With Liberty and Justice For Some
One of the most basic tenets of this constitutional democracy, indeed, of all civilized societies, is that those accused of a crime are entitled to a fair trial. This administration has now decided that tenet is frivolous and too pre-9/11. Taking the lead from a conservative talk-show host, a Pentagon official attacked law firms who are providing legal counsel to Guantanamo Bay inmates, suggesting that the firms' corporate clients might wish to take their business elsewhere. From today's NY Times:
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. [Emphasis added]
Apparently Mr. Stimson, a law school graduate himself, is unaware of the professional responsibility of lawyers. I guess he missed that class. All defendants are entitled to a defense and assistance at trial regardless of the crimes with which they are charged, the evidence against them, and their ability to pay. That's what the concept "fair trial" is all about. Bar associations, including those charged by the state to regulate the practice of law, urge lawyers to provide such legal services without charging because it is in the best interests of society that all citizens have access to justice, not just those who can pay and who have the proper political affiliations.
Not content to urge economic blackmail against those law firms who have directed attorneys to provide such services at no cost, Mr. Stimson then proceeded to suggest that those law firms were actually being paid to do the pro bono work, implying some nefarious plot by outsiders.
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.”
Explain what? And why should they? The fact is that most, if not all, of these law firms are providing a very necessary service in support of the constitutional mandate of fair trials for all accused and doing it without pay. However, even if someone is funding one or more of these defenses, why is that any business of the government? After all, the Justice Department and the Pentagon have much large budgets than any single lawfirm. Is it possible Mr. Stimson fears that the government will lose these cases if the defendant actually has an attorney?
His comments are reprehensible, ignorant, and, more importantly, chilling. I hope the Congress and all the Americans it represents scream loudly and long about these comments. If enough noise is made, Mr. Stimson's resignation just might be the next one accepted by the President.
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. [Emphasis added]
Apparently Mr. Stimson, a law school graduate himself, is unaware of the professional responsibility of lawyers. I guess he missed that class. All defendants are entitled to a defense and assistance at trial regardless of the crimes with which they are charged, the evidence against them, and their ability to pay. That's what the concept "fair trial" is all about. Bar associations, including those charged by the state to regulate the practice of law, urge lawyers to provide such legal services without charging because it is in the best interests of society that all citizens have access to justice, not just those who can pay and who have the proper political affiliations.
Not content to urge economic blackmail against those law firms who have directed attorneys to provide such services at no cost, Mr. Stimson then proceeded to suggest that those law firms were actually being paid to do the pro bono work, implying some nefarious plot by outsiders.
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.”
Explain what? And why should they? The fact is that most, if not all, of these law firms are providing a very necessary service in support of the constitutional mandate of fair trials for all accused and doing it without pay. However, even if someone is funding one or more of these defenses, why is that any business of the government? After all, the Justice Department and the Pentagon have much large budgets than any single lawfirm. Is it possible Mr. Stimson fears that the government will lose these cases if the defendant actually has an attorney?
His comments are reprehensible, ignorant, and, more importantly, chilling. I hope the Congress and all the Americans it represents scream loudly and long about these comments. If enough noise is made, Mr. Stimson's resignation just might be the next one accepted by the President.
Labels: Guantanamo Bay
posted by Diane at 10:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home