Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 12, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

NO NEED FOR A REAL TRIAL, THE SHOW VERSION SHOULD DO JUST FINE....Shorter Cully Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs: Patriotic American CEOs should withdraw their business from any traitorous law firm that defends Gitmo detainees. In fact, let me read off their names on the radio just to get the ball rolling.

Via Volokh.

Kevin Drum 2:03 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (77)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Did anyone catch the Colbert Report last night where Stephen talked about how market forces dictate who gets thrown in Gitmo? Seems every time he parodies the bush phenomenon, the phenomenon does him one better. CEO's are now being compelled to boycott magna-carta style rights.

I don't know if this is how Adam Smith imagined capitalism, but from where I'm sitting, it's hard to imagine capitalism catching on without despotism.

Posted by: A different Matt on January 12, 2007 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Apparently, Mr. Stimson has forgotten that this used to be America.

Posted by: bigcat on January 12, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Asked who was paying the firms, Mr. Stimson hinted of dark doings. "It's not clear, is it?" he said. "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 monies from who knows where, and I'd be curious to have them explain that."

what an idiot. most big firms have a pro bono program because many state bars require all lawyers do a certain amount of pro bono work to maintain their license. also pro bono work on a high profile case like the gitmo hearings are a feather in the firm's cap (apparently all the big NYC firms are trying to get a detainee or two). the work is definitely free. to imply these firms are taking "terrorist money" for the cases is beyond absurd

Posted by: upyernoz on January 12, 2007 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Asked who was paying the firms, Mr. Stimson hinted of dark doings. "It's not clear, is it?" he said.

When all else fails, start in with the McCarthyite innuendo.

Posted by: thalarctos on January 12, 2007 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

"It is bad enough they are defending terrorists for free."

So much for the presumption of innocence and requirement of actual proof before convicting someone. In my view, people like Mike are the terrorists seeking to undermine our government, as it has existed for 200 years -- should they be imprisoned without charges or proof? Why or why not?

Posted by: David in NY on January 12, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

We'll see how the squealers feel about the adversarial court system when President-Emperess Hillary brings Janet Reno out of retirement.

"Help, help, I'm being repressed!"

Posted by: Trollhattan on January 12, 2007 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

A police state will not defend against terrorism. A police state institutionalizes and legitimizes terrorism.

Posted by: Boronx on January 12, 2007 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

Definitely, and we should court martial their court appointed military lawyers. And we should execute the spineless traitors on the military review commissions that have released a couple hundred of those guys from gitmo. And their relatives.

Posted by: tomeck on January 12, 2007 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

But surely they'd never have been accused if they weren't guilty...

Maybe we should throw 'em in the water and see whether they float...

Posted by: Winston Smith on January 12, 2007 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

And he's a lawyer, for chrissakes. Pathetic.

Posted by: dcbob on January 12, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

What an unmitigated asshole.

Posted by: Marc on January 12, 2007 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Is there a plant somewhere that turns out these tyrant wannabees ?

Posted by: opit on January 12, 2007 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

What makes Stimson's ploy even more pathetic is that it's being invoked when only the most committed ideologues believe in the Bush administration.

What CEO that thinks about this stuff believes everyone at Gitmo is guilty?

And why would a CEO cut relations with a good law firm over this? To curry favor with President Dimwit?

I suppose the CEO of Halliburton and other companies bidding for Iraq occupation/Iran War business might be impressed with Bush's influence, but who else would be?

Media companies? Is Disney or Microsoft going to fire their lawyers on Bush's say so? What are the odds they'd get caught? Pretty high, I think. What would political activists do to the companies?

The Bush administration has lost touch with reality. It doesn't even comprehend the limits of its domestic influence.

But if you haven't got the cards you might as well try bluffing.

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on January 12, 2007 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

What's really pathetic?

Comments like these, coming from administration officials, no longer surprise or shock me. I just read the comments, roll my eyes, and ask myself, "What's next from these people?"

Posted by: Ranger Jay on January 12, 2007 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

Why does Cully Stimson hate America?

