Tales from Gitmo: The Guantanamo Lawyers
President Obama recently announced that Guantanamo Bay will not be closing in January - reneging on a promise he had made to close the detention center within a year of his taking office. This did not come as a surprise to the many lawyers who have provided counsel to the detainees in Cuba.
At a panel discussion about the Guantanamo lawyers, Ramzi Kassem — a City University of New York law professor representing one of the current detainees - said: “What matters more than when [the closing] happens is what happens to the [200] men still there.”
Hundreds of attorneys have been working for years to ensure habeas corpus for the over 800 men who have been detained at Guantanamo Bay. The lawyers who have assembled to represent detainees come from many walks of law, from human rights advocates to law school professors to Biglaw partners. Seton Hall law professor Mark Denbeaux and civil rights attorney Jonathan Hafetz have collected the stories of 113 of the Guantanamo lawyers, law students, and translators for The Guantanamo Lawyers: Inside a Prison, Outside the Law.
There is a rainbow of Biglaw firms involved in Guantanamo. Among the firms working there (with lawyers who contributed to the book) are WilmerHale, King & Spalding, Pillsbury Winthrop, Jenner & Block, Pepper Hamilton, Dorsey & Whitney, Baker Hostetler, Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, Reed Smith, Mayer Brown, MoFo, Weil Gotshal, Hunton & Williams, Covington, Dechert, Bingham McCutchen, and Shearman & Sterling. A heart-warming tale among the horrors of the book was two Allen & Overy attorneys who fell in love and married after meeting while representing a 17-year-old Yemeni detainee.
Both Denbeaux and Hafetz point to Thomas Wilner of Shearman & Sterling as one of the most important Gitmo lawyers. “He cleared the way for the others,” said Denbeaux. “Shearman was the central [Biglaw] firm in getting it all going.”
More about Wilner, and tales from other Biglaw Guantanamo counsel, after the jump.
Jonathan Hafetz explained that Shearman was doing work for the government of Kuwait. When some Kuwaiti men disappeared after being detained by U.S. government, Shearman’s clients asked for assistance in finding out what happened to them. “Tom Wilner made the first push. He was the greatest force behind this,” said Hafetz. “When Shearman resisted getting involved, he threatened to leave the firm.”
Then-associate Kristine Huskey writes in the book:
Less than six months after 9/11, Tim Wilner, a partner at Shearman, and my mentor, colleague and good friend, received a call, an inquiry from abroad: Would we take on a matter regarding Kuwaiti citizens who had gone abroad to do humanitarian work and who now might be in the custody of the United States?
Wilner served as counsel of record to Guantanamo detainees in Rasul v. Bush — in which the Supreme Court gave detainees the right to habeas corpus — and in Boumediene v. Bush — in which the Supreme Court held that the Guantanamo detainees’ right to habeas corpus is protected by the Constitution.
Biglaw firms did experience blowback for getting involved. In 2007, a Pentagon official, Cully Stimson, urged corporate clients to make their law firms choose between “representing terrorists and representing reputable firms.” Those attacks continue, as pointed out by Julian Sanchez at True/Slant responding to an article in Human Events that leads with this paragraph:
Some of the nation’s wealthiest and most powerful law firms have donated hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services to terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay prison. Their work, bolstered by left-wing activists groups, has helped to free, or force the transfer, of hundreds of al Qaeda suspects to third countries. Some have gone back to terrorism and the job of trying to kill Americans.
The article ends with a list - plagued with misspellings — of the ten largest firms that have provided pro bono counsel to the detainees.
“It was a human rights catastrophe and a disaster for this nation,” said Jonathan Hafetz at a book launch panel discussion at NYU Law School on November 10. “The book is not intended to glorify the lawyers; it’s intended to explain Guantanamo.”
“Lawyers are raised to represent other people’s movements, but the 600 to 700 lawyers involved with Guantanamo Bay really started a movement,” added Michael Ratner, the president for the Center of Constitutional Rights and another contributor to the book.
