And You Wondered Why I Like To Read Fantasy

This is the DOD's guy on detainee affairs:

In his radio interview, Mr. Stimson said: “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 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.” The F.O.I.A. reference was to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by Monica Crowley, a conservative syndicated talk show host, asking for the names of all the lawyers and law firms representing Guantánamo detainees in federal court cases.

Mr. Stimson, who is himself a lawyer, then went on to name more than a dozen of the firms listed on the 14-page report provided to Ms. Crowley, describing them as “the major law firms in this country.” He said, “I think, quite honestly, when corporate C.E.O.’s see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those C.E.O.’s 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.”

Needless to say, lawyers are all over this.

David Kurtz at TPM has been following this story, here, here, and here.

The DOD is, of course, "disavowing" the remarks, but anyone want to make any guesses on consequences for Stimson? Aside from a Medal of Freedom, I mean.

Jonathan Adler and Eugene Volokh at Volokh Conspiracy have also been following this one. From Adler:

I have also noticed that Stimson is a graduate of my alma mater, the George Mason University School of Law. [Ack!] I guess he must have slept through professional responsibility; he should have to take it again. Hilzoy is less forgiving: "if either having no clue whatsoever about how our legal system works or being willing to try to subvert it is grounds for disbarment, then Charles Stimson should be disbarred."

Volokh's analysis is devastating.

Is he really appealing not to the CEOs' patriotism, or anger over mass murder, but to their anger that terrorists cost business money? To look at the flip side, should construction and security contractors who made money (perfectly honorably, I should stress) as a result of the terrorist attacks start giving more business to law firms who are representing detainees, on the theory that "those firms are representing the very terrorists who [benefited] their bottom line back in 2001"? Yes, CEOs should surely look out for the bottom line; that's their job. But this strikes me as a context in which the concerns about past impacts on the bottom line should be the least relevant.

Unfortunately, Balkinization doesn't touch on this one, which surprised me, and I would really love to see Glenn Greenwald's comments, which at this point don't exist. Pity. Michael Froomkin had a comment on it with this observation:

It's true that the list of law firms donating time to representing the victims of torture, humiliation (and a total lack of due process) at Guantanamo reads a bit like a who's who of the elite of the corporate bar. And they deserve credit for it.

I'd just add one thing: the first firm to cave on this issue is going to find it awfully hard to recruit elite law students, as they will have demonstrated a serious lack of moral fiber. If you won't stand up for your most desperate clients, what kind of firm are you?

Referencing this comment by Alberto Conzales:

"Good lawyers representing the detainees is the best way to ensure that justice is done in these cases."

Ann Althouse says:

Gonzales is obviously right, and I would like to know how Stimson could even entertain the notion that it might be acceptable to say what he did.


Even Andrew Sullivan gets it, and makes the necessary link:

But the more you think about it, the threats of a Pentagon official, Cully Stimson, against lawyers doing a constitutional duty defending terror suspects speaks volumes about the core malice of this administration. Sources among the heroic community of pro bono lawyers who are defending some of the innocent and some of the guilty at Gitmo tell me that Stimson's comments are not isolated, that there has been a full program dedicated to the harassment of Gitmo lawyers - surveillance, pettty harassment, pressure on their law firms.

TPM, in one of the posts linked above, also mentions this program of harassment.

Does anyone really need any further proof of this administration's complete disdain for the American system of government?

(And after looking at the photo, I wonder where the wingnuts find all these cute guys with really badly warped heads?)

Update: Looking back, Carpetbagger Report was was one of the first on the scene.