Deputy SecDef Lashes out at Lawyers Defending Gitmo Prisoners

[SteveGrenard]

The war on Islamic terrorism it seems is that it is turning the U.S. into them without us even realizing it.....here is more evidence of that:

Quote:

" 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."

"....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.'"

Stimson hinted at nefarious connections, rather than a desire to do pro bono work, as the firms' motives:

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."

The WaPo editorial rightfully calls Stimson's comments "crude" and "offensive." The point is this:

"But it's offensive -- shocking, to use his word -- that Mr. Stimson, a lawyer, would argue that law firms are doing anything other than upholding the highest ethical traditions of the bar by taking on the most unpopular of defendants. It's shocking that he would seemingly encourage the firms' corporate clients to pressure them to drop this work. And it's shocking -- though perhaps not surprising -- that this is the person the administration has chosen to oversee detainee policy at Guantanamo."

The New York Times Saturday has this editorial castigating Stimson. It begins:

"No one who has followed President Bush's policies on detainees should be surprised when a member of his team scorns American notions of justice. But even by that low standard, the administration's new attack on lawyers who dare to give those prisoners the meager representation permitted them is contemptible."

Discussing the same Stimson Federal News Radio interview, the New York Times opines,

"The interview was a greatest-hits remix of Bush administration nonsense about Guantánamo, including Mr. Stimson's message to corporate executives that lawyers "are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line in 2001." The only terrorists at Guantánamo associated with 9/11 were transferred there recently after being held for years in secret C.I.A. prisons where no lawyer could enter."

"Not only do we find Mr. Stimson's threats appalling, we differ with him about 9/11. The tragedy and crime of that day was that thousands of innocents were slaughtered -- not that it hurt some companies' profit margins. "

We all need to keep an eye on Cully Stimson.

Much more at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeraly...s_b_38575.html

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...an_you_go.html

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchas...-firms-for.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/op...=1&oref=slogin

And many more …..

Quote:

NEW YORK While much attention is now directed at a senior Pentagon official for suggesting that top American lawyers should not be defending terrorists, this same sentiment appeared on Friday on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1003532391



.

And so much for the Wall Street Journal.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchas...-firms-for.php

Huffington is worth citing? OK, that's a new concept. The University of Pittsburgh, on the other hand, is a credible source. And this gent at DoD has me in full "WTF" mode.

But maybe he is on to something, in spite of himself.

We need to publish the names of all attorneys and law firms who represent drug dealers, as well as all CPA's who do, and all investment banks who handle their money.

I mean, we are in a war on drugs, let's not do this by half measures. Let the world decide, like South African divestiture, if they'll put their money in banks, or if they'll hire lawyers, who give the fig leaf to drug lords.

But, as I see it, this Sec Def assistant has just zipped down his pants, extracted his lizard, and danced on it with golf spikes -- the old metal kind.

Who is behind this sound byte? I say he's the delivery man, and I'll bet on Kagan as the author of this idea.

DR

[SteveGrenard]

Huffington and 79 (and counting) sources that preceded or came after her commentary.

While banks, accountants and lawyers who move money around are in it for the money this guy seems to be opposed to big law firms doing pro bono work in support of the legal right of prisoners to have legal representation and defense. He is vaguely suspicious of their financial motives without having the proof necessary to accuse of them of any crime. He should come out with it or get off the pot.

We should and already do go after the money launderers. The question here is whether we intern most of these people indefinitely without due process.

These big name law firms are a gigantic headache for him so his motives are patently obvious.

[TsarBomba]

The problem that I see is that this a government official making the comment, but customers (or 'clients' if you prefer that term) of a law firm might very well be interested in the type of pro bono work that the firm does. After all, the paying clients are, to some degree, subsidising the pro bono work that the law firm carries out. Without the exhorbidant hourly fees paid by corporate clients, these "elite" law firms would have no ability to represent suspected terrorists for free. If I was paying a law firm for legal services and I learned that they were turning around and using the profits from that work profits to represent clients or causes that I found odious (for instance, neo-Nazis, Islamic terrorists, Bob Jones University, creationists, faith healers, Sylvia Brown, etc etc) I would certainly think twice about using that law firm on a continuing basis.