Prominent among those who “started this movement” were Biglaw types. Then-Covington & Burling partner David Remes famously stripped down to his skivvies to illustrate the conditions for detainees at Gitmo. Jenner & Block partner Thomas Sullivan testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee about the habeas corpus rights from detainees
The Guantanamo Lawyers is a series of personal accounts assembled to create an oral history of the place - the series of names without affiliations and disjointed essays make for a slightly frustrating reading experience — but it fully conveys the absurdity of trying to achieve justice there. Their clients were shackled to the floor during all visits. Notes were considered classified and were sent to secure facilities in Crystal City, Virginia, making it difficult for non-D.C. based lawyers to review them. Seeing and talking to clients involved two days of traveling and a security clearance.
I asked Mark Denbeaux about the biggest challenge for corporate lawyers involved with Gitmo. “The other lawyers involved, like the death penalty lawyers, are accustomed to the government acting badly,” replied Denbeaux. “It was shocking for the corporate lawyers though to see how the law can be twisted. They were almost radicalized in their views.”
Indeed, several left Biglaw after representing Gitmo detainees. Remes left Covington to found Appeal for Justice, a nonprofit human rights and civil liberties litigation firm. Kristine Huskey left Shearman & Sterling to become the co-director of the National Security Clinic at UT Law School. Tina Monshipour Foster left Clifford Chance to become the executive director of the International Justice Network.
The book is full of frustrated accounts from Biglaw types. Tom Sullivan of Jenner & Block writes:
My impression of the prisoners I’ve encountered at Guantanamo is shared by my partners who have visited our clients at the prison, as well as by the other fine lawyers for prisoners with whom we’ve spoken. We believe most of these men are not and never were criminals or terrorists, were not connected with Al Qaeda, should not have been imprisoned in the first place, and if sent home would resume peaceful, productive lives, albeit damaged by the awful experiences they have endured during the past seven years.
Many detainees wound up in Guantanamo thanks to $5,000 bounties offered by the U.S. military.
Julia Tarver Mason, a partner at Paul Weiss, writes:
If you had told me ten years ago that our government would be deliberately holding people in captivity on a naval base outside the U.S. mainland so that we could do whatever we wanted to them without the intervention of U.S. courts, I would have told you that you had watched too many miniseries on T.V. If you had told me that the government would have refused even to release the names of those human beings so their families would know where they were, I would have told you to stop reading all those Tim Clancy novels. Sadly, though, this isn’t fiction. This is what is happening today, in the country I love so much.
Joshua Colangelo-Bryan of Dorsey & Whitney writes about his first meeting with his detainee client, clients who had been described by Donald Rumsfeld as the “most dangerous, best-trained vicious killers on the face of the earth.” He was relieved when his client turned out to be a smiling, five-foot-six, 140 pound Bahraini detainee:
“I am very grateful to you and your law firm,” [Jumah, the detainee] said.“You’re welcome, but we believe that we’re obliged to provide legal help to people who would not otherwise have it. We call it pro bono work, which means that we aren’t paid for what we do.” For a minute, I felt like I was trying to sell an idealistic law student on the idea of working for my firm because it had a social conscience. I felt a flush of pride, reflecting on the fact that I was actually telling the truth.
Ouch.
Colangelo-Bryan goes on to recount Jumah asking about the origin of his name.
“Joshua is a Jewish name. Are you Jewish?”
[Colangelo-Bryan] worries he’s about to experience his first brush with anti-Semitism among the detainees. But when he tells Jumah he’s not Jewish, Jumah is disappointed.
“Oh,” he said, sounding slightly disappointed, “I heard the best lawyers were Jewish.”Quickly, and obviously for my benefit, he added, “But I’m sure you’re good too.”
There are many other Biglaw tales of frustration in the book:
The book is unsettling, but it’s inspiring to see these pro bono efforts by Biglaw to make sure the rule of law applies to detainees, many of whom appear to be innocent.
Mayer Brown is hosting a discussion about the book at their D.C. office on December 3. On the panel will be Jonathan Hafetz, ACLU National Security Project and co-editor of The Guantánamo Lawyers; Agnieszka Fryszman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; Gary Isaac, Mayer Brown LLP; Allison Lefrak, Reed Smith LLP; and Thomas Wilner, Shearman & Sterling LLP.
Obama: Guantanamo won’t close on time [Washington Post]
How Dare They Represent the Innocent? [True/Slant]
The Al-Qaeda Bar [Human Events]
A Discussion of The Guantánamo Lawyers: Inside a Prison Outside the Law [Event announcement]




Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
first!
second meow!
third meow!
Did Herman Goering have good lawyers?
Awwww... this is so touching! Especially because everyone is innocent in Guantanamo - EVERYONE!
<3 <3 <3 :) :) :)
4, No, but Hideki Tojo had nothing but the best from the white shoe pussies.
Given that I have $250,000 in debt and no job prospects, do you think that there's an opening for Gitmo lawyers? I'd settle for room and board.
PIllsbury has not had a great year. So the least you can do is spell their name correctly. It's not Pillsbiry Winthrop.
"Some have gone back to terrorism and the job of trying to kill Americans," according to the Human Events article.
Ha ha! What a bunch of cretins! That can't possibly be right!
Oh, wait, the NYT also reported that 1 in 7 detainees released from Guantanamo returned to terrorist activity. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21gitmo.html.
If and when there is another Al Qaeda-directed attack, I eagerly look forward to whether any of the released had anything to do with it.
You gotta love millonaires who have never lifted a finger to serve thier country, but fall all over each other to rescue the poor, innocent, terroists imprisoned in tropical paradise.
Fun fact: this lengthy post is only 1,263 words shorter than the number of people killed on 9/11!
When I defend my Guantanamo clients, they ask me to cover my head, and I do. When my husband asks me to make him dinner, I say hell no.
tl; dr.
If these lawyers really wanted to help out, they would volunteer to take in freed detainees, since no other community in the U.S. will do so, nor their home countries -- which is the precise reason why the administration hasn't been able to close the thing.
But, of course, you won't hear them say anything about that. That cuts a little too close to home for those who simply want to work off a little liberal guilt -- the kind that comes from having chosen a life of Biglaw money and corporate defense over public interest.
11 FTW.
These asshole attorneys are a disgrace. Their clients all deserve to be executed, with their families being charged for the bullet. May these attorneys rot in hell.
I haven't had a chance to read the book, but I've added it to the winter break reading list. Though I'm surprised by the reaction by Jumah that he thought the Jewish lawyers were the good ones. Some other accounts from Gitmo suggest the US tried to play off anti-semetic sentiments by claiming their Jewish lawyers would screw them over in representation, and thus could not be trusted to represent them.
all these members of the al qaeda bar should be tried for treason and deported from the country. probably sent to yemen or saudi arabia, where a lot of the guys they helped to free are now back to terrorist activities.
11 - great comment!
It's all about priorities - there are countless groups that could use free legal aid; the homeless, nonprofit organizations, charities, etc., but these bastards prefer to get their rocks off by helping terrorists.
I've met Tom Wilner a few times - he's really a great guy.
I know I'm supposed to think all of these terrorists deserve legal protection but, simply put, I don't. 11 FTW.
P1: What if you're wrong? What if some are actually innocent?
P2: Well, than we'll just have to make that sacrifice.
P1: By "we," don't you mean "they?"
What an embarrassment to be part of a profession that is helping to get their own country and civilization destroyed.
Why do liberals (e.g., feminists, homosexuals, Jews, etc.) not realize how very safe and secure they are in the West and how utterly crushed they would be under sharia law (the stated aim of jihadists).
Hmmm. How can I land a job in the Obama administration. Hmmmm.
1) Didn't work on the campaign (couldn't do that while I was working my full-time job)
2) Didn't raise as much campaign cash as I said I would.
3) Represent long-suffering enemy combatants (Yes! Costs me nothing! Gets me pro bono brownie points! Don't have to take a leave of absence! Wheeee!)
PIllsbury has not had a great year. So the least you can do is spell their name correctly. It's not Pillsbiry Winthrop.
