Guantanamo Bay Perk Watch: Under Armor Briefs!
Life for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, while difficult, isn't 100 percent grim. From yesterday's Washington Post:
Undergarments from Under Armour, the sports apparel line, offer "all-day performance, delivered in a lightweight compression fit," at least according to the company' s promotional material. While "unprecedented" in its ability to deliver comfort, Under Armour underwear is not standard issue for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. So when two men in detention there were found to possess the contraband briefs, the Navy attorney contacted their attorneys. One of the detainees in question is Shaker Aamer, whose release the British government wrote to request from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in August.But before turning to the larger question of whether Aamer will stay or go, there's the question of what he's wearing. And as the recent exchange between the Navy lawyer and Aamer's attorney Clive Stafford Smith illustrates, in the legal wrangling over detention, even details on intimates can lead to contentious debate...
You read excerpts from the hilarious correspondence, which showcase the dry British wit of Clive Stafford-Smith, over here.
But for those of you who like to look at original documents -- and we know that, since you're mostly lawyers, you love yourselves some primary docs -- we're pleased to present the complete correspondence (with original letterhead, signatures, etc.). Just click here (PDF). Enjoy!
Correspondence Between Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. Navy, and Clive A. Stafford-Smith [PDF]
An Incursion of Briefs at Guantanamo [Washington Post]
(34) Comments
FIRST
FIRST
"Second, the idea that we could smuggle in underwear is farfetched. As you know, anything we take in is searched and there is a camera in the room when we visit the client. Does someone seriously suggest that Mr. Katznelson or I have been stripping off to deliver underpants to our clients? . . ."
Soiled underarmor briefs = tier 2 law schools.
Probably the best response to a wate or time, attempt at intimidation letter I have ever read.
Can't wait for the thrilling conclusion when the Navy JAG wraps up hte investigation. I am sure CSS will be the first to be notified!
pompous british ass
WE MUST PROTECT THIS HOUSE!
Amusing, but the British lawyer comes off sounding like a bit of an @ss here. All his response really needed to say was, "No." It would be quite the investigatory oversight for the JAG not to ask the guy's lawyer if he was responsible or knew who was.
*click clack*
I have a new hero. The letter is priceless and hilarious and y'all (2:43 and 2:58) need to get a sense of humor.
2:58,
The accusatory tone of the initial e-mail warranted such a response.
Classic and hilarious response under the circumstances. I know who I'm hiring if I or anyone I'm close to is ever pulled out of line at an airport and sent to Gitmo for commenting on "customer service" to an airline employee.
"we would like to know whether the contraband material, or any portion thereof, was provided by you, anyone else on your legal team." That's accusatory?
CLICK....
......CLACK!
ah yes, those who represent terrorists are so clever and funny!!!
Phase 1: Collect Underpants.
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: PROFIT!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underpants_gnomes
Phase 1: Collect Underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: PROFIT!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underpants_gnomes
Clive's research is slighly outdated.
Many U.S. military personnel -- even those not stationed near combat -- are not allowed to wear Under Armour as synthetic undergarments tend to melt into the skin when heated (e.g., during explosions, fire or related events).
From the NYT:
Mr. Stafford Smith also said several of his clients had described what he said were efforts by Guantánamo officials to foster detainees’ distrust of the lawyers. He said detainees had described investigators’ telling them that their lawyers were Jewish or gay or that prisoners with lawyers were less likely to be released than those without them.
greatest.....letter.....ever.....
The british guy's letter is the best response to a threatening letter I've seen. Period. It is absolutely hilarious. I wish I could be capable of such hilarity in response to such a serious accusation (and make no mistake about it, it IS a serious accusation). The only pompous ass in the exchange is that DUMbASS JAG "officer."
3:13: How can you not think that line is accusatory??? Are you a lawyer or a law student? You must be the latter.
Finally, we should be ashamed to have GTMO. It simply flies in the face of human dignity. If they are criminals, then charge them and treat them within the guidelined of the Geneva Convention. If not criminals, then release them. "Patriot" Act my arse.
Lat, this is the single best item you have ever posted.
Bravo.
Don't skip the link to the original docs. The entire text of the original letter is priceless.
I absolutely agree with 5:31 and 5:42. The SOBs running Gitmo are doing their best to destroy our profession, not to mention the 800-year-old writ of habeas corpus. It is our moral obligation as citizens to slap the shit out of them whenever they step out of line. I am only sorry that the attorney here was British. Makes us look bad.
I don't necessarily blame the JAG officer --Gitmo policy obviously comes from higher up, and from what I've read, members of the JAG Corps have been standing up at significant risk to their careers to protect these prisoners (and the Constitution). But it was a pretty serious accusation.
This letter was fantastic. The accusing letter was over the top (isn't everything at Gitmo?) and the response was perfect.
Phase 1: collect underpants
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: profit!!!
Finally, we should be ashamed to have GTMO. It simply flies in the face of human dignity. If they are criminals, then charge them and treat them within the guidelined of the Geneva Convention. If not criminals, then release them. "Patriot" Act my arse.
Nonsense- we should kill all of them immediately.
I absolutely agree with 5:31 and 5:42. The SOBs running Gitmo are doing their best to destroy our profession, not to mention the 800-year-old writ of habeas corpus.
You should remain silent. YOU DON:T know what you are talking about. Habeous was affirmed for them in Rasul v. Busg. CONGRESS- THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE- not the military- abrogated that decision by legislation. Democracy in action. YOU SHOULD BE DEPORTED.
Excuse the typos above- its early and my buzz is wearing off.....
Guys, don't let Clive distract you from the real issue with all of his talk of Under Armour. We KNOW that the Navy Exchange in Gitmo is not selling SPEEDOS!!! They obviously came from a European. The only possible way they came from the Americans is if they're being used as an ironic torture device. Menstrual blood and speedos- better start talking.
The correspondence is priceless. Love the double meaning of "legal briefs"...
Saw this on the street and heard from the random pettifogger that he wore it while down at Gitmo representing a detainee.
http://tshirtinsurgency.com/node/12
ah yes, those who represent terrorists are so clever and funny!!!
Off course in the current 'patriotic' mode it is forgotten that someones terrorist may be another mans freedom fighter.
The IRA were terrorists to the British but not seemingly to the US when groups here were raising millions for their fight.
And the bombing off the King David Hote by jewish 'terrorists' can be viewed with diverse opinion depending on your origin and beleive.
And what about those bad lads who actually had the gaul to hide behind a tree and snipe instead off offering to be shot in some colorful uniform.
Sometimes satire is required too ridicule the absurd. It was a well practised art from the days off Thomas paine and cruickshank - sadly all too rare.
Meanwhile I defend to the last my right too underpant freedoml
And if a few commentors here miss the point it is that Gitmo represents to us all the loss of a very basic human right which though it may be accepted in some other countries is the very foundation of what America purported to be. The right to Trial by a jury of your peers and the right to wear Your choice off underpants!.
So in the coming years just remember how easily that right was taken from you and reflect the age old adage.
'There but for the grace of God go I'
Can you say 'home goal' - I knew you could.............