[Calgary123]

This guy is a real American hero... the US could use a few real Patriots, and honerable men such as himself. Here's a man who can truly say he is fighting for freedom and liberty.


Why I defend “terrorists”
A letter from a high powered attorney in response to a Pentagon official's ludicrous charge that he and others like him defend "terrorists."

Of course, if like me, you believe that men are BORN free, then you cannot agree with the premise that liberty can be 'given' at all.

Nevertheless, it is a good sign that change is coming when well educated and highly paid attorneys dare to speak truth to power.

By Anant Raut, Jan. 17, 2007 | Salon.com
Cully Stimson
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Detainee Affairs
Department of Defense
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Stimson,

I am an associate in the Washington office of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, a New York-based, international firm with 1,100 lawyers. I practice general corporate litigation. I also represent, on a pro bono basis, five men who are being held as "enemy combatants" at the U.S. detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. "How can you defend terrorists?" is a question I'm sometimes asked when people learn about my pro bono work. On Jan. 11, in your capacity as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, you asked the same question of every lawyer representing detainees in Guantánamo.

During the course of an interview on Federal News Radio, you named my law firm and 13 others whose attorneys have clients in Guantánamo and urged our corporate clients to take their business elsewhere. "You know what, it's shocking," you told your audience. "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." You then said our efforts might be funded by "monies from who knows where."

Mr. Stimson, I don't defend "terrorists." I'm representing five guys who were held or are being held in Guantánamo without ever being charged with a crime, some of them for nearly five years. Two have been quietly sent home to Saudi Arabia without an explanation or an admission of error. The only justification the U.S. government has provided for keeping the other three is the moniker "enemy combatant," a term that has been made up solely for the purpose of denying them prisoner-of-war protection and civilian protection under the Geneva Conventions. It's a term that was attached to them in a tribunal proceeding so inherently bogus that even the tribunal president is compelled to state on the record, in hundreds of these proceedings, that a combatant status review tribunal "is NOT a court of law, but a non-judicial administrative hearing."

And, lest there be any doubt, Mr. Stimson, we are not receiving any money for this. My firm's work is pro bono. At the end of the year, the partners set aside a substantial portion of the firm's profits to pay for my trips to Guantánamo and my translation costs, just as they pay for my colleagues' fight for clean drinking water in the lower-income neighborhoods of D.C., as well as hundreds of other projects I would be happy to discuss with you directly.

I also get asked other questions about my pro bono work, Mr. Stimson. "How can you defend terrorists?" is only the third most common. The second most common question is, "Why do you do it?" In law school, I would feel outrage whenever I read about a case in which our courts had the opportunity to take a stand -- against slavery, against the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II -- and didn't. But I would also feel self-doubt. It's easy to feel righteous anger now. But, I wondered, would I have felt it then? Or, in the name of security, of easing the anxiety of the public, would I have been able to swallow these affronts to the freedoms I see as the cornerstone of our national identity? The people I'm defending were caught up in the adrenaline and paranoia of our nation's darkest hour. All we're asking for is a fair hearing. Why does this frighten you so?

Mr. Stimson, you should also know that I am frequently mistaken as being Middle Eastern or Latino (no and no; the correct answer is "Indian"). In November 2001, I was walking to dinner in the trendy Dupont Circle area of Washington, D.C. Just as the sun was going down, I heard a car slow to a halt behind me. "Hey, you, dumb blonde," yelled the driver to my date, "can't you see he's a terrorist?" He then sped off.

Dehumanizing people makes it easy to believe the worst about them. When they look different from you, when they sound different, it becomes easier, and when you dress them in identical uniforms and lock them in cages, it becomes easier still. All I've been trying to do for the past two years is give my clients a chance to challenge the assumptions that have been made about them.

And finally, Mr. Stimson, the question I get asked more than any other is, "How can a place like Guantánamo continue to exist?" I think it is because we as a nation are afraid to admit we've done something wrong.

