legal representation
Does this line of argument surprise anyone? It is simply a variation of the theme that we have been hearing for a long time: “if you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists; if you criticize us, you’re with the terrorists” It is not that big of a leap to “if you represent the people we lock up, you’re with the terrorists.”
Guantanamo continues to be blight on our nation’s international reputation. Not so long ago, the world looked to America as a bastion of justice and the rule of law.
The law firms who provide free legal services to hundreds of indigent men, most who have been held for years by our Government with having been charged a with a single crime, are behaving in the highest and most honorable tradition of American justice. They following the proud tradition of John Adams, who represented British soldiers tried in American courts.
John Adams, in his old age, called his defense of British soldiers in 1770 "one of the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country."
The day after British soldiers mortally wounded five Americans on a cobbled square in Boston, a Boston merchant, James Forest, visited Adams in his office near the stairs of the Town Office. Forest asked Adams to defend the soldiers and their captain, Thomas Preston. Adams understood that taking the case would not only subject him to criticism, but also might jeopardize his legal practice or even risk his safety and the safety of his family. But Adams believed deeply that every person deserved a defense, and he took on the case.
This was not the first time an official of this administration has issued such an attack. In remarks at a press conference at Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, the Defense Department’s chief prosecutor for the military commissions there, Air Force Col. Moe Davis, said it was “ironic” that big law firms representing large defense contractors such as Boeing Corp. allow their lawyers to represent Guantánamo detainees pro bono.
We also need to address the grave misapprehension that Guantánamo houses lots of "terrorists." Every study done by the government for its own purposes has concluded that this is simply not true. The military did not follow its normal screening process (which worked very effectively to sort out the large number of people we picked up during the first Iraq war) because the administration did not want to admit the applicability of the Geneva Conventions. Thus, no impartial review under the military's own pre-existing standards has ever taken place. As a result, there were many opportunities for mistakes, vendettas, and confusion for American forces as they tried to operate in Afghanistan. They were paying cash bounties to local tribesmen. The administration's definition of "enemy combatant" includes people involuntarily conscripted into Taliban militias and held there by force. The government is planning to bring actual charges against no more than 10% of the detainees. There is simply an absence of any reliable basis for equating these "detainees" with "terrorists." If in fact and in law some particular individual is a terrorist, that is another matter, but first that needs to be established by something more substantial than government statements to the press.
Not surprisingly -- despite several Supreme Court rulings holding that the detainees are entitled to basic due process – the administration is resisting the efforts of the other 90% to get any. Responsible public servants in the Executive Branch formulate lawful policies, defend them when challenged in court, and abide by the resulting judicial decisions. This administration seems to be unwilling or unable to do any of these things.
That is what these pro bono lawyers are trying to achieve. In that effort, they have been supported by all of the national bar groups, as well as countless judges, military officers, former prosecutors, and, I would hope, every fair-minded person.
Does this line of argument surprise anyone? It is simply a variation of the theme that we have been hearing for a long time: “if you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists; if you criticize us, you’re with the terrorists” It is not that big of a leap to “if you represent the people we lock up, you’re with the terrorists.”
Guantanamo continues to be blight on our nation’s international reputation. Not so long ago, the world looked to America as a bastion of justice and the rule of law.
The law firms who provide free legal services to hundreds of indigent men, most who have been held for years by our Government with having been charged a with a single crime, are behaving in the highest and most honorable tradition of American justice. They following the proud tradition of John Adams, who represented British soldiers tried in American courts.
John Adams, in his old age, called his defense of British soldiers in 1770 "one of the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country."
The day after British soldiers mortally wounded five Americans on a cobbled square in Boston, a Boston merchant, James Forest, visited Adams in his office near the stairs of the Town Office. Forest asked Adams to defend the soldiers and their captain, Thomas Preston. Adams understood that taking the case would not only subject him to criticism, but also might jeopardize his legal practice or even risk his safety and the safety of his family. But Adams believed deeply that every person deserved a defense, and he took on the case.
This was not the first time an official of this administration has issued such an attack. In remarks at a press conference at Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, the Defense Department’s chief prosecutor for the military commissions there, Air Force Col. Moe Davis, said it was “ironic” that big law firms representing large defense contractors such as Boeing Corp. allow their lawyers to represent Guantánamo detainees pro bono.
We also need to address the grave misapprehension that Guantánamo houses lots of "terrorists." Every study done by the government for its own purposes has concluded that this is simply not true. The military did not follow its normal screening process (which worked very effectively to sort out the large number of people we picked up during the first Iraq war) because the administration did not want to admit the applicability of the Geneva Conventions. Thus, no impartial review under the military's own pre-existing standards has ever taken place. As a result, there were many opportunities for mistakes, vendettas, and confusion for American forces as they tried to operate in Afghanistan. They were paying cash bounties to local tribesmen. The administration's definition of "enemy combatant" includes people involuntarily conscripted into Taliban militias and held there by force. The government is planning to bring actual charges against no more than 10% of the detainees. There is simply an absence of any reliable basis for equating these "detainees" with "terrorists." If in fact and in law some particular individual is a terrorist, that is another matter, but first that needs to be established by something more substantial than government statements to the press.
Not surprisingly -- despite several Supreme Court rulings holding that the detainees are entitled to basic due process – the administration is resisting the efforts of the other 90% to get any. Responsible public servants in the Executive Branch formulate lawful policies, defend them when challenged in court, and abide by the resulting judicial decisions. This administration seems to be unwilling or unable to do any of these things.
That is what these pro bono lawyers are trying to achieve. In that effort, they have been supported by all of the national bar groups, as well as countless judges, military officers, former prosecutors, and, I would hope, every fair-minded person.
