same point appeared Friday on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, where Robert L. Pollock, a member of the newspaper’s editorial board, cited the list of law firms and quoted an unnamed “senior U.S. official” as saying, “Corporate C.E.O.’s seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists.” In his radio interview, Mr. Stimson said: “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 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.” The F.O.I.A. reference was to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by Monica Crowley, a conservative syndicated talk show host, asking for the names of all the lawyers and law firms representing Guantánamo detainees in federal court cases. Mr. Stimson, who is himself a lawyer, then went on to name more than a dozen of the firms listed on the 14-page report provided to Ms. Crowley, describing them as “the major law firms in this country.” He said, “I think, quite honestly, when corporate C.E.O.’s see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those C.E.O.’s 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.” Karen J. Mathis, a Denver lawyer who is president of the American Bar Association, said: “Lawyers represent people in criminal cases to fulfill a core American value: the treatment of all people equally before the law. To impugn those who are doing this critical work — and doing it on a volunteer basis — is deeply offensive to members of the legal profession, and we hope to all Americans.” In an interview on Friday, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said he had no problem with the current system of representation. “Good lawyers representing the detainees is the best way to ensure that justice is done in these cases,” he said. Neither the White House nor the Pentagon had any official comment, but officials sought to distance themselves from Mr. Stimson’s view. His comments “do not represent the views of the Defense Department or the thinking of its leadership,” a senior Pentagon official said. He would not allow his name to be used, seemingly to lessen the force of his rebuke. Mr. Stimson did not return a call on Friday seeking comment. The role of major law firms agreeing to take on the cases of Guantánamo prisoners challenging their detentions in federal courts has hardly been a secret and has been the subject of many news articles that have generally cast their efforts in a favorable light. Michael Ratner, who heads the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York-based human rights group that is coordinating the legal representation for the Guantánamo detainees, said about 500 lawyers from about 120 law firms had volunteered their services to represent Guantánamo prisoners. When asked in the radio interview who was paying for the legal representation, Mr. Stimson replied: “It’s not clear, is it? 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 moneys from who knows where, and I’d be curious to have them explain that.” Lawyers expressed outrage at that, asserting that they are not being paid and that Mr. Stimson had tried to suggest they were by innuendo. Of the approximately 500 lawyers coordinated by the Center for Constitutional Rights, no one is being paid, Mr. Ratner said. One Washington law firm, Shearman & Sterling, which has represented Kuwaiti detainees, has received money from the families of the prisoners, but Thomas Wilner, a lawyer there, said they had donated all of it to charities related to the September 2001 terrorist attacks. Mr. Ratner said that there were two other defense lawyers not under his group’s umbrella and that he did not know whether they were paid. Christopher Moore, a lawyer at the New York firm Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton who represented an Uzbeki detainee who has since been released, said: “We believe in the concept of justice and that every person is entitled to counsel. Any suggestion that our representation was anything other than a pro bono basis is untrue and unprofessional.” Mr. Moore said he had made four trips to Guantánamo and one to Albania at the firm’s expense, to see his client freed. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote to President Bush on Friday asking him to disavow Mr. Stimson’s remarks. Mr. Stimson, who was a Navy lawyer, graduated from George Mason University Law School. In a 2006 interview with the magazine of Kenyon College, his alma mater, Mr. Stimson said that he was learning “to choose my words carefully because I am a public figure on a very, very controversial topic.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/washington/13gitmo.html?hp&ex=1168750800&en=5fe52d89722035fe&ei=5094&partner=homepage

This is ridiculous. Innocent until proven guilty? Due Process? Fair trial? Right to an attorney?

Clearly these lawyers are with the terrorists

1/13/2007 1:58:29 PM

freedom and democracy for all!!

viva la bush!

1/13/2007 2:25:33 PM

so boone is boonedocks, im guessing?

These guys are all probably card-carrying communists anyway, since they're probably liberal freedom-hating lawyers in the ACLU.

[Edited on January 13, 2007 at 2:43 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2007 2:42:47 PM

I would love to hear GrumpyGOP's, Wlfpk4Life's, and Wolfpack2K's take on this, even though we all know what they are going to say.