There is a widespread belief, as well as a need to believe, that the men we're holding in Guantánamo must be bad people. They must have done something to end up there. They couldn't just be, in large part, victims of circumstance, or of the fact the U.S. government was paying large bounties in poor countries for the identification and capture of people with alleged ties to terror. If the bulk of the detainees are guilty of nothing but being in the wrong place at the wrong time, if there's no evidence that some of them did the things of which the government has accused them, then it would mean that we locked innocent people in a hole for five years. It would mean not only that our government wrongfully imprisoned these men but that the rest of us stood idly by as they did it. It would mean that we have learned nothing from Korematsu v. United States, that we have learned nothing from the McCarthy-era witch hunts, and that when we wake up from this national nightmare, once again we will marvel at the extremism we tolerated in defense of liberty. It would mean that even as we extol the virtues of fairness and due process abroad, we take away those very rights from people on our own soil.

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once wrote, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." It is my belief that the true test of a nation's commitment to liberty occurs not when it is most readily given, but rather when it is most easily taken away.

Mr. Stimson, that is why I do what I do.

[Motorcycleboy]

I think your fawning adulation for this lawyer is a bit over the top Calgary. Calling him a "true patriot" is laughable.

That said, lawyers are part of the system and Stimson's comments were ignorant.

I have no more problem with a lawyer who defends terror suspects than I do with a lawyer who defends pedophiles. That's their job, and that's the way our system is set up.

[Calgary123]

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:

I think your fawning adulation for this lawyer is a bit over the top Calgary. Calling him a "true patriot" is laughable.

That said, lawyers are part of the system and Stimson's comments were ignorant.

I have no more problem with a lawyer who defends terror suspects than I do with a lawyer who defends pedophiles. That's their job, and that's the way our system is set up.

$1:

Calling him a "true patriot" is laughable

What makes him real is the fact that he fights for an honerable and just cause... opposite to what the Western militaries fight for.

And I would agree... they (Lawyers) all serve a purpose. Unfortunately, in Gitmo, you have a situation where a bunch of sheepherders were rounded up for a few fast bucks, called "terrorists" then locked away so the US could celebrate a "victory" in catching a bunch of alleged bad guys, and the public could feel good that they were "winning" or reaching some level of success with this fraudulent war on bogeymen.

[Motorcycleboy]

$1:

Calgary 123 Wrote:
What makes him real is the fact that he fights for an honerable and just cause... opposite to what the Western militaries fight for.

Tone down the rhetoric a bit. It makes you sound shrill.

The western militaries in Iraq are fighting to to re-model the Middle East in the image of post war Japan or Germany. Personally, I think Bush was naive in thinking he could do that, and the result has been a disaster. But the goal was admirable, and in fact honourable. Let's face it, if he had pulled it off, the world would be a much happier, more stable place.

Afghanistan is another story. The only reason we're there is because people who killed 300 Americans (and 25 Canucks) based their operations out of there. We kicked them out, and now the troops are there to make sure they don't come back. That's an honourable goal too.

$1:

And I would agree... they (Lawyers) all serve a purpose. Unfortunately, in Gitmo, you have a situation where a bunch of sheepherders were rounded up for a few fast bucks, called "terrorists" then locked away so the US could celebrate a "victory" in catching a bunch of alleged bad guys, and the public could feel good that they were "winning" or reaching some level of success with this fraudulent war on bogeymen.

Omar Khadr wasn't a sheep herder. He was a Toronto high school student who decided to move with his family to Afghanistan and throw a grenade at a US Army medic, killing him.

If the US troops had decided to follow the Geneva Convention to the letter, they would have simply put one between his eyes out in the desert, which is how soldiers have traditionally dealt with non-uniformed guerilla-type fighters for the last couple hundred years.