Posted by: Otto Man on January 12, 2007 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

I was reading the comments over at Volokh and they make me ashamed to be an American.

Posted by: Brojo on January 12, 2007 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK
Is there a plant somewhere that turns out these tyrant wannabees ?

I don't know if I'd call the Republican Party a "plant", but...

Posted by: cmdicely on January 12, 2007 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

Why does Cully Stimson hate America's justice system? Because he's pond scum.

Posted by: Ann in AZ on January 12, 2007 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

If these lawyers have nothing better to do than defend terrorists, they should be serving in the military.

A wholesale draft is politically impossible, but Congress should implement a draft for any occupations not serving the national interest, and radical defense lawyers would definitely fit that bill.

Posted by: Al on January 12, 2007 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

Anybody know where he's licensed?

Posted by: Google_This on January 12, 2007 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

I was reading the comments over at Volokh and they make me ashamed to be an American.

We were watching the speech on Wednesday and my husband looked at me and said "Now when we say that America is the best country in the world, I don't feel pride. I feel embarrassed and hopeless, but I don't feel proud."

And that broke my heart.

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 12, 2007 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

Al -- you are far too modest; tell us about your current heroic service in Iraq. Or maybe you are just another sissyhawk?

Posted by: bob on January 12, 2007 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

If these lawyers have nothing better to do than defend terrorists, they should be serving in the military.
Posted by: Al

If you've got nothing better to do than post lame regurgitations of the current administration's talking points you should be serving in the military.

Posted by: cyntax on January 12, 2007 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

Wait, what am I saying? I wouldn't trust your lame-ass with the responsibility for a cub-scout troop.

Posted by: cyntax on January 12, 2007 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

I've got a message for any un-American CEO who takes up Stimson's jihad against the Constitution: don't forget that the Democrats are now in power and we will make Congress' lives hell if they don't do something about it, and so in turn Congress could make their lives hell if they go in this direction.

Posted by: reader on January 12, 2007 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

You libs never cease to amaze me.

In Guantamano Bay, there are collected the most heinous, bloodthirsty, evil and diabolical villians anywhere, and they all have one thing on their mind: the wholesale destruction of the United States of America and our Way of Life.

Frankly, I think Mr. Stimson's recommendations are far to modest. As far as I'm concerned, these legal firms should be designated terrorist accomplices as stipulated under the Patriot Act, and sent to Guantamano themselves.

The fact that you people see nothing wrong with this is all the more disgusting.

Posted by: egbert on January 12, 2007 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

I don't see any reason why we should have to live in a country with Republicans. They like global warming so much I think they should move to some warmer clime, say Paraguay, where they can relax and just be themselves without any smart characters complaining about it.

Posted by: cld on January 12, 2007 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

You libs never cease to amaze me. In Guantamano Bay, there are collected the most heinous, bloodthirsty, evil and diabolical villians anywhere, and they all have one thing on their mind: the wholesale destruction of the United States of America and our Way of Life.

Ah, egbert! You have made my day! I am opening a bottle of bubbly and rejoicing in the detention of Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld!!!

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 12, 2007 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

And as Paraguayans (Paraguites?) they won't have any public or international responsibilities or commitments or involvements. That's a win/win for Republicans --isn't it?

Posted by: cld on January 12, 2007 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

sorry for the dispair, global citizen. america is still bigger than one president and a handful of neanderthal thugs. we are going through one of our darker moments, as we periodically do, but hopefully we'll come out of it a smarter, better country. we can't achieve perfection, only strive toward it while occasionally taking a step or two backwards. if you don't believe that, what's the point?

Posted by: mudwall jackson on January 12, 2007 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Stimson proceeded to reel off the names of these firms, adding, "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, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out."

what a truly sick guy: it's not the nearly 3,000 dead from 9/11 that is supposed to outrage CEOs, assuming they're supposed to be outraged at all; it's what 9/11 did to corporate bottomlines and the stock market that matters. from under what rock did this guy crawl?