It's really not a big deal. Guys in my high school reprsented Guantanamo clients all the time.
We need to bomb Cuba back to the stoneage!
-DOJ Secure
...snarf snarf....
Denbeaux was my evidence professor, I went to class twice all semester and got an A. I wish all of law school was like that.
There are a lot of dogs living in inhumane conditions in pounds that we should be more concerned about than these animals
Traitors.
Eh, one of these guys (guantanamo lawyers) who is a partner at a big firm gave a lecture at my law school 18 months ago.
The guy made some decent. But the bottom line is that he literally was moved (by his own lecture) to tears that certain detainees were denied sleep, or that one was not notified that his mother had passed away.
Bottom line is that most of these people are worst-of-the-worst, bleeding-heart flimsies. These are the type of people who went to prep school, went to an ivy-league school and studied humanities, and went right into H/Y/S where they philosophically discussed innate human rights as an abstract concept.
I am not saying that all of the USA's actions at Guantanamo are legit. But what I am saying is that there are currently millions of starving Americans, millions of students doomed to a life of poor inner-city education, and millions of midwesterners who have lost their jobs and are unraveling in the slow, downward skip of bankruptcy and bank repossession. Not to mention the thousands of wrongly accused criminals here who receive inadequate public defense.
And yet the Guantanamo attorneys do not seem to care. When was the last time you saw a Dechert, or Skadden, or any biglaw partner doing criminal defense for an indigent person? You haven't.
These people are bleeding-heart idiots who have absolutely no grounded concept of: (1) War; (2) poverty; (3) Life outside Manhattan/D.C./Chicago Loop/Los Angeles; etc . . . .
If the notion of a person being sleep deprived in a time of war makes you cry at a lecture, I shudder to think how you would react if you saw how many humans, from Darfur to Iraq to India, live their daily lives in pain, poverty, or squalor.
This is not a news story. It's another example of "elite" idiots trying to calm their own consciouses while not actually having to get their hands dirty (and gaining media "prestige" in the process).
Aren't there a million better ways to do pro bono than to help terrorists? Disgraceful.
Does anybody else feel like the big fuss about Gitmo is a distraction from something else? I'm yet to hear a very convincing argument for shutting it down, or otherwise paying it any attention.
All I know is that I'm not locked up there, and the reason for that is I don't try to kill American troops, or attend Al Qaeda training camps.
Just FYI, Denbeaux has letters just like these comments posted on a giant board in his office. He loves this stuff.
-no comment
Kash, this sort of drivel is beneath your talents. I'm sure all the proceeds from the book will be donated to the client's relocation fund, and that none of these lawyers took any of these cases for self-aggrandizement, nor will they ever trade on the cases to win future clients or attract lawyers to their firms. Oh wait--- they're already doing that.
When I see a single one of them, ever, line up to represent some poor schlub in my local courthouse to ease the load of the local PD, I might be convinced to think differently. But then, since it has never happened, if they did it would probably only be because commenters shame these fools into doing it. Then again, obviously most of them have no sense of shame in the first place.
I love how this gets distorted to a liberal/conservative thing every time it hits the press. It happens because main stream media ate up Rumsfeld's "They are the worst of the worst" bit. How is it that the fact that it has been proved that many of the detainees were wrongfully detained in the first place continues to be overlooked?
Lets just take an assumption and see where it leads. Assume that there is in fact, an innocent person in GTMO. The guy was sold into the place by his dickhead neighbor for 2 goats and a Hershey Bar because he looked at neighbor's wife the wrong way. USA then says he will be indefinitely detained and gets no review of his detainment to see if he should be there in the first place. In other words, he is not supposed to be there, and he can do nothing to get out.
Do conservatives really believe that this is ok? Is the notion that wrongful imprisonment with no hope of relief is terribly wrong solely a liberal ideal? If so, I guess you can paint me a liberal. I just thought it was more of a characteristic of a human being, but hey, I've been wrong before.