[camerontech]

don't bold an entire paragraph, it's hard on the eyes to read it.


ohh and what Motocycleboy said

[Calgary123]

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:

$1:

Calgary 123 Wrote:
What makes him real is the fact that he fights for an honerable and just cause... opposite to what the Western militaries fight for.

Tone down the rhetoric a bit. It makes you sound shrill.

The western militaries in Iraq are fighting to to re-model the Middle East in the image of post war Japan or Germany. Personally, I think Bush was naive in thinking he could do that, and the result has been a disaster. But the goal was admirable, and in fact honourable. Let's face it, if he had pulled it off, the world would be a much happier, more stable place.

Afghanistan is another story. The only reason we're there is because people who killed 300 Americans (and 25 Canucks) based their operations out of there. We kicked them out, and now the troops are there to make sure they don't come back. That's an honourable goal And by the way... too.

$1:

And I would agree... they (Lawyers) all serve a purpose. Unfortunately, in Gitmo, you have a situation where a bunch of sheepherders were rounded up for a few fast bucks, called "terrorists" then locked away so the US could celebrate a "victory" in catching a bunch of alleged bad guys, and the public could feel good that they were "winning" or reaching some level of success with this fraudulent war on bogeymen.

Omar Khadr wasn't a sheep herder. He was a Toronto high school student who decided to move with his family to Afghanistan and throw a grenade at a US Army medic, killing him.

If the US troops had decided to follow the Geneva Convention to the letter, they would have simply put one between his eyes out in the desert, which is how soldiers have traditionally dealt with non-uniformed guerilla-type fighters for the last couple hundred years.

$1:

The western militaries in Iraq are fighting to to re-model the Middle East in the image of post war Japan or Germany. Personally, I think Bush was naive in thinking he could do that, and the result has been a disaster. But the goal was admirable, and in fact honourable. Let's face it, if he had pulled it off, the world would be a much happier, more stable place.

But I thought it was about WMD? Or wasn't it about Freedom?? Oh wait... it was about democracy... that's right... oh no, it was about Saddam... er, or was it about... oh shit, who the hell knows... let's just say its about "reshaping the ME"... ya that sounds good.

C'mon... do you really believe this was about "reshaping" the ME?? It's almost like the warmongers will believe just about anything that's fed to them without questioning the underlying motivations and goals. How naive can you guys be now?

And yes... it is a disaster... and I like many didn't support this from the beginning... only for inherintly different reasons. And now it's become even more obvious that the reasons I apposed it were in fact correct.

$1:

Afghanistan is another story. The only reason we're there is because people who killed 300 Americans (and 25 Canucks) based their operations out of there. We kicked them out, and now the troops are there to make sure they don't come back. That's an honourable goal And by the way... too.

Not proven... and even if 911 was as advertised... not even remotely enough reason to invade and occupy a foreign country. The Taliban were business partners with the Bush administration until they had a "Falling out". The plans to go into Afghanistan were already in place well before 911... the military was building up it's forces in the region... preparing for this event. The invasion was launched in Oct 2001... only weeks after 911. Afghanistan had NOTHING to do with 911... everyone knows that. The US administration needed Afghanistan to be an "enemy" and put the American people and congress in a position to approve this new war of lies... by attaching Afghanistan to 911. They could have used any ME country that they wanted tolabel as the "terrorist haven". It's all bullshit, and I can't understand why so many people actually believe that this country deserves to be punished based on a crime that has yet to be connected to this apparent "terror haven".

$1:

Omar Khadr wasn't a sheep herder. He was a Toronto high school student who decided to move with his family to Afghanistan and throw a grenade at a US Army medic, killing him.

Ok... so you've named a whole ONE real terrorist who deserves to be locked up... how about the hundreds that have been tortured and locked up, without charges or any means of defending themselves? It's all a big show for the American people, to convince them that they are winning something and catching "bad guys" when in fact these people are merely patsies who people can point the finger to, and label as an enemy. It's nothing more than good theatre for selling and validating the "war on terror".

