To wrap up what is probably the end of the controversy, Cully Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, has apologized. Sort of.
To quickly summarize, Stimson appeared on a radio show last week and targeted law firms that have helped represent detainees at Guantanamo Bay with McCarthyism-like criticism and veiled threats. His comments were breathtaking — unprompted, Stimson, unethically and dishonestly accused a series of respected law firms of literally traitorous behavior.
In light of the ensuing controversy, Stimson backed away from his comments today with a dubious apology. (via TAiO)
A Pentagon official who criticized large U.S. law firms for representing terrorism suspects at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has apologized for his comments, saying that his discussion on a local radio program does not reflect his “core beliefs.”
In a letter to the editor that appears today on The Post’s editorial page, Stimson said he believes that both sides of a legal case should have “competent legal counsel.” Stimson is a former prosecutor and defense lawyer.
“Regrettably, my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo,” Stimson wrote. “I do not.”
Generally, I believe sincere apologies should be accepted, but the closer one looks at Stimson’s letter, the more I suspect this is about political damage control, not genuine regret.
Lean Left’s analysis struck me as spot-on.
This evasiveness becomes frank disingenuousness when he says he “left the impression that I question the integrity” of the lawyers he threatened. As with all fake apologies, this pushes the blame onto the listener, away from the speaker: some people “got the impression”, when he said it was “shocking” to learn the names of lawyers representing extra-legal prisoners, and claimed they were “are receiving monies from who knows where” to represent those clients (almost all are working pro bono), that he meant something bad by that. Obviously it’s not his fault they got that impression; he’s not responsible for the meanings of the words he speaks. […]
On first glance, I thought the letter was a full and frank admission and apology; instead it is carefully limited and fails to even mention the most egregious aspect of his error. He seems to regard his mistake as one of professional discourtesy – he never acknowledges or even seems aware that it was an attack on the law, as the foundation of civilization, itself. Beside this lack, his weasel-worded non-apology for others’ “impressions” is merely ordinary bad faith. But Stimson’s real fault is his contempt for justice and due process – a contempt that pervades the Bush administration and is nowhere addressed in an apology that only, and even then inadequately, acknowledges the surface irrelevancies of his wording and not the moral rot of his beliefs and values.
As apologies go, Stimson’s leaves much to be desired.