There is nothing wrong with a consumer making a decision not to patronize a business because the business makes donations to causes the consumer disagrees with. Pro bono work is, in effect, a donation. I remember my father railing against Coors beer when I was a kid because Coors donated to conservative causes that he did not like. He chose not to buy Coors products, as was his right. There are web sites devoted to informing consumers about the charitable and political activities of corporations, so they can make an informed decision about where they want to spend their money. I don't see how chosing a law firm should be any different.

[joe1347]

Picking a fight with a bunch of lawyers doesn't seem like the brightest idea since they can actually fight back. Round 2 in the match will be next week. Stay tuned.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by richorman

There is nothing wrong with a consumer making a decision not to patronize a business because the business makes donations to causes the consumer disagrees with. Pro bono work is, in effect, a donation. I remember my father railing against Coors beer when I was a kid because Coors donated to conservative causes that he did not like. He chose not to buy Coors products, as was his right. There are web sites devoted to informing consumers about the charitable and political activities of corporations, so they can make an informed decision about where they want to spend their money. I don't see how chosing a law firm should be any different.

And I still won't drink Russian Vodka. KAL flight 007.

DR

[SteveGrenard]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

And I still won't drink Russian Vodka. KAL flight 007.

DR

Reducing the situation to a debate on consumer choice may be an amusing evasion but it doesn’t make the larger issue of the Gitmo situation (which is practices there are a violation of the U.S. Constitution) go away. Equating your choice of vodka with intimidating lawyers upholding our Constitution somehow doesn’t cut it unless you have lost all respect for that document.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16564518/


The Pentagon is disavowing the remarks made by their own Ass't. Dep. Secretary of Defense:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS....detainees.ap/

Quote:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070129/hafetz

In fact, in five years, the Administration's detention policy and related practices like "extraordinary rendition" and outsourced torture have done more to reverse 200 years of democracy than any other government act in US history.

The solution, however, is not simply to close Guantánamo, as some have proposed, but to reflect on how far off constitutional course our practices--and the warped policies on which they are based--have veered, and to establish a rights-respecting national security policy for the future.

Once we have reduced ourselves to treating prisoners in the manner Gitmo inmates are, we leave ourselves open to retaliatory and similar treatment of our own citizens arrested and detained overseas. Make sure you leave your battery charger and any other "suspicious" electronic gadgets at home if you travel:

Quote:

Anas’s father Jamil is one of eight British residents languishing among the 400 inmates at the American base at Guantanamo Bay, which opened five years ago. Anas had written to the Prime Minister earlier. Campaigners have been demanding that the Foreign Office help free Jamil, who has five children, all of whom hold British passports.

Anas had first written to Blair when he was six. He did not get any reply. He wrote again to ask why the government was not helping his father return home. This second letter elicited a note from the Foreign Office stating that because Banna was not a British citizen — his wife and children are — nothing could be done for him.

Banna was taken to Guantanamo Bay four years ago after being seized in Gambia. He was accused of having a suspicious device in his luggage. It turned out to be a battery charger. No charges have been made. He suffers from severe diabetes, but his lawyers say he has not been offered medication and has been denied the food he needs. His eyesight is failing.



http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/1...3,00050003.htm

[PogoPedant]

I have a sneaking suspicion that the hidden issue in this thread is a failure of the free market.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

And I still won't drink Russian Vodka. KAL flight 007.

[derail]
There's a strong case to be made that the Soviets really didn't know it was a civilian aircraft.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

[derail]
There's a strong case to be made that the Soviets really didn't know it was a civilian aircraft.

My ribs are aching. Thanks.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Nice attempt to put words in my mouth, Steve. I didn't equate that, I pointed to an example of using an economic choice, voting with one's dollars, as a modest protest or action one can take by one's self. Similar to the divestiture of stocks in South African companies a couple of decades ago.

And if you had bothered to read, rather than assume, you'd have noted my dismay at this DoD official's position.

DR

Quote:

The Pentagon is disavowing the remarks made by their own Ass't. Dep. Secretary of Defense:

Gee, there's a surprise.

Quote:

Once we have reduced ourselves to treating prisoners in the manner Gitmo inmates are, we

Who is this we, paleface? Have you spent time at Gitmo?

DR

[SteveGrenard]

"WE" is the United State of America. If we agree with the way things are run at gitmo, then "we" have the problem outlined. If you are not an American, please accept my apologies for including you in this. I am not up on everyone's nationality so I don't blame you for being offended to be included. Sorry.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

My ribs are aching. Thanks.

DR

Well, I did some reading on it last week, in fact. I realize Wikipedia isn't a reliable authority on everything, but this does raise some points that could be researched.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAL_007

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Well, I did some reading on it last week, in fact. I realize Wikipedia isn't a reliable authority on everything, but this does raise some points that could be researched.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAL_007

Monkey, I'll find the title of the book on the 1940's-1960's era reconnaisance war, the silent war that culminated in Gary Powers being shot down (or so some say). The author of that tome has KAL 007 pretty well figured out.

If you want to claim "didn't care if it was civilian or not" you might be closer to what serious scholarship has to say on the matter.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

"WE" is the United State of America. If we agree with the way things are run at gitmo, then "we" have the problem outlined. If you are not an American, please accept my apologies for including you in this. I am not up on everyone's nationality so I don't blame you for being offended to be included. Sorry.

I'm not only an American, but I don't care for your insulting jab at my support and defense of the Constitution in your earlier post.

DR

[SteveGrenard]

Quote:

Who is this we, paleface? Have you spent time at Gitmo?

And I am offended by the way you refer to me. In addition it is not necessary to "spend" time at Gitmo (are you suggesting I was a prisoner there or part of that travesty in any way?).....to accept the abuse reports emanating from there that come from reliable sources outside the administration or the DOD.

And I still don't see the relationship between the Russians shooting down an airliner, your subsequent choice of vodka and the problem at Gitmo.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Monkey, I'll find the title of the book on the 1940's-1960's era reconnaisance war, the silent war that culminated in Gary Powers being shot down (or so some say). The author of that tome has KAL 007 pretty well figured out.

If you want to claim "didn't care if it was civilian or not" you might be closer to what serious scholarship has to say on the matter.

DR

I do hope "serious scholarship" encompasses more than one book by one author.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

And I am offended by the way you refer to me. In addition it is not necessary to "spend" time at Gitmo (are you suggesting I was a prisoner there or part of that travesty in any way?).....to accept the abuse reports emanating from there that come from reliable sources outside the administration or the DOD.

And I still don't see the relationship between the Russians shooting down an airliner, your subsequent choice of vodka and the problem at Gitmo.

No, as in, did you serve at Gitmo, as part of the force there.

As to the rest of your deliberate game of "I am obtuse, "file 13.

DR

[TsarBomba]

Quote:

Well, I did some reading on it last week, in fact. I realize Wikipedia isn't a reliable authority on everything, but this does raise some points that could be researched.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAL_007

Here's a little chestnut from that Wikipdeia article:


"A few theorists believe KAL 007 did not crash, claiming that a single engine loss would not knock a 747 out of the air, and that the reported twelve-minute period was suspiciously long between the missile strike and ocean impact"

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by richorman

Here's a little chestnut from that Wikipdeia article:


"A few theorists believe KAL 007 did not crash, claiming that a single engine loss would not knock a 747 out of the air, and that the reported twelve-minute period was suspiciously long between the missile strike and ocean impact"

Yeah, thanks to KAL 007's concrete core with three inch rebar centers . . . and the squibs coming out of the windows in the passenger cabin.

DR

[JamesDillon]

There's a good discussion of this at The Volokh Conspiracy, an excellent blog run by a number of law professors. See http://www.volokh.com/posts/1168720349.shtml. I've posted some of my thoughts in the comments section there.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

[derail]
There's a strong case to be made that the Soviets really didn't know it was a civilian aircraft.

But it was the russians fault that US inteligence had a very similar plane in the area spying on them. If they where not against the godly american country.

Or mabey he also hates the navy to shooting down a civilian airliner just as much as the russians and so will not buy american beer.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Monkey, I'll find the title of the book on the 1940's-1960's era reconnaisance war, the silent war that culminated in Gary Powers being shot down (or so some say). The author of that tome has KAL 007 pretty well figured out.

If you want to claim "didn't care if it was civilian or not" you might be closer to what serious scholarship has to say on the matter.

DR

The reason powers was shot down is that everyone was too stupid to realize that flying a reconasense flight on a national holiday when their comerical traffic was not in the air was not a good idea.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

But it was the russians fault that US inteligence had a very similar plane in the area spying on them. If they where not against the godly american country.

Or mabey he also hates the navy to shooting down a civilian airliner just as much as the russians and so will not buy american beer.

Rogers/Vincennes: No VID. Like the Russians, however, I don't think Captain Rogers cared who was in the plane. Personal opinion.

Russians: Yes VID. All damned day to establish and confirm visually. No uncertainty. No two incidents are alike, the devil is in the details, PT, and "Looks like it" is the argument of ignorance -- your standard it seems on this matter.

Joining up on an aircraft with a fighter to take a good close look is and was a standard way to tell just what it is, what antennae is does or does not have, etc. The game of US-Soviet tag, by 1983, was old, well worn, and conducted under a well agreed set of rules, to include ICAO visual signalling. (There was also an entire protocol of agreements known as INCSEA, which covered how we'd handle chest thumping on the high seas.)

The Russians didn't care that it was KAL 007. Trying to blame this on Americans is the kind of intellectual dishonesty I have come to expect from you on matters where you have no expertise.

You need to go and have tea with ChristopherA. He's your new soul mate.
ETA:

Oh, and a clue for the others who choose to accept the excuse of "we thought an RC-135 was a 747" idiocy. Sure, to a complete novice and babe in the woods, they look alike.

To a pilot, they don't.

If they had engaged with a SAM, as they Russians had done with Gary Powers, the "we didn't know" would have made sense: radar could not have told the difference. The human eye can, very easily. But the Russian error was spun as "the US fault" even though the Russians pulled the trigger. That is like blaming a bystander for a drive by shooting.

Quote:

Moscow did not even acknowledge the incident until September 6, and it delayed an official explanation for three more days. On 9 September, Marshal Ogarkov held a live press conference that ran for two hours.76 The five-star spin doctor's goal was to prove that--269 innocent victims notwithstanding--the Soviet Union had acted rationally. Ogarkov asserted that the regional air defense unit had identified the aircraft as a US intelligence platform, an RC-135 of the type that routinely performed intelligence operations along a similar fight path. In any event, regardless of whether it was an RC-135 or a 747, he argued, the plane was unquestionably on a US or joint US-Japanese intelligence mission, and the local air defense commander had made the correct decision. The real blame for the tragedy, he insisted, lay with the United States, not the USSR.77

Here is an RC-135. Scroll down about 3/4 of the way for a bunch of pictures.
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/rivet_joint.htm
Here is a 747
http://perso.orange.fr/passion-aviat...47-400C_04.jpg

Not even close, the differences are bloody obvious. The Russian pilots ran an intercept, joined up, and were close enough for a VID. The features differentiating the two are bloody obvious, to inlcude no hump back on the RC-135, no extended nose on the 747, and more.

VID = visual ID of a target.

The Russians got the VID, and shot anyway. It was murder, or, if you want to take "the pilot was a freaking moron and the Air C2 folks didn't care," it was manslaughter. The event was a demonstration of crap Air C2, crap RoE, crap comms procedures, crap weapons discipline, and crap public response.

Or, a deliberate shoot down to send a message. Between 1945 and 1970, about 30 American reconnaisance flights had been shot down by the Russians.

Given the very disciplined and tight Air Command and Control (C2) the Soviet Air Force generally exercised over its interceptors, this shoot down was a profound anomaly, and was more likely a "send a message" shoot down as any other explanation. It took deliberate disregard of a few simple facts to pretend that the aircraft was not a commercial air liner.

The fact that the pilots of KAL 007 were not exactly up on their navigation didn't help matters.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Rogers/Vincennes: No VID. Like the Russians, however, I don't think Captain Rogers cared who was in the plane. Personal opinion.

Russians: Yes VID. All damned day to establish and confirm visually. No uncertainty. No two incidents are alike, the devil is in the details, PT, and "Looks like it" is the argument of ignorance -- your standard it seems on this matter.

Joining up on an aircraft with a fighter to take a good close look is and was a standard way to tell just what it is, what antennae is does or does not have, etc. The game of US-Soviet tag, by 1983, was old, well worn, and conducted under a well agreed set of rules, to include ICAO visual signalling. (There was also an entire protocol of agreements known as INCSEA, which covered how we'd handle chest thumping on the high seas.)

And that protocal was followed by the Navy when they shot down the Iranian one?

Quote:

The Russians didn't care that it was KAL 007. Trying to blame this on Americans is the kind of intellectual dishonesty I have come to expect from you on matters where you have no expertise.

Got it blaming all russians for the act of a few is fundamentaly different

And looking to see if it was a reasonable action based on information had by the individuals involved is now trying to blame it on the americans? The actions of a great many individuals and groups went into that, where is your evidence that the individual where carying out policy?

And for a real choice, natural gas and the energy market would be a much better thing to avoid if you want to hurt the russian ecconomy, rather than vodka. THey are one of the worlds largest energy exporters after all.

Quote:

Oh, and a clue for the others who choose to accept the excuse of "we thought an RC-135 was a 747" idiocy. Sure, to a complete novice and babe in the woods, they look alike.

To a pilot, they don't.

So, you have russian combat flight training to know that they have the training needed to identify the makes on those airplanes successfully now?

You are speaking with knowledge and training that all russian pilots can readily identify those two aircraft right?

Quote:

If they had engaged with a SAM, as they Russians had done with Gary Powers, the "we didn't know" would have made sense: radar could not have told the difference. The human eye can, very easily. But the Russian error was spun as "the US fault" even though the Russians pulled the trigger. That is like blaming a bystander for a drive by shooting.

So every incident has only one person at fault? Good to know that compounding mistakes don't happen in the military.

Quote:

Not even close, the differences are bloody obvious. The Russian pilots ran an intercept, joined up, and were close enough for a VID. The features differentiating the two are bloody obvious, to inlcude no hump back on the RC-135, no extended nose on the 747, and more.

VID = visual ID of a target.

The Russians got the VID, and shot anyway. It was murder, or, if you want to take "the pilot was a freaking moron and the Air C2 folks didn't care," it was manslaughter. The event was a demonstration of crap Air C2, crap RoE, crap comms procedures, crap weapons discipline, and crap public response.

Or, a deliberate shoot down to send a message. Between 1945 and 1970, about 30 American reconnaisance flights had been shot down by the Russians.

Given the very disciplined and tight Air Command and Control (C2) the Soviet Air Force generally exercised over its interceptors, this shoot down was a profound anomaly, and was more likely a "send a message" shoot down as any other explanation. It took deliberate disregard of a few simple facts to pretend that the aircraft was not a commercial air liner.

The fact that the pilots of KAL 007 were not exactly up on their navigation didn't help matters.

DR

So the the russians are much more disiplined than the US navy then.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So the the russians are much more disiplined than the US navy then.

No, fool, they had a VID. Ignorance isn't pretty, PT, the VID is the critical difference in the two cases, but you choose to ignore that. Why? You have no clue.

Now, go play with the nice guys in the tin foil hats, you have sunk to their level or wit.

DR