The reality, is that there are many more victims than real bad guys locked up in these torture chambers. There has already been ample media investigation into this... and it's been proven to be factual and accurate.

[Zipperfish]

I read a Associated Press report (here) that a bunch of the detainees at Gitmo were just unlucky schmucks actually sold for bounty money by enterprising Pakistanis. Probably a bunch of that bounty money went right to Al Qaeda. Ironic when you think about it.

[JakeAnim]

because you sound exactly like one? Looks like everything anti west tickles your appetite. Are you one of the 'moderate' muslims we keep hearing about?

[Motorcycleboy]

$1:

Calgary:
But I thought it was about WMD? Or wasn't it about Freedom?? Oh wait... it was about democracy... that's right... oh no, it was about Saddam... er, or was it about... oh shit, who the hell knows... let's just say its about "reshaping the ME"... ya that sounds good.

and;

$1:

C'mon... do you really believe this was about "reshaping" the ME?? It's almost like the warmongers will believe just about anything that's fed to them without questioning the underlying motivations and goals. How naive can you guys be now?

You didn't actually believe that shit about WMD did you? I certainly didn't. Same goes for the freedom crap.

The reason was to reshape the middle east by establishing Iraq as a benign, successful, prosperous nation in the middle of a crowd of despots and tyrants. The hope was to create a "reverse dominoe" theory, and turn it into a modern western Europe over time. The bonus prize was access to their oil, thereby denying it to an emerging China. It's all set out in Project for a New American Century.

It would have been good if it had worked, but anyone who knows history could have figured out it wouldn't.

The WMD shit was just a way to sell a complex concept like that to the average citizen.

$1:

And yes... it is a disaster... and I like many didn't support this from the beginning... only for inherintly different reasons. And now it's become even more obvious that the reasons I apposed it were in fact correct.

People like you oppose it for the same simplistic reasons that WMD believers supported it. You're opposition to war is reflexive and based on soundbites like "No Blood For Oil" and "Stop the Racist War." There's no real depth to your position.

$1:

Not proven... and even if 911 was as advertised... not even remotely enough reason to invade and occupy a foreign country. The Taliban were business partners with the Bush administration until they had a "Falling out". The plans to go into Afghanistan were already in place well before 911... the military was building up it's forces in the region... preparing for this event. The invasion was launched in Oct 2001... only weeks after 911. Afghanistan had NOTHING to do with 911... everyone knows that. The US administration needed Afghanistan to be an "enemy" and put the American people and congress in a position to approve this new war of lies... by attaching Afghanistan to 911. They could have used any ME country that they wanted tolabel as the "terrorist haven". It's all bullshit, and I can't understand why so many people actually believe that this country deserves to be punished based on a crime that has yet to be connected to this apparent "terror haven".

Yeah, sure. Go sell Tin-Hat conspiracy theories somewhere else, because we're all stocked up on crazy here.

Bush had no interest in foreign issues until 9/11. He ran on a campaign criticizing his predecessor over his foreign entanglements.

And it's well established that Bin Laden was behind 9/11, and that he was in Afghanistan at the time. I'm not going to discuss the conspiracy bullshit with you any further because it's idiotic and boring.

$1:

Ok... so you've named a whole ONE real terrorist who deserves to be locked up... how about the hundreds that have been tortured and locked up, without charges or any means of defending themselves?

How about naming them?

I came up with one name, off the top of my head. Yet all you can come up with is vague, unsubstantiated allegations that "innocents" are being held there. How do you know they're innocent? At least there's evidence to suggest my example is in fact a bad guy. You can't produce anything beyond whack job internet rumours and conspiracy theories.

There may be a few people who've been through there who didn't deserve it. That's why people like your lawyer friend exist. But to suggest that bad guys are the exception rather than the rule is, to be honest, a bit delusional Calgary.

[OPP]

Calgary123 Calgary123:

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once wrote, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." It is my belief that the true test of a nation's commitment to liberty occurs not when it is most readily given, but rather when it is most easily taken away.

