Stimson Update

Even USA Today has nothing but contempt for Stimson.

It's easy to understand how annoying these pesky lawyers and their challenges must be to the Pentagon, which runs a prison camp that has given America an international black eye. Deriding their firms, many of which represent Fortune 500 companies, and trying to instigate retribution is certainly one way, albeit a pretty sleazy one, to discourage more challenges.

An interesting note:

Charles Stimson did not respond to a request to reply to this editorial.

Of course not -- he's done his job.

Update: I just ran across this article in the Chicago Tribune. This is the sort of thing that Stimson's defending:

Being an enemy combatant does not mean a prisoner did anything wrong, the administration said in documents written by the Department of Defense in 2004.

The term does not require evidence that a prisoner knowingly took any action against the United States, or even that he was a willing participant in the conflict. As a result, many prisoners at the base are, by any reasonable standard, completely innocent.

The article details stories of "detainees" at Guantanamo who were prisoners of the Taliban but were nevertheless determined to be "enemy combatants," some of whom have not yet been released. The larger issue, of course, is that the president can determine that anyone is an "enemy combatant," including American citizens who have no connection to terrorists at all. (I'm sure you all remember Brandon Mayfield.) Considering the demonstrations we've had of the president's judgment, that does not make me comfortable at all.

Update II: Stimson Apologizes:

From WaPo:

During a radio interview last week, I brought up the topic of pro bono work and habeas corpus representation of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Regrettably, my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo. I do not.

I believe firmly that a foundational principle of our legal system is that the system works best when both sides are represented by competent legal counsel. I support pro bono work, as I said in the interview. I was a criminal defense attorney in two of my three tours in the Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps. I zealously represented unpopular clients -- people charged with crimes that did not make them, or their attorneys, popular in the military. I believe that our justice system requires vigorous representation.

I apologize for what I said and to those lawyers and law firms who are representing clients at Guantanamo. I hope that my record of public service makes clear that those comments do not reflect my core beliefs.

CULLY STIMSON

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs
Defense Department
Washington

I actually cross-posted this comment at Epinions Addicts:

I think as an apology it's a high-water mark from this administration. He actually apologizes, a far cry from the standard inside-the-Beltway "I regret that some people were offended" sort of "apology." Granted, he doesn't repudiate the implied threats, but then I'm still pretty much convinced that was his mission. It wouldn't make any difference if he repudiated them or not -- the message is out there.

Of course, considering that whole issue, if the blue-chip law firms are all doing pro bono work for Gitmo detainees, who are the Fortune 500 companies going to find to represent them? (Under the category of "Empty Threats")