Pentagon official suggests blacklisting lawyers representing detainees

Status
Not open for further replies.

spartacus2002

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
1,578
Location
St. Pete, FL
Yet another view into the topsy-turvy world where accused terrorists shouldn't have rights because, well, they are terrorists, and where Gitmo is "transparent" even though the press cannot talk to the inmates.

People would reach for their shotguns if their mothers or sons were accused in a "guilty until proven innocent, you cannot see the evidence against them" legal system over DUI or other crimes, yet it's OK for these accused criminals to get Kangaroo Court.

And now comes a Pentagon official saying it's basically evil and anti-American for any lawyers to offer to defend these guys.... Wait till President Hillary and Attorney General Schumer try this against gun owners who refuse to abide by the new confiscation laws (hypothetical).



http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/13/pentagon.detainees.ap/index.html



WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon on Saturday disavowed a senior official's remarks suggesting companies boycott law firms that represent detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Charles "Cully" Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, said in a radio interview last week that companies might want to consider taking their business to firms that do not represent suspected terrorists.

Stimson's remarks were viewed by legal experts and advocacy groups as an attempt to intimidate law firms that provide legal help to all people, even unpopular defendants.

A Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Brian Maka, said Stimson was not speaking for the Bush administration.

Stimson's comments "do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the thinking of its leadership," Maka told The Associated Press on Saturday.

Stimson's "shameful and irresponsible" remarks deserve condemnation, said Neal Sonnett, a Miami lawyer and president of the American Judicature Society, a nonpartisan group of judges, lawyers and others.

Sonnett said in a statement that Stimson had made a "blatant attempt to intimidate lawyers and their firms who are rendering important public service in upholding the rule of law and our democratic ideals."

Stimson on Thursday told Federal News Radio, a local commercial station that covers the government, that he found it "shocking" that lawyers at many of the nation's top law firms represent detainees.

Stimson listed the names of more than a dozen major firms he suggested should be boycotted.

"And 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," Stimson said.

Asked who might be paying the law firms to represent Guantanamo detainees, Stimson hinted at wrongdoing.

"It's not clear, is it? Some will maintain that they're doing it out of the goodness of their heart -- that they're doing it pro bono, and I suspect they are," he said. "Others are receiving monies from who knows where and I'd be curious to have them explain that."

Stimson also described Guantanamo as "certainly, probably the most transparent and open location in the world" because of visits from more than 2,000 journalists since it opened five years ago. However, journalists are not allowed to talk to detainees on those visits, their photos are censored and their access to the base has at times been shut off entirely.

He discounted international outrage over the detention center as "small little protests around the world" that were "drummed up by Amnesty International" and inflated in importance by liberal news media outlets.

FBI agents have documented more than two dozen incidents of possible mistreatment at Guantanamo. In one, a detainee's head was wrapped in duct tape because he chanted the Quran; in a second, a detainee pulled out his hair after hours in a sweltering room.

In a December court ruling, a federal judge in Washington decried the plight of "some of the unfortunate petitioners who have been detained for many years in the terrible conditions at Guantanamo Bay."

The judge criticized a system in which dozens have been held without charges and cut off from the world for lack of English or knowledge about the law, leaving them no choice but to turn to a fellow prisoner with outside connections for legal help.

Since the detention center opened, the U.S. military has transferred or released about 380 detainees. Some 395 remain in the prison.
 
I guess the terrorists are guilty without a trial? This is just shameful. I thought everyone in the country was entitled to a lawyer.

The lawyers who represent these accused terrorists are in essence embodying what liberty and freedom is about. I seem to remember this line being in the Pledge of allegiance...

with liberty and justice for all.

I guess it dont apply to anyone accused of terrorism or treason.
 
spartacus2002 said:
People would reach for their shotguns if their mothers or sons were accused in a "guilty until proven innocent, you cannot see the evidence against them" legal system over DUI or other crimes, yet it's OK for these accused criminals to get Kangaroo Court.

No they wouldn't. At the most they'd whine about it on TV and hold a protest somewhere and cry about how come the next elections things are really going to change.
 
Of course you can have a military kangaroo court. But you won't have the evidence against you. You don't have to be told the charges. You don't even have to be there. You won't have a lawyer. You won't have the right to appeal.

And before the execution we'll all sit down for a rousing chorus of the Horst Wessel Song.
 