Martin Luther King jr wrote that?
No wonder he was shot.

[Calgary123]

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:

$1:

Calgary:
But I thought it was about WMD? Or wasn't it about Freedom?? Oh wait... it was about democracy... that's right... oh no, it was about Saddam... er, or was it about... oh shit, who the hell knows... let's just say its about "reshaping the ME"... ya that sounds good.

and;

$1:

C'mon... do you really believe this was about "reshaping" the ME?? It's almost like the warmongers will believe just about anything that's fed to them without questioning the underlying motivations and goals. How naive can you guys be now?

You didn't actually believe that shit about WMD did you? I certainly didn't. Same goes for the freedom crap.

The reason was to reshape the middle east by establishing Iraq as a benign, successful, prosperous nation in the middle of a crowd of despots and tyrants. The hope was to create a "reverse dominoe" theory, and turn it into a modern western Europe over time. The bonus prize was access to their oil, thereby denying it to an emerging China. It's all set out in Project for a New American Century.

It would have been good if it had worked, but anyone who knows history could have figured out it wouldn't.

The WMD shit was just a way to sell a complex concept like that to the average citizen.

$1:

And yes... it is a disaster... and I like many didn't support this from the beginning... only for inherintly different reasons. And now it's become even more obvious that the reasons I apposed it were in fact correct.

People like you oppose it for the same simplistic reasons that WMD believers supported it. You're opposition to war is reflexive and based on soundbites like "No Blood For Oil" and "Stop the Racist War." There's no real depth to your position.

$1:

Not proven... and even if 911 was as advertised... not even remotely enough reason to invade and occupy a foreign country. The Taliban were business partners with the Bush administration until they had a "Falling out". The plans to go into Afghanistan were already in place well before 911... the military was building up it's forces in the region... preparing for this event. The invasion was launched in Oct 2001... only weeks after 911. Afghanistan had NOTHING to do with 911... everyone knows that. The US administration needed Afghanistan to be an "enemy" and put the American people and congress in a position to approve this new war of lies... by attaching Afghanistan to 911. They could have used any ME country that they wanted tolabel as the "terrorist haven". It's all bullshit, and I can't understand why so many people actually believe that this country deserves to be punished based on a crime that has yet to be connected to this apparent "terror haven".

Yeah, sure. Go sell Tin-Hat conspiracy theories somewhere else, because we're all stocked up on crazy here.

Bush had no interest in foreign issues until 9/11. He ran on a campaign criticizing his predecessor over his foreign entanglements.

And it's well established that Bin Laden was behind 9/11, and that he was in Afghanistan at the time. I'm not going to discuss the conspiracy bullshit with you any further because it's idiotic and boring.

$1:

Ok... so you've named a whole ONE real terrorist who deserves to be locked up... how about the hundreds that have been tortured and locked up, without charges or any means of defending themselves?

How about naming them?

I came up with one name, off the top of my head. Yet all you can come up with is vague, unsubstantiated allegations that "innocents" are being held there. How do you know they're innocent? At least there's evidence to suggest my example is in fact a bad guy. You can't produce anything beyond whack job internet rumours and conspiracy theories.

There may be a few people who've been through there who didn't deserve it. That's why people like your lawyer friend exist. But to suggest that bad guys are the exception rather than the rule is, to be honest, a bit delusional Calgary.

$1:

Bush had no interest in foreign issues until 9/11

Really? Wow... if that's true, then how would you explain the military buildup in the region well before 911? Did someone in Washington have a crystal ball that predicted 911 would happen? There is ample evidence that points to the fact that this war was going to happen, well in advance. Too bad you choose to ignore this all so important point.

$1:

How about naming them?

Well... if you've been keeping up with the news, there have been numberous articles printed that points to the fact that this is happening all the time. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, a Canadian was just given compensation for being locked up and tortured for no reaon. I can't remeber his name, nor will I look it up... you know who I'm talking about.

And not to mention the fact that a previous poster attached a link to answer this question more specifically. How many of these people have been charged with terrorist related offenses?? And for what??

Nothing, that's what. The US (CIA) pays a group of real terrorists to kidnap a few hundred goatherders... calls them terrorists... then our media and naive public celebrates like we have achieved something??

Here - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0531-10.htm in case you missed it from a few posts up. This is just one of many reports that have been circulating for years. Now, an insider into this whole charade is writing a book on it. Maybe you should give it a read if you are doubting this so much?

[OPP]

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:

$1:

Calgary 123 Wrote:
What makes him real is the fact that he fights for an honerable and just cause... opposite to what the Western militaries fight for.

Tone down the rhetoric a bit. It makes you sound shrill.

You seem to think rhetoric is some sort of insult?
Well guess what! It's not!

[OPP]

Calgary123 Calgary123:

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:

$1:

Calgary 123 Wrote:
What makes him real is the fact that he fights for an honerable and just cause... opposite to what the Western militaries fight for.

Tone down the rhetoric a bit. It makes you sound shrill.

The western militaries in Iraq are fighting to to re-model the Middle East in the image of post war Japan or Germany. Personally, I think Bush was naive in thinking he could do that, and the result has been a disaster. But the goal was admirable, and in fact honourable. Let's face it, if he had pulled it off, the world would be a much happier, more stable place.

Afghanistan is another story. The only reason we're there is because people who killed 300 Americans (and 25 Canucks) based their operations out of there. We kicked them out, and now the troops are there to make sure they don't come back. That's an honourable goal And by the way... too.

$1:

And I would agree... they (Lawyers) all serve a purpose. Unfortunately, in Gitmo, you have a situation where a bunch of sheepherders were rounded up for a few fast bucks, called "terrorists" then locked away so the US could celebrate a "victory" in catching a bunch of alleged bad guys, and the public could feel good that they were "winning" or reaching some level of success with this fraudulent war on bogeymen.

Omar Khadr wasn't a sheep herder. He was a Toronto high school student who decided to move with his family to Afghanistan and throw a grenade at a US Army medic, killing him.

If the US troops had decided to follow the Geneva Convention to the letter, they would have simply put one between his eyes out in the desert, which is how soldiers have traditionally dealt with non-uniformed guerilla-type fighters for the last couple hundred years.

$1:

The western militaries in Iraq are fighting to to re-model the Middle East in the image of post war Japan or Germany. Personally, I think Bush was naive in thinking he could do that, and the result has been a disaster. But the goal was admirable, and in fact honourable. Let's face it, if he had pulled it off, the world would be a much happier, more stable place.

But I thought it was about WMD? Or wasn't it about Freedom?? Oh wait... it was about democracy... that's right... oh no, it was about Saddam... er, or was it about... oh shit, who the hell knows... let's just say its about "reshaping the ME"... ya that sounds good.

Ha ha ha ha ha!!! Sooo truuuue!!

[PluggyRug]

OPP OPP:

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:

$1:

Calgary 123 Wrote:
What makes him real is the fact that he fights for an honerable and just cause... opposite to what the Western militaries fight for.

Tone down the rhetoric a bit. It makes you sound shrill.

You seem to think rhetoric is some sort of insult?
Well guess what! It's not!

It's a noun, not a verb. The context in this meaning means some of C123's over the top hogwash which is also a noun.

[OPP]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

OPP OPP:

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:

$1:

Calgary 123 Wrote:
What makes him real is the fact that he fights for an honerable and just cause... opposite to what the Western militaries fight for.

Tone down the rhetoric a bit. It makes you sound shrill.

You seem to think rhetoric is some sort of insult?
Well guess what! It's not!

It's a noun, not a verb. The context in this meaning means some of C123's over the top hogwash which is also a noun.

So? What's your point?
Why not debate me on the 9/11 thread?