Posted by: mudwall jackson on January 12, 2007 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

In 1770, British soliders fired into a hostile crowd in Boston, killing five--the "Boston Massacre," a key event leading up to the revolution 5 years later. The soliders involved were placed on trial in a colonial court for murder. John Adams stepped forward to defend them.

Posted by: rea on January 12, 2007 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

You libs never cease to amaze me. In Guantamano Bay, there are collected the most heinous, bloodthirsty, evil and diabolical villians anywhere, and they all have one thing on their mind: the wholesale destruction of the United States of America and our Way of Life.

Are you serious? It sure sounds good - Heinous? Bloodthirsty? Evil, diabolical, villainous? LOCK 'EM UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY! Of course, that's not what our way of life is about. If we're not going to practice our way of life according to the principles of our way of life (liberal traditions - rule of law, habeas corpus, notice and opportunity, the institutional protection of judicial, political, and civil rights and liberties, etc...) then why bother defending it from those who threaten it? If I buy a gun to defend my home, it makes to sense if I destroy the home in the process. Protecting our way of life is more than throwing suspects in prison without trial. Furthermore, why wouldn't we want to try all of these people? Isn't that what justice is about? Being held accountable, publically, for one's crimes and transgressions? Aren't we supposed to provide an example for developing states around the world? Don't we nag Putin about such abuses of power in the Russian Federation? Chavez in Venezuela? The PRI when it was in power in Mexico? C'mon you guys, defending our values means nothing if we don't believe in them.

Posted by: Everblue Stater on January 12, 2007 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

Wouldn't the same apply to people who put gas in there cars,Or buy diamonds for there wives,That is also supporting terrorists.

Posted by: Thomas3.6 1/2 on January 12, 2007 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

From Democratic Underground,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3053191

There is a decent chance that within the next month or two the New Mexico State Legislature will ask the U.S. House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. And there is the definite possibility that a Congress Member from New Mexico will take up the matter when it gets to Washington. The Jefferson Manual, rules used by the U.S. House, allows for impeachment to be begun in this manner. It only takes one state legislature. No governor is needed. One Congress Member, from the same state or any other, is needed to essentially acknowledge receipt of the state's petition. Then impeachment begins.

Last year the state legislatures of California, Minnesota, Illinois, and Vermont introduced but did not pass resolutions to send impeachment to the U.S. House. The State Senator who introduced the bill in Minnesota is now a member of Congress, Keith Ellison. He is one of many Congress Members waiting for the right moment to impeach Bush and Cheney. The state of New Jersey has a strong activist movement working to introduce and pass impeachment this year. There's a race now to see which state can do it first, which state can redeem these United States in the eyes of the world. New Mexico is jumping into the contest in a big way, with a terrific leading sponsor of the bill, strong Democatic majorities in both houses, and a citizens' movement ready to hold its government to account. . . .

Posted by: cld on January 12, 2007 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

Egbert,

Damm, have you even been to GITMO? Are you trying to tell me that every individual there is eeevil? You have to come with a stronger argument than that. Just like the three British citizens that were held in GITMO, who released the film "Road to GITMO" were in your words the "most heinous, bloodthirsty, evil and diabolical villians anywhere, and they all have one thing on their mind: the wholesale destruction of the United States of America and our Way of Life." Yet, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Crawl back to your bunker and think of a stronger argument.

Posted by: n0rd1x on January 12, 2007 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

I saw Charles Stimson, Deputy Defense Secretary for Detainee Affairs, on Cspan's Washington Journal this week. He was cold as ice, rejecting what David Cynamon, attorney for Kwaiti detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison, had to say about the U.S. charging people with war crimes.
I had chills watching Stimson's demeanor and dismissiveness. Several callers were critical of him.

Posted by: consider wisely always on January 12, 2007 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

from Robert Parry,

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/4672

At a not-for-quotation pre-speech briefing on Jan. 10, George W. Bush and his top national security aides unnerved network anchors and other senior news executives with suggestions that a major confrontation with Iran is looming.

Commenting about the briefing on MSNBC after Bush’s nationwide address, NBC’s Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said “there’s a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue – in the country and the world – in a very acute way.”

