RSS 2.0 FeedBush Administration Official Rejects Right To Fair Trial
by KevinThe deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, Charles “Cully” Stimson, made some troubling comments recently that threaten law firms who represent detainees at Guantanimo Bay.
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 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 for which some explaining should be done.
“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.”
He has been forced to apologize for getting caught. If the Bush Administration was really did not believe in Stimson’s remarks, he would have been fired.
He expressed a personal opinion, that other people should express their personal opinions, and vote with their dollars. What’s wrong with that?
Personally, I wouldnt associate myself with an attorney who represented PETA, or HCI, or any number of other organizations.
If I encourage other people to make a personal decision about who they would associate themselves with, whats the problem in that? Even if I’m a government official saying it, I still dont see the problem.
Comment by Chris Byrne — January 17, 2007 @ 9:38 amChris,
Because the difference is that he is in charge of the detainee trials at Gitmo and he’s tainting the process by the implied threat. If this was some low level flunky at the EPA or some other government agency that had nothing to do with the trials, I would have no problem with it.
Comment by Kevin — January 17, 2007 @ 7:35 pmWhat implied threat? He is suggesting a boycott; which is a matter of conscience not governmental action.
Now as to seeing the sorces of money used to pay the lawyers investigated, GOOD, they should be investigated; because they’re being paid for by terrorists. If a lawyer thinks he’s getting shady money, he shouldnt take the case.
Comment by Chris Byrne — January 18, 2007 @ 11:30 am