Law groups want Pentagon official fired

[dogday]

WASHINGTON, Jan 16 (Reuters) - A senior Pentagon official should be fired for suggesting a boycott of American law firms defending detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, four law organizations said in a letter to U.S. President George W. Bush on Tuesday.

Charles Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, said last week in a Washington radio interview he found it "shocking" that major U.S. law firms would agree to represent Guantanamo detainees pro bono.

Stimson predicted that those firms would suffer financially once their involvement in Guantanamo cases was known to their corporate clients. He then listed law firms involved in Guantanamo cases.

Stimson's remarks were aimed at "chilling the willingness" of lawyers to represent Guantanamo detainees and were contrary to the "bedrock principles" of the right to counsel and the presumption on innocence, read the letter signed by the American Association of Jurists, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, the National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N16247800.htm

[MountainLaurel]

1. Interestingly, Stimson apologized in print today

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011601383.html

So, do you think his superiors were breathing down his neck?

[grasswire]

2. the damage is done, though

The words can't be taken back.

Fire the sucker, sez I.

[dogday]

5. The public way he announced who was representing

the detainees alone, requires his job... I say fire the bum, throw him out....

[jelly]

7. The apology letter is weird considering his prior comments.

I don't see how it is possible for anyone as deeply committed to pro bono service as he claims he is in his apology letter to say the things he said about detainee representation. It would have been better had he written something like, "In my patriotic zeal, I momentarily forgot the foundational principle of our legal system that the system works best when both sides are represented by competent legal counsel."

Instead, he laments that his comments "left the impression" that he "question(s) the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo."

"I do not," he claims, and swears commitment to the aforementioned foundational principle and to pro bono service.

So you see, it's just a big misunderstanding, and it is we, those on the receiving end of his comments, that are to blame, for having apparently gotten the wrong "impression." Poor, blameless Stimson and his commitment to pro bono.

Mr. Stimson takes us for fools.

edited for grammar

[The Stranger]

3. Fire that trash AND yank his law license.

[grasswire]

6. the freepers had Bill Clinton disbarred

If we were as organized, we could do the same to this guy.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. What an ass. Here's an excellent open letter to him

from one of those awful terr'ist-defending lawyers:

"...Mr. Stimson, I don't defend "terrorists." I'm representing five guys who were held or are being held in Guantánamo without ever being charged with a crime, some of them for nearly five years. Two have been quietly sent home to Saudi Arabia without an explanation or an admission of error. The only justification the U.S. government has provided for keeping the other three is the moniker "enemy combatant," a term that has been made up solely for the purpose of denying them prisoner-of-war protection and civilian protection under the Geneva Conventions. It's a term that was attached to them in a tribunal proceeding so inherently bogus that even the tribunal president is compelled to state on the record, in hundreds of these proceedings, that a combatant status review tribunal "is NOT a court of law, but a non-judicial administrative hearing."

And, lest there be any doubt, Mr. Stimson, we are not receiving any money for this. My firm's work is pro bono. At the end of the year, the partners set aside a substantial portion of the firm's profits to pay for my trips to Guantánamo and my translation costs, just as they pay for my colleagues' fight for clean drinking water in the lower-income neighborhoods of D.C., as well as hundreds of other projects I would be happy to discuss with you directly.

I also get asked other questions about my pro bono work, Mr. Stimson. "How can you defend terrorists?" is only the third most common. The second most common question is, "Why do you do it?" In law school, I would feel outrage whenever I read about a case in which our courts had the opportunity to take a stand -- against slavery, against the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II -- and didn't. But I would also feel self-doubt. It's easy to feel righteous anger now. But, I wondered, would I have felt it then? Or, in the name of security, of easing the anxiety of the public, would I have been able to swallow these affronts to the freedoms I see as the cornerstone of our national identity? The people I'm defending were caught up in the adrenaline and paranoia of our nation's darkest hour. All we're asking for is a fair hearing. Why does this frighten you so?..."

More at http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/01/17/guantanamo/

Cully Stimson needs to be fired and then disbarred. But the incompetent fascist stooges of the Bush Administration are usually told they're "doin' a great job" and given a Medal of Freedom.

[malaise]

8. I'm glad this happened

I want Bushco to attempt to go after every professional group. Then the fight back will really start. IMPEACH!