Russert and NBC anchor Brian Williams depicted this White House emphasis on Iran as the biggest surprise from the briefing as Bush stepped into the meeting to speak passionately about why he is determined to prevail in the Middle East.

“The President’s inference was this: that an entire region would blow up from the inside, the core being Iraq, from the inside out,” Williams said, paraphrasing Bush. . . .

Posted by: cld on January 12, 2007 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

(Hi CWA *smiling and waving*)

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, the Navy lawyer who successfully defended the Hamdan case is being forced to retire for adequately representing his client before the Supreme Court.

I started ranting about his treatment by the pentagon in October.

The disdain for procedure and protocol is not new. The overt expression and blatant Jingoism is. (Operative word being overt).

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 12, 2007 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

Must be seen to be believed,

from,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061220/wl_nm/iraq_najaf_handover_dc_3

NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraqi soldiers bit the heads off frogs and ate the heart of a rabbit as signs of courage on Wednesday at a ceremony to transfer Najaf province, home to one of Shi'ite Islam's holiest shrines, from U.S. to Iraqi control. . .

Politicians, tribal and religious leaders and soldiers watched displays of military prowess and one demonstration, hailed as a display of courage, in which five soldiers stopped before the grandstand to bite the heads off frogs.

A sixth holding a live rabbit slit open its stomach and ate its heart before tossing the carcass to his comrades to chew on.

Under Saddam Hussein's rule, his feared Fedayeen militia carried out similar acts, and in one instance were videoed hunting a fox and then tearing it apart with their teeth.


With photo Iraqi, I would guess, manliness.

Posted by: cld on January 12, 2007 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINK

cld:

I hear that's an old Iraqi soldier's tradition.

I wonder what Petraeus thinks of it. You know, he was hands-on training the ISF two years ago. Much was made how he'd challenge cadets to out-run him and such (he's a major fitness freak).

Hehe -- I wonder if they got him to partake of this interesting custom at a graduation ceremony :)

Great picture to show yer grandkids :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 12, 2007 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, it may be an ancient tradition, but, would you feel right about kissing a guy who once chewed the heart out of a live bunny?

A guy with bunny-heart-blood breath?

"That's my man, look at the big choppers on him, eh?"

Posted by: cld on January 12, 2007 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know if I'd call the Republican Party a "plant", but...

Ever heard of the College Republicans?

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on January 12, 2007 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

from,

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20061231_chris_hedges_americas_holy_warriors/

The drive by the Christian right to take control of military chaplaincies, which now sees radical Christians holding roughly 50 percent of chaplaincy appointments in the armed services and service academies, is part of a much larger effort to politicize the military and law enforcement. This effort signals the final and perhaps most deadly stage in the long campaign by the radical Christian right to dismantle America’s open society and build a theocratic state. A successful politicization of the military would signal the end of our democracy.

During the past two years I traveled across the country to research and write the book “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.” I repeatedly listened to radical preachers attack as corrupt and godless most American institutions, from federal agencies that provide housing and social welfare to public schools and the media. But there were two institutions that never came under attack—the military and law enforcement. While these preachers had no interest in communicating with local leaders of other faiths, or those in the community who did not subscribe to their call for a radical Christian state, they assiduously courted and flattered the military and police. They held special services and appreciation days for all four branches of the armed services and for various law enforcement agencies. They encouraged their young men and women to enlist or to join the police or state troopers. They sought out sympathetic military and police officials to attend church events where these officials were lauded and feted for their Christian probity and patriotism. They painted the war in Iraq not as an occupation but as an apocalyptic battle by Christians against Islam, a religion they regularly branded as “satanic.” All this befits a movement whose final aesthetic is violence. It also befits a movement that, in the end, would need the military and police forces to seize power in American society. . .


The article is terrific and everyone should read it.

It doesn't mention that the founder of Blackwater's father was one of the people who bankrolled James Dobson.

Posted by: cld on January 12, 2007 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

I'll do that CLD, and recommend the work of Laurie Goldstein at the New York Times. She has done some excellent work on evangelicals in the military. Worth checking out if you can get past the Times Select subscription wall.

