As an editorial in today's WP points out, a Defense Department official launched a deeply odious shot against lawyers representing Gitmo prisoners:
In a repellent interview yesterday with Federal News Radio, [deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs] 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."
And I thought the point of having a lawyer was so that the government could fairly prove that the prisoners are in fact guilty of being terrorists. But I suppose that's too much to ask for, actually have some sort of substantive hearing to decide whether the men are in guilty of what has been alleged. Pre-9/11 thinking.
OK, so Stimson is an asshole, we get that. But he also may be just the vanguard. The FOIA Stimson cites--the one that names the lawyers and he suggests is going to be big news-- was filed by MSNBC's Monica Crowley, a conservative talk show host and Coulter-wannabe. (Crowley hasn't yet said anything on her show about the FOIA, which makes it's particularly interesting that a Defense Department official is already flogging the results.)
And Stimson, or some other DoD official, seems so excited about the FOIA that they're crowing about it in multiple outlets. Here's a snippet today from WSJ columnst Robert Pollock:
Guantanamo detainees don't lack for legal representation. A list of lead counsel released this week in response to a Freedom of Information Act request reads like a who's who of America's most prestigious law firms: Shearman and Sterling; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr; Covington & Burling; Hunton & Williams; Sullivan & Cromwell; Debevoise & Plimpton; Cleary Gottlieb; and Blank Rome are among the marquee names.
A senior U.S. official I spoke to speculates that this information might cause something of scandal, since so much of the pro bono work being done to tilt the playing field in favor of al Qaeda appears to be subsidized by legal fees from the Fortune 500. "Corporate CEOs seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists" who deliberately target the U.S. economy, he opined.
Let's see who picks this up. Monica? Meanwhile, it's true, government officials (in concert with talk show hosts) trying to stir up a campaign against lawyers--lawyers participating in what the Supreme Court has ruled neccesary--does have the whiff of "something of a scandal."
As one judge wrote in one of the prisoner's cases:
"The Court recognizes that Petitioners' counsel are
providing their services on a pro bono basis. Such pro bono representation,
especially in controversial and high profile cases such as these, is in the
very finest tradition of the American legal profession." Al-Joudi v. Bush,
406 F. Supp. 2d 13, 16 n.2 (D.D.C. 2005).
P.S. Bonus! Want to see Crowley's FOIA request:
