Administration and Defense Officials Attack Attorneys who Dare to Represent Gitmo Detainees

The official in charge of military detainees took the bold and troubling step of challenging those attorneys who dare to represent military detainees at Gitmo. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/washington/13gitmo.html?hp&ex=1168750800&en=5fe52d89722035fe&ei=5094&partner=homepage Now, despite the fact that the Administration hs repeatedly stated that the Gitmo detainees are all extremely dangerous individuals that threaten the US and its citizenry, the government seems to be saying that the detainees can have representation, but not real attorneys.

In case anyone were to think that the attack was a mere off the cuff comment, an article in Friday's WSJ containing the same substantive attack appeared citing unnamed government sources. Yet tht wasn't quite enough for Charles D. Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, the official "spilling the beans." Mr. Stimson, lawyer by training, 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.” It's notable that no one within the government has been willing to go on record to criticize Mr. Stimson let alone rebuke him.

Mr. Stimson not only called into question the patriotism of these attorneys but went further. He named the law firms where the attorneys worked, specifically high powered New York and D.C. firms and encouraged corporate clients to move their business elsewhere. The government's chilling actions are a frontal attack on the system of laws and justice in this country.

The process governing the procedures applicable has already been defined legislatively in accordance with the Administration's wishes (thereby short circuiting judicial interpretations like that contained in the Supreme Court's Hamdi decision that the Administration found so objectionable), but apparently that isn't enough. Perhaps the Administration expected that the only counsel available to the detainees would consist of a motley group of young public interest lawyers that could be bullied and ignored while they were labeled as enemies of the US or simply misguided liberals. It is clear from the start that the government isn't interested in a level playing field.

This strikes me as another attack on the concepts of justice that underlies the basis of our republic. That isn't to say that circumstances do not perhaps require procedures more restrictive than those available to criminal defendants in the US, but the government can't set forth rules and then change them when they don't like the results. To do so undermines basic concepts of justice while further ceding the country's ever-eroding moral authority.

Update: The Times Editorial Board weighs in http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/opinion/13sat1.html