I have been posting on this for a couple of years now. Here are the highlights from one of those posts.

The last decade has seen a doubling in the number of ultra-conservative Evangelical Christians in the Chaplain ranks. This coincides with a sharp drop in the number Chaplains representing Liturgical, moderate, and liberal denominations. Case in point: Currently the United States Air Force has less than 100 Catholic priests to serve an Air Force of 280,000 individuals (and their families in many cases) 60,000 of which are Roman Catholic.

Military Chaplains are just that. They are Chaplains, or spiritual advisors first, and they are priests, rabbis, and preachers second. They are (supposed to be) benevolent, tolerant, and most importantly, ecumenical. Every Chaplain of every denomination needs to be reminded first and foremost that no matter what creed they espouse, they are ultimately in a minority position. No one denomination makes up over 50% of the Air Force, or any branch of service for that matter.

It is the job of the Chaplain to provide spiritual guidance and comfort to all who ask, not to proselytize, or even evangelize, to those who come to them for counsel. It is their job to comfort and aid all, not render judgments about the faith of the person coming to them for assistance. Chaplains need to be especially cognizant and tolerant of other belief systems. The people who come to them for help are in pain and distress. They come for help because they need it. It is not helpful to be judged negatively on the basis of your beliefs by a person of authority. (All Chaplains are officers, and therefore in positions of authority above all enlisted personnel.) Bottom line: Persons seeking out the Chaplain are vulnerable.

It is the job of the Chaplain, no matter what creed he or she follows, when a comrade-at-arms is lost, to offer words of comfort to all, not only those of the Chaplains belief system. Judgments about the fate of the dead because he or she was the "wrong" faith are most certainly inappropriate. For a military Chaplain to stand before a diverse assembly of troops, most likely including Catholics and Jews, and possibly a few Buddhists, Hindus and a couple of people with traditional beliefs, and offer a memorial service that implies that all who have not been "born again" and "washed in the blood of the lamb" are doomed to face the wrath of God and burn in hell forever. This is especially inappropriate when the person being memorialized is of a liturgical or a non-christian faith. This is an affront to the dead and an insult to the living. Any Chaplain who does not see that does not deserve to be the spiritual adviser of one, let alone many.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 12, 2007 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK

In 1770, British soliders fired into a hostile crowd in Boston, killing five--the "Boston Massacre," a key event leading up to the revolution 5 years later. The soliders involved were placed on trial in a colonial court for murder. John Adams stepped forward to defend them.

Posted by: rea on January 12, 2007 at 6:15 PM

Adams' defense of the Red Coats is one of the proudest moments in American jurisprudence. Look how far we have fallen. Simply mind boggling.

Posted by: Ron Byers on January 12, 2007 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

Globe

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift stands in the tradition of John Adams. He should make America proud. I know I am proud to know he is in the same profession.

The pond scum who have decided to punish Swift for doing his duty as a lawyer should be ashamed. They need to be identified and shamed.

I posted the Cully Stimson article on a lawyers website today. Even hard rock Republicans are beside themselves with anger. He stands foresquare against everything every lawyer is taught from the first day he enters law school. What a creep.

Posted by: Ron Byers on January 12, 2007 at 11:30 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder how the slaves on the Amistad would have fared today?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 12, 2007 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

I have known many honorable JAG officers over the years, and I have talked to them about the Swift issue. It has prompted three early retirements that I am aware of.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 12, 2007 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, I'll fall in with the general line, "how far have we fallen?", but would point out it has been a repetitive course of US affairs. We are just revisiting the Robber Baron era, to a degree.

Now that real debate has returned to the House, with the exposure of reasoned difference of opinion, and some Republicans voting with Democrats, is that why argument from all the Repubnik, repubnut, and, even, relatively sane Repupublicans has evaporated from this space?

Pretty boring, huh?

Posted by: notthere on January 13, 2007 at 12:00 AM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl re: "Now when we say that America is the best country in the world, I don't feel pride. I feel embarrassed and hopeless, but I don't feel proud." And that broke my heart."