I just marvel at the posts about how the lawyers should hang for representing the "terrorists." To these I say, "How can you not see that the whole point is that not everyone there is a terrorist, you fucking idiots!?"
Kash, try doing something useful, like posting the names of the lawyers who successfully freed Gitmo inmates that then went on to murder innocent people in suicide bombings. They must be so proud!
38 - are you referring to Mike Huckabee, who pardoned the guy who just murdered four cops in Washington state?
Clemency is not the same as a pardon, dumbass.
You right-wing nut jobs are traitors to the country I hold dear - the country whose constitution does not allow suspension of rights just because some blog-commenting bigots want to act superior. If you bleeding brain nut-jobs don't like our country - leave!
It's quite amazing to read the variety of comments on this subject. As a blanket response to those who consider these pro bono attorneys to be "traitors" or "terrorist sympathizers": blow it out your collective recta. These men (and boys) stand accused of a crime, not yet convicted. If we want to dispense with this whole messy "trial by jury" thing, please feel free to move to a country where no such rights exist. Assholes.
Was there a fascist convention on the internet today? What are all these yahoos doing posting?
You read about OBL's driver who was publicly supported by the GTMO judges and prosecutor, right?(he was tried by a military panel, not ivy league big-lawyers.) He was a farmboy who got a job as a driver for big name (FYI, American intelligence called OBL "the good samaritan" in the eighties). I guess the only way the knuckleheads posting here could relate is if they at some point get imprisoned on some sleazebag's sayso.
>>When was the last time you saw a Dechert, or Skadden, or any biglaw partner doing criminal defense for an indigent person? You haven't.
Yes, I have. Hogan and Wilmer (including partners from both firms) were critical players in having the drug convictions manufactured by Tom Coleman in Tulia, Texas reversed. I have seen a number of these firms involved as counsel of record or behind the scenes in Innocence Project and other criminal cases. In fact, ATL recently had a story about a Sidley partner being slammed by a judge in one of these cases. Most of those involved in the Gitmo cases are fixtures on the various lists of top pro bono firms (Dechert and Skadden, for example, were 4th and 23rd, respectively, in the latest AmLaw Pro Bono 100) and regularly represent indigent clients in a wide range of criminal, civil, and family courts concerning issues that will never be considered newsworthy enough to help with rainmaking, much less show up on the nightly news.
For the record, I do not work for any firm and believe that most could and should do more than they do. But that is not the same as saying they do nothing useful for their communities.
Then again, I am far more than 18 months removed from law school, so my view may be tainted by actually having been in court and seeing these lawyers in action from time to time.
Bleeding heart fools like 41 and 42 are either ignorant or stupid. This country you "hold dear" has never in its history afforded captured illegal combatants the right to a jury trial in our civilian courts. Not in the civil war, not in WWII, never. You self-aggrandize yourselves as principled, noble defenders of heretofore nonexistent "rights" in order to inflate your own sense of self worth, when in fact you're just pathetic saps.
Try them in accordance with any treating we've signed governing enemy combatants. Afford them the rights they were trying to destroy? Hell no.
12 FTW
Hundreds have been released from Gitmo and among those dozens have returned to the fight. Even BO has called the remaining 200 dangerous. I guess the liberal scum don't have a problem with BO stating the 5 to be tried in New York will be "found guilty and sentenced to death". So much for the "rule of law". Oh, and the NYPD wants a minimum of $70 million for secuirty for this trial.
Vote for a dog, you get fleas. Liberals are human cockroaches.
I've worked on Guantanamo litigation. Never mind issues like "the rule of law," "justice," or "the Constitution" -- it's reward enough simply to know that my work has angered people like 45 and 48. Seriously, fuck you.
1. Islamic terrorists kill thousands of innocent civilians
2. US military goes to where they train and captures them
3. I want them to be executed
4. ATL commenters call me a fascist
49 - Right back at you. See 45. Go back to the ivory tower please. The rest of us will deal with reality in which the enemy's concept of civil rights begins and ends with beheadings, regardless of whether we subject them to sleep deprivation (oh, the horror, the horror). And the other audience to whom you pander? The European left where a shockingly high number of people believe that the Bush adminstration faked 9/11 and who staged major protests when we attacked the Taliban.