[Edited on January 13, 2007 at 2:52 PM. Reason : ]

1/13/2007 2:50:03 PM

Duke suspended 30thAnnz and I for picbombing one of salisburyboy's alias' threads. 30th was unsuspended after 2 weeks. It's been like >2 months for me.

Way to forget you suspended someone, Duke.

1/13/2007 3:16:39 PM

he does that. i had to wait from may until they freed everyone to get out of jail for trolling nazibot.

thankfully i had shit to do so it wasnt that big of a deal.

1/13/2007 4:10:35 PM

free guth

1/13/2007 4:38:52 PM

sup fellers

i just got outta the pokey, myself.

1/13/2007 10:27:21 PM

Quote :

"I would love to hear GrumpyGOP's, Wlfpk4Life's, and Wolfpack2K's take on this, even though we all know what they are going to say. "

Really? I'm a criminal defese attorney mind you - what do you think I will say?

1/14/2007 1:29:18 AM

What do I think you'll say?

Probably "I'm an attorney, I'm an attorney, I went to law school, I'm an attorney, I'm an attorney."

1/14/2007 1:45:57 AM

we need mel gibson and his FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOM!

1/14/2007 7:48:15 AM

why should we expect that slime-ball lawyers have ethics anyway? you lie with dogs, you gonna get fleas. get used to it

1/15/2007 12:40:08 AM

Taking on pro bono cases to represent people that oftentimes haven't even been formally charged with a crime...

What slimeballs

1/15/2007 12:49:30 AM

when did enemy combatants from overseas become citizens?


I can reasonably assume that all of you bitching about apparent civil rights violations against prisoners of war take such an approach to all of the rights guaranteed by our constitution???


and no I didn't read all of that, I just skimmed it and lolled at the usual suspects who are suddenly up in arms about the rights of some enemy combatant

1/15/2007 12:49:46 AM

They aren't all enemy combatants.

Many of them were picked up by police in Pakistan/Kuwait/etc...

1/15/2007 12:54:13 AM

so that makes them a citizen here?

Quote :

"I can reasonably assume that all of you bitching about apparent civil rights violations against prisoners of war take such an approach to all of the rights guaranteed by our constitution???"

or does that only apply when it makes you feel good inside?

1/15/2007 12:57:14 AM

Hahah. Oh wait, I get it now.

You were going to turn this into a 2nd Amendment thing.

Way to miss the point entirely.

1/15/2007 1:06:00 AM

no, just answer the question


thats the point I've tried to make repeatedly in other threads and it's avoided altogether


if you care so much about rights, esp the rights of a non citizen enemy combatant that is being held as a prisoner of war, then surely you care about all the rights afforded to US citizens

am I right?

or do you pick and choose whats important to you?

just answer the question

1/15/2007 1:08:50 AM

Did you really feel the need to load the question that heavily?

1. They're not all enemy combatants.
2. None of them are being afforded the rights that POWs get (Geneva Accords)
3. None of them are being afforded the rights of our criminal justice system.

That's the whole point. They aren't being afforded any specific, set-in-stone rights. We can use our justice system, or the Geneva system. It's entirely up to them.

So to answer your question, it's important to me that people receive due process in an established legal system. There's no picking and choosing going on, except for the people on your side of the argument, who want to abandon due process and pick and choose which rights they want to afford to Guantanamo inmates.


[Edited on January 15, 2007 at 1:20 AM. Reason : .]

1/15/2007 1:19:19 AM

no, you haven't answered the question

and it's obvious that the rights of those people matter more to you than the rights of another actual US citizen

thats fine, be that way

but don't try and be like, OMG CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS when you don;t give two shits about rights unless it's some feel good liberal bullshit

and then all of you stand by idly while others rights are violated because it's those rights don't matter to your agenda

be whatever you want to be, but quit trying to pull some bullshit compassionate shit

1/15/2007 1:23:19 AM

So what rights am I ignoring?

Or rather, which rights are you assuming I'm ignoring?

1/15/2007 1:25:29 AM

why do you bitch and moan about this topic and scream about rights violations and when someones 2nd amendment rights are pissed on you have nothing to say

oh thats right right, you don't give a fuck about rights


you give a fuck about being the polar opposite of whatever the right chooses

1/15/2007 1:28:34 AM

I have a different interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (and you don't even know what my views on it are, but I'll just assume they're different). I still believe the 2nd Amendment should exist.

Meanwhile, you're wanting to throw the entire Constitution and Geneva Accords out the window for these guys.

Can you not see the difference here?

1/15/2007 1:31:05 AM

I'm sure you think it should exist, but probably amended so heavily that the only people with a weapon is the standing army


oh I do huh


when did I say that?

[Edited on January 15, 2007 at 1:33 AM. Reason : .]

1/15/2007 1:32:33 AM

I have no problem with rifles or handguns so long as they're registered and the owners take on liability for them. So you're just talking out of your ass.

It's clear that you agree with the administration's stance on the detainees. Which is to make up their own rules, and ignore the Constitution and Geneva Accords

1/15/2007 1:39:17 AM

why do you want weapons registered, so it's easy to stop by and be like, "Mr. Smith, says here you have 6 firearms in this house, models XXXXXX, please bring them to me, we have an order from the president to confiscate these"?



I don't know how to feel about people that aren;t even us citizens taken on a field of battle


but I;m sure you're gonna tell me how to feel


and it's till pretty obvious whats important to you

1/15/2007 1:50:23 AM

I want them registered so that the owners of the guns can be held liable for them. Your conspiracy theory is hilarious, though.


[Edited on January 15, 2007 at 2:06 AM. Reason : .]

1/15/2007 1:57:33 AM

conspiracy therory? hardly

history has proven that what I am saying is a conspiracy theory


you can look it up to try and prove me wrong

but what I refer to is grade school history and you've known about it all along


or do you think that the US is above violating someone or any particular groups civil rights?

i've seen your posts on here, i know you don't think the US government is above violating rights to get what they want


you can play dumb, but you know damn well I'm right

just because you choose to be a victim or a subject doesn't mean that I want to be, much less have to be one

1/15/2007 2:24:50 AM

You're making a slippery-slope argument.

Regardless, America is above nullifying gun rights. Some free societies have chosen to strictly regulate weapons, but they have neither the gun-owning history America has, nor the super-powerful pro-gun lobby we have. I can't think of a single free society that's banned firearms all-together to serve as a historical precident.

1/15/2007 2:49:23 AM

Who Fucking Cares?

1/15/2007 8:18:25 AM

if the US is throwing the Genneva Accord out the window then I say everyone has that right without consequences. Its all fair game.

1/15/2007 9:41:47 AM

pwrstrkdf250
you

dont


need

lines

between every

phrase

1/15/2007 9:54:24 AM

Quote :

"f the US is throwing the Genneva Accord out the window"

So, encouraging lawyers not to defend terrorists is covered in the Geneva Accord?

1/15/2007 1:38:08 PM

well, considering that the people we pick up don't give a shit about Geneva, happily violate it, and are hell-bent on destroying us and our way of life, I find it odd that people should care so much to protect their "rights"

It's all "DEATH TO AMERICA!!! ALLAHU AKBAR!!!" then they get captured and it's "I WANT A LAWYER!!!"

[Edited on January 15, 2007 at 2:21 PM. Reason : ]

1/15/2007 2:21:12 PM

^^That's why we're going to court arguing that we shouldn't be bound by the GA, and why we're trying to pressure lawyers out of Guantanamo. It's all a secret plot to follow the Accords to the letter.


^ So are you guys unable to read the phrase "they aren't all enemy combatants?" Do your brains block it out? Or is it just that inconvenient to your guilty until proven innocent (tough to do with no habeas corpus or lawyer!) mindset that you just choose to ignore it?


[Edited on January 15, 2007 at 2:26 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2007 2:22:56 PM

everyone knows that if you aren't american and don't support bush you are an enemy combatant. duh! so the GA shouldn't apply to you. Thats only in place for american soldiers when they get captured doing bush's dirty deeds. don't they teach you kids anything in school?

1/15/2007 2:28:10 PM

i hope that everyone who doesnt see the need for our adversarial process gets wrongfully imprisoned

1/15/2007 2:29:36 PM

Greg, you bitching about gun rights in every thread is getting really old. This thread has nothing to do with guns.


Also, Rights as guaranteed by the constitution are not reserved strictly for citizens. Foreign nationals have the same legal rights when it comes to the justice system as does anyone else.