One reason for you & your husband to feel proud of America is another brave & gifted US military lawyer, Major Michael Mori & he's still fighting the fight.

Like Charles Swift, Major Mori accepted the thankless task of representing a high profile Gitmo detainee, the Australian David Hicks. Like Charles Swift he's since devoted himself to defending his client with an uncompromising zeal for the law & its' noblest traditions that will undoubtedly be career suicide. Necessarily, his zeal & legal professionalism has led him to denounce the very jurisprudence, evidentiary rules & treatment of detainees at Gitmo. In that he is joined by the most respected legal bodies in the world- including the Law Lords of UK, World Court, UN, Amnesty International, US Supreme Court, American Bar Association, Australian Supreme Court etc.,

The extraordinary thing is that the US Government has actually supplied such a skilled, relentless & charismatic advocate - who is also a US Major -to argue so eloquently against the Administration's case. I know that is simply following the letter & spirit of the law, but while so many despair of America's failure to adhere to the very values it fights to protect, Major Mori reminds us of what the US can, will & does stand for, despite the worst intentions of individual administrations.

On behalf of his client, Major Mori has relentlessly lobbied the US & Australian government, Aussie media & public with an impassioned scholarship & impressive advocacy that's nothing short of heroic. As such, even WHILE he denounces the American travesty of justice that is Gitmo (Hicks has been jailed, brutally, for over 5 years without being charged) he simultaneously restores our faith in the underlying soundness of American justice & values. Blue Girl, (aka GC) Major Mori should make you & your husband, very proud.

In closing though, Major Mori deserves not only your pride & respect - he needs your help. In the eerie simultaneity that characterises al Qeda & Bush-admin attacks, Cully Stimson's not-so-veiled-threats towards US legal firms defending Gitmo clients, was echoed by the US Office of Military Commissions. The Chief US Military Prosecutor of that Office, Colonel Morris Davis this week launched a series of vicious, personal media attacks on Major Mori & prejudicially condemned David Hicks, treating spurious allegations against the accused as if proven (not unlike earnest parody troll Egbert).

Lt. Commander Swift can't be helped. Major Mori can. Lobby your Congress & Senate to ensure that genuine American serviceman patriots like Mori are not punished for upholding & protecting the US Constitution.

Posted by: DanJoaquinOz on January 13, 2007 at 6:38 AM | PERMALINK

cld and Global Citizen:

To your point(s) above, I was listening to a piece on NPR about a group called The Christian Embassy. They are a group of "embedded evangelicals" in government, and most notably the Pentagon, who aggressively spew their noxious form of Christianity (although I don't see it as that at all) to people inside the Pentagon. They hold daily prayer sessions and people who do not attend are ostracized and passed over for promotion. These people are obviously very confused about the teachings of Christ. This might be a worthwhile group to research and blog about, Global (hint,hint).

To address the subject of Kevin's post, I read a great article a while back about Gitmo, and now I can't locate it but it said that Gitmo was "full of the slowest runners in Afghanistan". Which is a hilarious way of saying that many of the detainees are low-value Taliban or possibly, al-Qaeda, who were easily caught when the CIA and Special Forces first went into Afghanistan in 2001. Some had literally been shot in the ass while running away. Some had nothing to do with either group and were simply ratted out by a neighbor for one of the $5,000 bounties that the Special Forces guys were dispensing without any proof of the person's intelligence value. Most of the high-value targets who were captured, like Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), who actually planned the 9-11 attacks, were renditioned to special CIA holding cells in Romania, Thailand, etc. Which incidentally, why have we never seen or heard anything about KSM after his capture? Think it may have something to do with the fact that he has been tortured past the point of insanity? He is probably a mass of blabbering jello at this point. If anyone should have been brought back to the U.S. and made to stand trial in an American court of law, under American rules of civil justice, it is him! I'll bet that like Jose Padilla, the Bushies have destroyed the one human being that could have been a useful lesson to the American people and the world of how a fair and honest trial for an egregious crime like 9-11 should have been prosecuted. Alas, that is no longer possible.