The Pentagon on Saturday disavowed a senior official's remarks.

Let's not let the first sentence of the story get in the way of our regularly scheduled "death of the Republic and all liberties associated with it" rant.
 
Let's not let the first sentence of the story get in the way of our regularly scheduled "death of the Republic and all liberties associated with it" rant.

Understood. But, you cannot deny that this was a statement by "the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs" who is setting the tone for his department.
 
No they wouldn't. At the most they'd whine about it on TV and hold a protest somewhere and cry about how come the next elections things are really going to change.

LOL, that would imply actually going outside your home --much easier to stay
inside, tap on a keyboard, and whine in the virtual world.
 
Thin Black Line said:
LOL, that would imply actually going outside your home --much easier to stay
inside, tap on a keyboard, and whine in the virtual world.

That's true. I'm sure we'd see plenty of whining about it on THR with the usual suspects and their "if you don't do anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about" drivel.
 
That Pentagon official is pure scum and is certainly not an American, even though he lives and works here. Real Americans believe that ALL people have the same inalienable rights, just as our founding documents spell out. So a foreigner who's a suspected terrorist should be entitled to the same legal benefits and protections as any American accused of any crime.

As a side note, I once saw a video clip of Gitmo in which an Orwellian banner was displayed on the outer wall of the prison camp: "Honor Bound to Defend Freedom." The hypocrisy made my stomach turn. Whose freedom is being defended by keeping prisoners without charges and in secrecy? Which tyrannical laws are being overturned (or prevented from passing) that way? Osama may have killed a lot of Americans (about as many as die from cancer each day, yet cancer gets how much funding compared with "defense"?), but he is NOT a threat to our freedom because he doesn't pass or enforce any laws in the US. Only the US government is a threat to our freedom.

Also, if the US government cares about freedom, then why does communist China have most-favored-nation trading status? Why did the CIA put the murderous dictator Pinochet into power? Any talk of "freedom" from almost anyone in the US government is pure BS propaganda, and anyone who believes it is a simpleton.
 
"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me."
Pastor Martin Niemöller
 
Mike you are telling it like it is. Plus there are ten amendments that compose the Bill of Rights not just the Second we cant pick and choose.
 
I thought everyone in the country was entitled to a lawyer.
Which country was that?

I think they should just keep these guys in Afghanistan or Iraq and deal with them there. However, POW's and insurgents are not the same as criminals in the US. They should be treated by some sort of code, but not the same one. The military ain't the police. I can't remember reading about a past garrison operation that wasn't messy (historically at least).

Blacklisting lawyers is going a bit far and I am glad the Pentagon issued the retraction. If the law/rules say they can have lawyers, well okay, let them get lawyers.
 
Come on, people. Think.

Someone policed up off the battlefield in another country deserve nothing. They are prisoners of war and if there are legitimate rules of warfare, they are subject to those rules.

Pick someone up in the USofA for terror acts, completely different issue.
 
Everyone in THIS country, yes. The guys at Gitmo aren't US citizens and they aren't on US soil. Why do you think they put them & the detention facility on Cuban soil in the first place?

Second, if they are EPWs they don't need lawyers. POWs are held until the war is over, or until they are exchanged in a prisoner exchange or some other deal between the combattants. War ain't over, so they stay put.

If a POW is suspected of war crimes he is given a hearing before a military tribunal IAW the Geneva convention. If found to be an illegal combattant he is courtmartialed.

All the rest of the stuff going on with those guys, Supreme Court hearings and lawyers and the rest is bulldroppings.

Thousands of Germans and italians were held in the US during WWII. Did they get lawyers? Did our guys shot down over Germany, Tokyo or Hanoi get lawyers?

Treat them like POWs IAW the relevant conventions. If we suspect them of crimes give them hearings, again IAW the relevant conventions. What's so hard about all this?

I guess the terrorists are guilty without a trial? This is just shameful. I thought everyone in the country was entitled to a lawyer.
 
Someone policed up off the battlefield in another country deserve nothing. They are prisoners of war and if there are legitimate rules of warfare, they are subject to those rules.

Thousands of Germans and italians were held in the US during WWII. Did they get lawyers? Did our guys shot down over Germany, Tokyo or Hanoi get lawyers?

Treat them like POWs IAW the relevant conventions. If we suspect them of crimes give them hearings, again IAW the relevant conventions. What's so hard about all this?

Well if the .gov would. They won't classify them as POWs. This is why they need lawyers.
 
Someone policed up off the battlefield in another country deserve nothing. They are prisoners of war and if there are legitimate rules of warfare, they are subject to those rules.

They are only POWs if they are legitimate soldiers. There are rules about what makes one a legitimate soldier. They almost never qualify under even the most liberal interpretation of those rules.

There is no country in the world that treats similar detainees any differently.

Even if they were subject to the same rules as POWs, they would not be entitled to legal representation.
 
Humane treatment of anyone we have in detention anywhere in the world
should always be at the top of the list --after all, WE are suppose to be
the good guys and the "beacon of light" and leader of the free world.
 
There should just declare them POWs. POWs are supposed to get to go home at the end of a war. Since the War on Terror will never end, then we can hold the indefinitely.
 
Humane treatment of anyone we have in detention anywhere in the world
should always be at the top of the list --after all, WE are suppose to be
the good guys and the "beacon of light" and leader of the free world.
I can agree to humane treatment. No problem. I think we are doing that and more. Humane treatment itself doesn't involve lawyers though.
 
Come on, people. Think.

Someone policed up off the battlefield in another country deserve nothing. They are prisoners of war and if there are legitimate rules of warfare, they are subject to those rules.

Pick someone up in the USofA for terror acts, completely different issue.

Haha tell that to Jose Padilla, an american citizen arrested on american soil, deemed a enemy combatant by President Bush, and imprisoned for a few years without legal representation, or being charged with any crime.

Also they aren't prisoners of war. Prisoners of war have more rights than those people at gitmo, who are enemy combatants, an arbitrary definition made up by the executive branch, not congress.
 
How can we possibly dictate rules to somthing as caotic as war?


How can we dictate rules, abide by rules made by ourselves and our enemies and still win?

It's war, the "rules" are pretty simple.

We go to countries hurt their people and break their stuff in the name of _______ or vis versa.

Humans have been doing it for centuries. We didnt start losing every conflict we participated in until we (A) started playing by rules (B) Let the media in to play too.

I agree with Tanksoldier

WA
 
1) Almost none of them was "picked up off a battlefield". Most of the poor bastards in Gitmo were sold to us at $10,000 a pop. Even with the Stalinesque standards of the kangaroo courts Dick and his sock puppet George can only come up with ten to charge at last count.

2) During WWII accused spies and saboteurs in this country were given real trials with all the rules of evidence, judges, juries and lawyers

3) The Constitution applies to everyone under US jurisdiction. Non-citizens have the right to trial by jury.

4) Of course, if you're not going to give them real trials, let them see the evidence against them, know the charges against them, have access to lawyers or the right to appeal why bother with the Nazi-like charade? Why not just shoot the SOBs and be done with it if they're that dangerous.

5) The debased things at Guantanamo are supposed to be the worst of the worst, the most dangerous. But the ones who have released from there are mostly free in their home countries. If they're that dangerous do you think someone might have locked them up?

6) These are the lucky ones. The thousands or tens of thousands in our network of gulags across Europe and outsourced torture camps in the Middle East and Central Asia are disappeared. We know nothing. The Red Cross knows nothing. Only the torturers and the people who dig the anonymous graves know anything. And we do know that the few who have gotten loose from the torturers' clutches were simply abused untile they came up with something to tell their tormentors to get them to stop. If that's "America" and "The War on Terror", then our brave troops are dying so that we can be monsters. Yippee. G-d bless America!
 
During WWII accused spies and saboteurs in this country were given real trials with all the rules of evidence, judges, juries and lawyers

Actually, at least some were tried by secret military tribunals. There was no jury and no press scrutiny. They did get some appeal rights before execution.
 
I was once a kool aid drinking republican, but for about 2 years now I swore off of all flavors. 3 years ago Gitmo was a good idea, but it is time for Bush and the military to relieve themselves or get off the pot. Bush's strategy with Iraq and Gitmo is the same as a deer in a oncoming car's headlights. What more info can you get out of these guy?? If it's nothing, then give them a military tribunal and excute them or give them a regular prision term. You can hold them in limbo forever. Eventually a lawyer will find a loophole or a liberal Democrat will take over the white house and just release them into the world to cause more trouble. JUST GET IF OVER WITH !!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top