Make the Gitmo Detainees Pay for Their Own Damn Photocopies
One of you thinks that this news warrants a Saturday post. And we see your point.*
The article in question is running on the front page of the New York Times, above the fold. So, from the NYT:
The senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees suspected of terrorism said in an interview this week that he was dismayed that lawyers at many of the nation’s top firms were representing prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and that the firms’ corporate clients should consider ending their business ties.The comments by Charles D. Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, produced an instant torrent of anger from lawyers, legal ethics specialists and bar association officials, who said Friday that his comments were repellent and displayed an ignorance of the duties of lawyers to represent people in legal trouble….
When asked in the radio interview who was paying for the legal representation, Mr. Stimson replied: “It’s not clear, is it? 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 moneys from who knows where, and I’d be curious to have them explain that.”
Props to this Charles Stimson fellow. Even if his views may be completely misguided, we like anyone who stirs up a s**tstorm.
Discussion continues after the jump.
Stimson gets to drum up controversy, assuming the role of “bad cop,” while Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gets to play “good cop”:
In an interview on Friday, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said he had no problem with the current system of representation. “Good lawyers representing the detainees is the best way to ensure that justice is done in these cases,” he said.
This could very well be a deliberate strategy on the part of the Bush Administration (even though right now the pot-stirring Stimson is being made to look like a renegade of sorts). The controversy being created by Stimson may cause more cautious or conservative law firms to cut off their participation in defending Guantanamo Bay detainees — or deter new firms from joining the effort. But the White House, the DOJ and the Pentagon get to keep their hands clean, by saying that Stimson’s views aren’t necessarily their own. Nifty. Shrewd.
We bet this wouldn’t have happened if Matthew C. Waxman, a member of the Elect (OT 2000/Souter), were still deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs. Alas, Matt Waxman — who is brilliant, fair-minded, and super-nice — is now over at the State Department.
Matthew Waxman’s departure from the Defense Department may have been caused, at least in part, by his frequent clashes with the all-powerful David S. Addington, Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. According to a source quoted in this article, after Waxman “tried to champion Article 3” of the Geneva Conventions, David Addington “ate him for lunch.”
(Supreme Court clerks: they’re not just legal geniuses; they’re also nutritious and delicious. As Homer Simpson might say: “Mmmm, SCOTUS clerks.” )
Given his hard-line views, highlighted in this most recent controversy, we suspect that Charles “Cully” Stimson will get along with Addington much better than Waxman did.
* Another indication of the importance of this story: Over at the WSJ Law Blog, Peter Lattman fiddled with the timestamps of various posts, so that this post would run at the top of the page (even though other posts were published after it chronologically).
Official Attacks Top Law Firms Over Detainees [New York Times]
Bush Lawyer Blasts Law Firms For Representing Detainees [WSJ Law Blog]
Eye of the Storm: Charles “Cully” Stimson [Kenyon College]
(13) 
Comments
Oh please. Like some Kenyon/GMU grad is going to scare the nation's biggest law firms into not representing detainees pro bono. Any law firm who actually changed course based on this douchebag's comments is not worthy of the label BigLaw.
Who do you think has more power, BigLaw, or some hothead ultra-conservative government bureaucrat?
It never even DAWNED on me that the Bush administration would want to bully away legal representation for the gitmo detainees. It's almost like they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of justice, and innocent-till-proven-guilty. It's just shocking.
I mean, hoping that Corporate America will bully these firms into taking their associates off these cases? What are they afraid of- that good lawyers will prove these people not guilty? That is one of the sickest things I've ever heard.
I once heard staff in Addington's office cultivate a deliberately "anti-intellectual" posture -- meaning, they sit around watching conservative news, and nod and give each other high-fives. I'm not exaggerating.
"Any law firm who actually changed course based on this douchebag's comments is not worthy of the label BigLaw."
From what I gather from his comments, his position is not that *he* will scare them, but that their big corporate clients will learn that they rep detainees (as if that's a dirty secret) and will call up the managing partner and say "WHATCHA DOIN' REPRESENTIN' TEAR-ROAR-RISTS! YOU BEST STOP OR WE'RE GITTIN A NEW LAW FIRM!!"
I posted on this topic here at Legal Blogwatch - http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2007/01/should_law_firm.html
Personally, I'm kind of amused by the entire situation. Solo and small firm lawyers make these tough calls all the time about representation. Right now, I'm representing clients in a lawsuit against a city 3 hours away from my DC firm. No local attorneys would touch the case for fear that they might not get court appointments or other government sponsored work. So now, biglaw has to make the same tough calls that solo and small firms make every day. Sorry, but I just don't feel too badly for them.
I'm not saying that the firms should drop the detainees as clients. No way. Those detainees are entitled to the same rights and caliber of representation as private clients. If other clients walk, let the firms face the repercussion. That's the cost of being a real lawyer.
"Ropes and Gray dropped longstanding client Catholic Charities after various gay and lesbian student groups from Harvard Law School argued that Ropes' work for the charity conflicted with other pro bono work the firm had done for gay and lesbian interest groups. Apparently, Ropes feared that student criticism might impair its recruitment efforts at Harvard."
Very, very interesting, Carolyn.
Volokh blog had a post about the "obligation to defend unpopular clients" last year, re Ropes & Gray: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_03_12-2006_03_18.shtml#1142556475
There's little doubt in my mind that these firms got involved with Guantanamo to score publicity points. They should have been prepared for bad publicity along with the good. And if there really is no such thing as bad publicity, they'll do fine.
hmm, i wonder if this is an elaborate plot, or just the ravings of a dumbass who watches too much Bill O'Reilly?
Paul Horwitz has some interesting stuff on this too over at Prawfs:
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2007/01/representing_gu.html
I can't imagine why the prisoners-of-war at Guantanamo need lawyers.
I say waterboard 'em 'till they talk (or not) and be done with it!
Anton
I think the problem with Mr. Stimson's argument is that he assumes that it's beyond debate the prisoners have all done something wrong.
I can understand the desire of a defense attorney to defend guilty clients to be sure that they are treated fairly, and even to help them get off completely in some cases, for the purpose of keeping the prosecution honest generally. My guess is that Stimson thinks that this rationale is weakened in the case of terrorists.
The problem is, though, that with the number of prosecutions and convictions that have come out of Guantanamo, it looks like a lot of these people may well be innocent and deserve to go home. Thus, these firms aren't defending the people who attacked "America's bottom line," and it's not such a bad thing to make Stimson et al. prove otherwise.
A bunch of law school deans have blasted Stimson - http://www.discourse.net/archives/2007/01/statement_by_law_deans_on_stimson_remarks.html