TCD

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on January 13, 2007 at 7:00 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, egbert, you never fail to provide opportunities for amusement even as you reveal what an authoritarian, America-hating weasel you are:

In Guantamano Bay, there are collected the most heinous, bloodthirsty, evil and diabolical villians anywhere

Would those be diabolical vaudevillians?

Posted by: DrBB on January 13, 2007 at 8:11 AM | PERMALINK

Isn't there some law, or at least regulatory guidelines, about government officials asking for boycotts of business etc? Can Stimson be charged with improper or even illegal conduct?

Posted by: Neil Bates on January 13, 2007 at 9:29 AM | PERMALINK

Neil Bates

You might have something there. Maybe somebody will come up with a way to disbar this yahoo but I am not sure that formal action is necessary.

The Bush Administration and its handling of the detainee situation at Gitmo has fallen into such disrepute, I suspect Stimson is the guy who is going to have trouble finding a job. This particular episode isn't going to endear him to any of the big firms. Law firm selection committees have a long memory. Stimson might discover that his little unAmerican stunt wasn't exactly a good career move.

Posted by: Ron Byers on January 13, 2007 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

Thankfully, lawyers who happen to be conservative are attacking this notion vigorously. Hopefully there will be an occasion extented to Stimson to flesh out these views before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. I'll buy the beer, someone bring snaks.

Posted by: Keith G on January 13, 2007 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

DJO - Thanks for the tip about Major Mori. Now that he is on my radar screen I will be doing some research and watching what happens.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 13, 2007 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

"Is there a plant somewhere that turns out these tyrant wannabees?"

In Stimson's case, George Mason University. I'm sure he's right on Roe vs. Wade; what else matters?

Posted by: Steve Paradis on January 13, 2007 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

This article does smack of Standard Operating Procedure for the Left.

The only way to win is by witholding information.

How dare that bastard announce the list of sleazy lawyers representing suspected terrorists? Now people will find out who these firms are, and they'll be able to excercise their freedom of choice to not support them! Unthinkable!

Posted by: sportsfan79 on January 13, 2007 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

"As far as I'm concerned, these legal firms should be designated terrorist accomplices as stipulated under the Patriot Act, and sent to Guantamano themselves."

Stealing material from Yehzov again, egbert?

Posted by: bobbyp on January 13, 2007 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

To quote Professor Volokh, "All individuals, even suspected terrorists, are entitled to a capable legal defense when subjected to judicial process."

I do believe that the good professor has not being attention.

Posted by: Jose Padilla on January 13, 2007 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

sportsfan79

The "sleazy lawyers" you are talking about happen to be some of the best, most prinicpled people in the country. These guys are working hard to preserve the honor of American justice. In America everyone is entitled to his day in court and an opportunity to a fair trial. Everyone is entitled to the best representation available.

By the way that isn't a "liberal" idea. That is an American ideal.

Maybe you should tell us why you hate America and its founding principles.

Posted by: Ron Byers on January 13, 2007 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

Love the way this topic brings out the core values of the wingers. It all boils down to that deep and abiding yearning for the authoritarian police state in the end. That's what you guys want, it's what you're ilk has always wanted, and the closer you come to achieving it the more furious and jingoistic and thuggish you become. You'll get those concentration camps one way or another, won't you. What a lovely vision you present for the future of this country and the world. Razor wire and surveillance cameras from sea to shining sea. And even then you'll be howling at all those internal enemies still out there threatening our "freedom."

Posted by: DrBB on January 13, 2007 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

The Dick Cheney style of Government:

“I think the news story that you’re really going to start seeing in the next couple of weeks is this: As a result of a FOIA request through a major news organization, somebody asked, ‘Who are the lawyers around this country representing detainees down there?’ and you know what, it’s shocking.”

Amazing how it looks exactly like an Al Capone style of goverment - completely corrupt.

I think there is name for this kind of corruption, it called EXTORTION.

Strong-arming, coercion, oppression, manipulation, the criminal word for this type of behavior is EXTORTION, and its illegal but Bush and Dick Cheney use these types of threats and ugly illegal behavors all the time anyway. If you don't do what the say, they'll ruin you, force your firm, company out of business.

Bush and Cheney are not about democracy at all, it’s the total lack thereof.

Charles D. Stimson should be charged with a crime and it IS a crime.


Posted by: Cheryl on January 13, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

At least Stimson passed on this list to Bill O'Reilly who will boycott them and not retain any of them to defend him against sexual harrassment suits. He will only use Patriot Loofah and Falaffel Defenders certified by George Mason University and/or Liberty U.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 13, 2007 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

It's too late. Nobody will drink this cup of propaganda swill save for the most hardcore Bush adherents. I wouldn't be surprised if Stimson got a (metaphorical) punch in the head from Rove for this tirade.

Posted by: Librul on January 13, 2007 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

why does the constitution hate america so much?
Why does the bill of rights and habeas corpus defend freedom haters so much?
we really need to burn those documents to protect ourselves from those that hate those unpatriotic documents?
Terrorists know that those things that protect us protect them, so let's get rid ot em. And let all power george and dick protect us from all possible harm, even ourselves.

Posted by: cboas on January 13, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

bob,

I have to apologize for the unnecessary sharp tone that got into a post to you last night.

I was simply too tired to see straight.

Posted by: cld on January 13, 2007 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Stimson's comments slandering the law firms that are offering assistance in representing the accused at Gitmo grow out of the Bush administration's own consciousness that many of the people they are holding at Gitmo are innocent of the allegations put against them. After all, they have already released hundreds after years of detention.

Stimson (and the administration) don't want the accused to have competent counsel, because that makes it all the more likely that the flimsiness of the administration's cases against the accused will be exposed in the process.

Stimson is afraid that competent counsel will highlight the weakness of the administration's grounds for detaining many of those at Gitmo. Hence, the slander against the firms and the attempt to gen up a threat of boycott.

Posted by: McCord on January 13, 2007 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Globe,

These people are a subversive organization that's a far more substantial threat than al-Qaeda. They provide a specific religious aesthetic for authoritarian personalities and no one in a position to do anything about it has any inclination because they're already too well hooked up, and because those people are almost certainly naturally sympathetic to their views.

It's the real enemy within.

(However, nutcase General Boykin is now apparently persona non grata,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16549316/site/newsweek/

though I don't think it's for his religious insanity.

What will he do in the private sector?)

Posted by: cld on January 13, 2007 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

The now anti-war majority needs to boycott the defense and petro capitalists that have occupied our government and find a way to publicly shame and ruin political commissars at the defense department.

Posted by: Brojo on January 13, 2007 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

the Air Force lost two people who pushed back hard when my husband retired, CLD. I still push back but it doesn't have the same effect it had when he was commanding Airmen.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 13, 2007 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

I think our best recourse is to keep these people in the news and focus on their unilateral contempt for all elements of government and society that isn't explicitly authoritarian and religious.

People returning from Iraq are likely pretty fed up with religious mania and may provide grassroots support in and out of the military to directly challenge the promotion of these people and their agenda.

Posted by: cld on January 13, 2007 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter Cully Stimson: "These lawyers from high powered law firms are asking tough questions! Mommy, make them stop!

Posted by: d0n camillo on January 13, 2007 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

Apparently he's a legacy:

" . . . Timber baron Charles D. Stimson (1857-1928), who made a fortune during the Klondike Gold Rush in the late 1890s and then made even more money by investing in downtown Seattle real estate."

Another example of upper class genetic engineering. (They've got the smile, the handshake and the steely-eyed look down pat. The brain, however . . . )

Posted by: Steve Paradis on January 13, 2007 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

Can Stimson be disbarred for his remarks?

Posted by: Stuart Eugene Thiel on January 14, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

egbart: In Guantamano Bay, there are collected the most heinous, bloodthirsty, evil and diabolical villians anywhere, and they all have one thing on their mind: the wholesale destruction of the United States of America and our Way of Life.

This sentence is accurate if you replace "Guantanamo Bay" with "the Bush White House"....

Posted by: D'oh Jones on January 15, 2007 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly