‘Unveiled Threats’

Bush administration lawyers have suffered a variety of embarrassing legal setbacks in their handling of Guantanamo detainees, in large part because the president’s team has tortured them and denied them due process rights.

As Michael Froomkin noted, the administration is now poised to lose in court, so one of Bush’s lawyers has decided to take the low road. The very low road.

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.”

Ideally, it’s the kind of incident that should force Stimson’s resignation. It’s simply beyond the pale.

Stimson, unprompted, unethically, and dishonestly, accused a series of respected law firms of literally traitorous behavior. He ignored the fact that some of these detainees may be innocent, rejected the fact that our system guarantees that everyone is entitled to a defense, and implied, on the air, that these firms may be financed by terrorist funds.

The WaPo added:

[I]t’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.

For all our hopes that McCarthyism is a thing of the past, the Bush administration reminds us that we still aren’t rid of these disgusting tactics.

Post Script: Michael Froomkin adds, “[T]he first firm to cave on this issue is going to find it awfully hard to recruit elite law students, as they will have demonstrated a serious lack of moral fiber. If you won’t stand up for your most desperate clients, what kind of firm are you?”

hmmm, slandering the top law firms? these lawyers aren’t stupid, can you say law suit?

  • If this comes to pass, we should start a fund to advertise in college law journals exactly which firms did this right around prime recruiting time.

    Attention soon to be grad:

    Law firm X will totally sandbag you if their bottom line is threatened by nutbag prosecutors.

    Sincerely,
    The Good Guys

  • What makes Dan think that elite law students are interested in moral fiber? Most everybody in this fascist Bush government is a lawyer.

  • These law firms are doing their job. And it’s not against the law for anyone to seek legal defense. Until the grandson of “Hitler’s banker” (Prescott Bush, a war profiteer for the other side) trashes that part of the Constitution, too.

    As our employee, Mr. Stimson should turn to useful work, like tracking down today’s War Profiteers.

  • #3 should be Michael, I get those Froomkins confused. Are they related?

    .”White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told CNN that “‘We are not the ones being meddlesome and troublesome in Iraq

  • Bush administration lawyers have suffered a variety of embarrassing legal setbacks in their handling of Guantanamo detainees, in large part because the president’s team has tortured them and denied them due process rights.

    I would probably suffer embarrassing setbacks if my employer tortured me, too.

  • There is some good news…

    Today’s
    AP story about Jose Padilla
    on Yahoo right now includes that Padilla is a US Citizen and was held w/o charge for 3 years.

    I’d like to take credit for that because of the fight I had with the same reporter last month.

    Now about Bush’s pig lawyer…. I seem to recall reading Abby Hoffman say “today’s pig is tomorrow’s bacon.”

  • So this is the idiot that decided that the detainees need to wear blinders when they go to the dentist. Just another Bush prodigy.

  • Wow, you’d think all of these morons would start being nice to lawyers since they’re all going to need them in the next several years when they are called to justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

  • That’s a great idea, using a law firm’s clients to embarrass its other clients. In fact, I think it should be extended…

    …to a list of the firms that have been contacted and retained to represent the Bush Administration as *it* lawyers up. I wonder if those guys would be at all embarrassed, too.

  • Cully Stimson seems to be the kind of person that the Administration will nominate for a judgeship at some point.

    Can you say Judge Stimson?

  • Having worked at an elite law firm* until quite recently, I can say with confidence that the law firms’ reaction to this will be to point, laugh, and go back to what they were doing. There is simply no legal or ethical basis for suggesting that lawyers are acting inappropriately in taking on pro bono cases for detainees, and believe it or not, elite law firms are pretty good about knowing what the law and legal ethics require. The idea that the firms’ clients– i.e., the CEOs and General Counsels of large multinational corporations, a group that tends to be a bit more legally and culturally sophisticated than Mr. Stimson seems to believe– would object to the firms’ representation of these individuals is similarly ridiculous.

    Second, Mr. Stimson’s suggestion that any reputable law firm is being paid under the table for representing terrorist suspects is simply absurd. Top law firms pride themselves on a commitment to pro bono, and frequently take on criminal defense work on a pro bono basis. I did some pro bono work on behalf of an incarcerated individual myself, when I was an associate at my old firm. When you’re charging over $300/hour for a first-year associate’s time, and your partners are drawing seven-figure salaries, you really don’t need to ask Osama to slip you a few bucks under the table in order to represent the Guantanamo detainees.

    * I should note that I have no idea whether my former firm is representing any Guantanamo detainees. It may well be, but it is certainly a peer firm to the firms that Mr. Stimson refers to.

  • Good work, Haik #7

    Thanks for the explanation #13 Dillon.

    Thanks CB. I bet there were some kickass dinner table conversations when the Froomkin brothers were growing up.

    I think there should be some Stimpson (jail) cell research. #11 Oyg

  • The WaPo added:

    And it’s shocking — though perhaps not surprising — that this is the person the administration has chosen to oversee detainee policy at Guantanamo.

    Am I “seeing things”, or are WaPo and NYT beginning to tack slightly to the left (ok, to the centre )? It’s been my impression that, for the past few days — maybe as long as a week — they’ve been speaking out a bit more forthrightly than before.

  • good point libra @#16. i also thought i was imagining things, but it seems that even the evening news shows (except fox news maybe) also seem to be leaning toward being a little more balanced than they used to be. it even seemed that katie at cbs was almost attacking bush at times. maybe things are getting better……….

  • ***Can you say Judge Stimson?***
    ——————————————————Orange You Glad

    No—but I can say “disbarred.”

  • We’re at the point where Congressional Republicans are attacking the administration so WaPo and the NYT can’t be far behind.

  • Meanwhile, I’d like to see Congress investigate that Stimson asshole and get him to resign. Paging Chuck Shumer…paging John Conyers…

  • Let’s see. On the one side we have huge law firms, lots of interns sitting around. Access to Westlaw, Nexis, PACER etc, etc. On the other we have this slimy little shit heel who, being a member of the Bush Cabinet of Horrors, probably has something to hide.

    How long before embarassing details about this man start to surface?

  • I read the WaPost editorial and sent them a letter saying that he was a disgrace and should be censured and removed from his position. Further that the law firms pro bono work on behalf of the detainees was one of the few bright lights in a very dark period in our history.
    Could I suggest that you encourage your readers to send letters to the Post in support of the editorial? Can’t hurt and could help.

  • Comments are closed.