Not 45.
i'm less concerned about the bullshit claims of "military's purposeful attempts to undermine counsel" and more concerned about counsel's purposeful attempts to undermine the military. these lawyers sneak in information about the family members and home addresses of the guards and interrogators. there is a special place in hell for these weasels.
With the deck stacked overwhelmingly in their favor, the government is losing these cases at a pretty decent clip. Doesn't that tell you enough about the quality of the evidence we have against the so-called worst of the worst. I mean I suppose if you were arrested in Thailand and told you were a terrorist and would be held indefinitely without due process you would be ok with that ... right?
Also, how is it that we are distrustful of our government in many instances and believe them to be inefficient and inept at most things but we are 100% certain they got it right with each and everyone of these people? Give me a break.
53,
Because they were caught on the battlefield and most have freely admitted their complicity, you stupid liberal bitch/bastard.
Lawyers suck Islamic dicks. And Islamic dicks are covered in shit, so sucking them is quite the bomb.
I want to start this post with the statement that the manner in which the US was conducting early military tribunals of enemy combatants was blatantly unlawful under the UCMJ (and a divided Supreme Court agreed in either Hamdi or Hamdan -- I don't remember which case).
To that extent, these prisoners were subject to treatment that was not within their enumerated rights as prisoners. This was fixed five years ago now.
You shit-eating ignoring heart-bleeders crack me up. "How would you like to a Gitmo Prisoner?" Are you serious? Fuck you. These people are prisoners of war. OF WAR. These people (with precious few exceptions) are NOT U.S. Citizens. These people (with precious few exceptions) are NOT Citizens of any nation we have any sort of treaty with regarding prisoner rights or extradition. What, in the name of holy hell, makes you think that these people have the right to private civilian counsel?
Don't get me wrong. I would bet lots of money that some, perhaps even many, of the Gitmo detainees are partially or wholly innocent.
THESE ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS. These people are not, by default, guaranteed the same rights as American citizens. What's more is that these people live in clean cells, with culture-appropriate food. They have access to a Koran. They are allowed to prey, they are allowed to exercise. THESE TYPES OF CONDITIONS WERE UNTHINKABLE IN ANY PREVIOUS WAR IN HUMAN HISTORY.
But make no mistake about it -- we are at war. I don't care if you hate Bush, or you hate the wars, or you are still upset that your parents didn't hug you enough and that the dolphins are dying of water-born pollution, we are at war. The UCMJ applies.
And all the UCMJ requires here, are BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL procedures that are generally recognized in a legal proceeding. That does NOT mean they deserve a team of lawyers. That does NOT mean they can invoke rules of evidentiary exclusion. At most (and the Supreme Court has held this way) it means that they get semi-regular case status updates, a basic right to examine evidence before them, basic military legal representation, and a very limited right to address those who accused them. THAT'S IT.
What's more, under the Geneva Conventions (adopted by the UCMJ), these people are, by and large, unlawful enemy combatants. When an individual does not fight as a member of a recognized nation's army, or tries to blend in with civilians, or tries to kill civilians, or fails to don a proper military uniform, or fails to carry arms openly (ALL of which terrorists fail to do), YOU DO NOT GET THE BULK OF THE PROTECTIONS afforded by the Geneva Conventions. In fact, it is an accepted axiom of international law of armed conflict (pick up a textbook sometime and look it up) that unlawful combatants CAN be held indefinitely.
Now, clearly there were some "hickups" with the early Bush administrations military tribunals. I acknowledge this -- and so does the Supreme Court. But where in the bloody hell do you idiots get this laughable notion of "constitutional" rights for prisoners of war?
People fail to see that these big firms are not in this for humanitarian reasons. The majority of them are in it to curry favor with Middle Eastern countries and companies. I’ve heard Wilner speak on the subject back in 2005 and it was clear that he got involved in the representation at the request of one of his largest Middle Eastern clients. There is a lot of oil money over there.
