Bell Curve The Law Talking Guy Raised by Republicans U.S. West
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Monday, January 15, 2007

Why this Administration has no Respect for the Rule of Law

RBR sent me a note off-blog telling me of something unbelievable. I had to look it up. A deputy assistant secretary of Defense Charles Stimson has urged that major corporations boycott twelve major law firms whose lawyers volunteered to participate in the defense of the detainees at Guantanamo. He said that CEOs of major corporations (read: Republicans) should boycott these major law firms which "defended terrorists."

"And I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms."

This is a major assault on the independent judiciary, the rule of law, and all civil liberties. It is fundamental to the rule of law that each person has the right to a defense, no matter how much the government wants to get rid of him or her. Trying to deprive us of the right to hire big law firms in our defense is a huge assault on freedom. Every lawyer represents unsavory people from time to time. This is the same crap that public defenders always deal with from ignorant Republicans who don't see why you should represent "criminals" - then hire their own attorneys with glee when they are accused of tax fraud. This is also an attempt to stop lawyers at big firms from doing pro bono work for any organization that might oppose Republicans. No doubt Fox News, the Washington Times, and the National Review will help to make this happen. I can assure you that if I were to suggest to my higher-ups at my big national law firm that I do pro bono work for civil liberties, it will be strongly discouraged in a way it never would have been beforehand. I should add that there is a very long tradition of permitting lawyers to do pro bono work as they see fit. The only issues are real business issues. Law firms tend to be divided into labor or management firms, for example, and their attorneys are not expected to advocate against the interests of the major clients. But nobody has tried to launch a campaign to prevent major law firms from selling their services to bidders of politically unpopular (read: anything but far right) persuasions.

According to another website, these are the firms he named:

Pillsbury Winthrop, Jenner & Block, Hunton & Williams, Alston & Bird, Cutler Pickering, Weil Gotshal, Paul Weiss Rifkin, Covington & Burling, Mayer Brown, Pepper Hamilton, Perkins Cole, Fulbright Jaworski, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, and Venable . For those of you who don't know, these are all major law firms, some even known as "Republican" firms (firms with DC offices have to choose, generally, between representing Dems or Republicans for conflict-of-interest reasons, but they usually try to downplay these associations). I work for a firm whose name would normally be in this list.

The DoD is "distancing" itself from these comments, but won't fire the bastard. Why? Because they largely agree with him. Fundamentally, these Republicans and neocons think that democracy is too weak deal with "the real world," and that things like civil rights and the judiciary are left-wing tools that weaken us. This is what fascism really is. The belief that our safety lies in Strong Men Willing to Make Hard Choices (e.g., the TV show 24) rather than the Rule of Law, Democracy, and Liberty.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for filling in the details LTG. I knew this was big but I didn't recognize the law firms he listed or understand the context.

It is shocking. I'm also convinced that the administration agrees with the thrust of his statement even if they regret it's public airing. The main reason this guy is in any trouble at all is because he spilled the beans about what this Administration has probably been saying to these firms behind the scenes for a long time.

He should be fired immediately to send a signal that he crossed a major line with this. 

// posted by RBR

Anonymous said...

The man's comments were reprehensible. He went on to accuse some of those law firms of lying about their "claim" to be working pro bono, and he strongly implied they were getting paid by Al Qaeda. Then he came out with another big lie: he said Guantanamo was, "certainly the most transparent and open location in the world."

LTG and RbR are dead right. He must be fired immediately--along with anyone who put him up to it. This strikes me as a calculated "leak."

Anonymous said...

I read this story on Saturday and wondered how long it would take before this group commented on it. It appears to be another in a long list of stories that illustrate how far this administration will go to quiet anyone who challenges them.

Still, the administration is dancing as fast as it can to explain that Stimson's comments are not the position of the administration. One can infer that Stimson's mouth has gotten him in trouble before. In a 2006 interview with the magazine of Kenyon College, his alma mater, Stimson said that he was learning "to choose my words carefully because I am a public figure on a very, very controversial topic."
 

// posted by Spiny Norman

Anonymous said...

A public reprimand  is absolutely required, indicating affirmative disagreement with these comments. 

// posted by LTG

Anonymous said...

Spiny Norman: I don't think this was your intention, but others might infer that Stimson's current comments might somehow be a slip of the tongue--that he might be getting tripped up by the "PC Police" for speaking to bluntly. This was nothing of the kind. Stimson's comments on this occasion were lengthy and deliberate. He knew precisely what he was saying.

Anonymous said...

Help! A giant hedgehog is after me! 

// posted by Dinsdale

Raised By Republicans said...

The comments are very in depth. Nothing like a "slip of the tongue." I agree with Dr. S. this has all the halmarks of a deliberate "leak"

Anonymous said...

There is no doubt that Stimson's comments were strong and clear. The reaction to them is not a misinterpretation or parsing of a specific word or phrase. It is appalling to me that this man is a lawyer and have such disdain for the rights of the accused. The ABA should consider censuring him for these comments.

You can listen to his words yourseld at http://www.federalnewsradio.com/emedia/59677.wma
 

// posted by Spiny Norman

Anonymous said...

They're not "accused." They're terrorists. Rumsfeld said so. What else could you POSSIBLY need to know? As Ned Flanders said playing the role of the Devil, "You Americans with your fair trials and due process. This is always so much easier in Mexico..." 

// posted by LTG