According to a letter I received from Liddy Dole, only 40-80 of the detainees are expected to be charged with war cimes. So what about the other prisoners? Are they just at the day spa?

[Edited on January 15, 2007 at 2:33 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2007 2:30:40 PM

i haven't read this entire thread, but i've read about this issue in a few places and this pentagon official really is a disgrace. it's like he's forgotten about the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' bit in our legal system.

1/15/2007 2:35:33 PM

omg it looks like smacker's being selective about our rights, too.

1/15/2007 2:37:12 PM

Quote :

"^^That's why we're going to court arguing that we shouldn't be bound by the GA, and why we're trying to pressure lawyers out of Guantanamo. It's all a secret plot to follow the Accords to the letter. "

Then maybe you should have brought that up in a thread rather than making a new one that has absolutely nothing to do with the GA.

1/15/2007 3:29:41 PM

How does a thread discussing Guantanamo Bay have nothing to do with the Geneva Accords?

1/15/2007 3:56:52 PM

sounds like something bush would think. One has nothing to do with the other.

1/15/2007 3:59:21 PM

Quote :

"^ So are you guys unable to read the phrase "they aren't all enemy combatants?" Do your brains block it out? Or is it just that inconvenient to your guilty until proven innocent (tough to do with no habeas corpus or lawyer!) mindset that you just choose to ignore it?"

Actually, I think it has more to do with the FACT that these people are against our very mindset of innocent until proven guilty. They are all happy to scream about how horrible we are and how everything we do and think is wrong. But then they get captured and they start singing a different tune.

And you are foolish enough to feel sorry for them, when they would just as soon cut your fucking head off.

It was foolish to even bring these pricks to Gitmo. I mean, what the hell are we going to do with them if we find them guilty? Deport them? Waste more money on them by keeping them in jail? Execute them and create more liberal panty twisting? You can't do a fucking thing with them without the liberals crying crocodile tears. OOOOOOH, POOR TERRORIST WHO WANTS TO CUT MY HEAD OFF!!! HOW DARE WE NOT TREAT YOU LIKE A FOREIGN DIGNITARY!!! It's a terrible war (on terror, not iraq) that we as Americans can't win until we decide that we actually WANT to win it.

1/15/2007 4:14:09 PM

Quote :

"According to a letter I received from Liddy Dole, only 40-80 of the detainees are expected to be charged with war cimes. So what about the other prisoners? Are they just at the day spa?"

1/15/2007 4:20:34 PM

^^If they're all terrorist, why not show some evidence to shut people up?

By keeping them there without giving a solid reason, we're doing far more harm to America, because they real terrorist are just going to hate us more.

[Edited on January 15, 2007 at 4:21 PM. Reason : ]

1/15/2007 4:21:04 PM

^^^ Well at least you can see the phrase, but apparently you're unable to process its meaning.

1/15/2007 4:38:47 PM

Quote :

"How does a thread discussing Guantanamo Bay have nothing to do with the Geneva Accords?"

My fault, I thought this thread was about the Pentagon warning Guantanamo lawyers...which has nothing to do with the GA.

I guess I misread the title and first post.

1/15/2007 4:39:24 PM

Quote :

"Pentagon warning Guantanamo lawyers"

which has nothing to do with the rights of detainees.

NOTHING

1/15/2007 4:47:11 PM

Quote :

"If they're all terrorist, why not show some evidence to shut people up?"

because it doesn't matter, evidence or no evidence, in some respects. People don't recognize the nature of the "war" we are fighting, nor do they recognize that fighting terrorism is fundamentally different than fighting a war against an actual nation. People want to be comfortable at the end of the day, and this "war on terror" makes a lot of people uncomfortable because it has no easy answers, possibly even no palatable answers. People point to Geneva or they point to the Constitution, but those two entities don't really apply, not because I want to be a bastard, but rather because both of those entities assume some basic level of humanity and civility. Terrorism, by its very nature, lacks those two things.

Quote :

"By keeping them there without giving a solid reason, we're doing far more harm to America, because they real terrorist are just going to hate us more."

No, the terrorists will hate us NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. We can do no right as far as they are concerned. They can't possibly hate us any more because they already hate us with all of their being.

oh, and set em up -------->

[Edited on January 15, 2007 at 6:47 PM. Reason : ]

1/15/2007 6:41:24 PM