One more thing, Wilner’s former client Abdallah Saleh al-Ajmi committed the following act according to the Washington Post (2/22/09)
At 6:15 a.m. on March 23, 2008 . . . Ajmi drove a pickup truck filled with 5,000 to 10,000 pounds of explosives, hidden in what appeared to be white flour sacks, onto an Iraqi army base outside Mosul. He barreled though the entrance checkpoint and past a fusillade of gunfire from the sentries, shielded by bulletproof glass and makeshift armor welded to the cab. The Easter Sunday blast killed 13 Iraqi soldiers, wounded 42 others and left a 30-foot-wide crater in the ground.
This is not a civil rights issue. It is a war.
100% certain about each and every one?
There you go again, acting as if stuff like reasonable doubt applies in a war. Do we need or want to be 100% certain about each and every one? Is that the way you fight a war?
That is the way it is supposed to work in our domestic justice system.
I can't wait, soon on tv "Law and Order: Gitmo"...cue the theme music.
49,
48 here. Thank you for your response. It shows what pathetic vermin you liberals really are. You're a worthless piece of garbage. Seriously.
wow, thanks ATL. THis was a great article.
It's nice that every once and a while you can get away from the nonsense subjective rankings of firms, law schools, etc. and cover an actual topic that is not fun to discuss. People need to realize how BS the whole "War on Terror" was, and how many holes there are in the government's various positions.
The # of innocent people held in Guantanamo is just one crack in the facade.
@#8 - Read up. The NY Times number is B.S.
http://law.shu.edu/ProgramsCenters/PublicIntGovServ/CSJ/upload/GTMO_Final_Final_Recidivist_6-5-09-3.pdf
Some of those counted in that "1 in 7" were Uighurs who appeared in a documentary after their release. DOD called that an act of aggression. Others were arrested for crimes in their own countries that had nothing to do with the US, but were considered as having returned to the battlefield.
There are some very bad men in GTMO. There are also some people who did absolutely nothing to merit their incarceration. The rule of law is supposed to distinguish between the two. What these lawyers have done and are doing is as much or more about that than about the individuals in GTMO.
Sorry - #9, not 8.
-61
So when did due process become code for whiny liberal. I consider myself to be quite conservative. That means I love all aspects of freedom not just private property. I simply don't believe we should lock anyone away for life (this is a generational war isn't it) without testing our evidence against them.
Those that say they were captured on a battlefield by our troops are simply wrong. Many were detained trying to flee into pakistan. Many others were simply sold for bounty to the U.S. The fact is we have virtually no contemporaneous evidence of the circumstances of their capture. Maybe that is good enough for you because they are not american but for me, america is better than that. We don't throw away the key on people without justifying the circumstances of their detention.
23:
What an embarrassment to be part of a profession in which racist, wacko right-wing attorneys clearly have no idea what's in the constitution
Why do right-wingers (e.g., wackjobs, fascists, racists, homophobes, phony Christians, etc.) not realize how the very positions of religous extremism and lack of rule-of-law are the very same tenets of the societies they claim to detest.
Here's an idea, you rightwing nut: Shut the fuck up. You are several fries short of a Happy Meal, you are a danger to the community and you deserve to be involuntarily committed.
Well, the morons come out of the woodwork with articles like this. My fellow conservatives, what makes you think that justice, the rule of law and the GENEVA CONVENTION, can be bypassed in the case of these detainees? Guilty! Of what? How about Maher Arar, a telecommunications engineer and citizen of Canada, detained at JFK International Airport on his way home from vacation. He was taken on a rendition flight to Syria, his place of birth, jailed and tortured for almost a year, until the Canadian gov. ordered a Commission of Inquiry and publicly cleared of any links to terrorism. US government apology not forthcoming. When the USA is wrong, IT IS WRONG!
65 is bullshit. An Obamabot in disguise.
Why don't some of you bigshots who think these lawyers are traitors go join the military and stop whining on a blog from teh confort of your home.
Some people who know what war, poverty and life outside of a big city is like think these detainees deserve a defense. It's the american thing to do.