The Fuss about Lawyers

I have received some questions recently about the case of Charles Stimson. What did he do that forced him to quit? I will explain. He resigned on Feb 2 from his position as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs (try figuring out what that means). His resignation came amid general public uproar regarding his statements about legal representation for Guantanamo detainees. He was quoted as saying: "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." Taken from The Jurist - University of Pittsburgh School of Law linked here. This drew massive criticism from legal associations, the ACLU, and many other groups, who argued that Stimson was trying to intimidate legal firms out of working with the Guantanamo defendants. They point to the Preamble to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers. It provides: A lawyer should be mindful of deficiencies in the administration of justice and of the fact that the poor, and sometimes persons who are not poor, cannot afford adequate legal assistance. Therefore, all lawyers should devote professional time and resources and use civic influence to ensure equal access to our system of justice for all those who because of economic or social barriers cannot afford or secure adequate legal counsel. Legal scholars have gone on record rejecting the statements made by Stimson, and this treatment for the lawyers involved. Yale Law School explained in a statement: We teach our students that lawyers have a professional obligation to ensure that even the most despised and unpopular individuals and groups receive zealous and effective legal representation. Our American legal tradition has honored lawyers who, despite their personal beliefs, have zealously represented mass murderers, suspected terrorists, and Nazi marchers. Didn't Bush attend Yale? The sentiment was echoed by Professor Charles Fried of Harvard Law School: It is the pride of a nation built on the rule of law that it affords to every man a zealous advocate to defend his rights in court, and of a liberal profession in such a nation that not only is the representation of the dishonorable honorable (and any lawyer is free to represent any person he chooses), but that it is the duty of the profession to make sure that every man has that representation. Also, various individual authors have written persuasive articles like this one in Hoover Institution and another one in The Jurist Legal News and Research. Lawyers certainly do protect their own. The real concern here is the support that the statements have received. Cliff May thinks that lawyers want to defend people in Guantanamo because: "...Maybe it is because they are genuinely concerned about protecting due process for detainees. Or maybe it is because they are, as Stimson said “receiving moneys from who-knows-where.” (Or – and this is my conjecture – perhaps they are currying favor with governments and groups that are or can become rewarding clients.)" Mark Steyn had this to say: "... would like to second Cliff May’s regret at the premature departure of Assistant Secretary Stimson, whom I also met at Gitmo. It seems an almost parodic illustration of the uneven playing field on which we have chosen to play: our enemies are extended every benefit of the doubt while the mildest observation on the part of government officials will prompt howls of outrage and sustained campaigns to hound them from office. " What Steyn is obviously neglecting is the vast disparity in power wielded by the 2 groups he mentions; "our enemies" (at least the people we are told are our enemies) have almost no power in our system, and therefore need rigorous protection. Government officials, however, wield vast power, and therefore they must be subject to the most intense scrutiny in order to help ensure that their power is not abused. This is the case in every situation involving government and the populace - the government requires constant scrutiny from the people so that it does not overstep its bounds, and the weak need all the defense available to them so they are not trampled under more powerful feet. More support for Stimson from Mark Levin here. "There is nothing unethical about Stimson's comments. In fact, he was serving a public interest by shining a light on those law firms that are representing the enemy. " The Enemy?? Isnt some sort of evidence required in order to brand a detainee "the enemy"? Conservatives like Johnathon Adler try to diffuse the situation, although they still leave the door open in case they need to back-pedal: "The bar, as a whole, has a well-established obligation to try and ensure that all people have access to representation. This means that all individuals, even suspected terrorists, are entitled to retain a capable legal defense when subjected to judicial process, and it is wrong to impugn attorneys on the basis of the clients they represent. (Whether detainees should receive the amount of process some are demanding is a separate question.) It is dismaying for me to hear arguments to the contrary from the Right because these sorts of blame-the-attorney-for-the-nature-of-his-client are so often deployed against conservatives and Republican appointees. This is one reason, among others, that Ted Olson and Charles Fried were among Stimson's prominent critics." "Whether detainees should receive the amount of process some are demanding is a separate question" - why is that? According to our leaders, we are fighting to "make the world safe for democracy"; that means more than the right to vote. It also means the right to defend yourself if imprisoned. That is due process, and if we are fighting for it in the deserts of the Iraq, then people in our custody deserve it too. Denying prisoners due process rights at home, and then sending our troops to die in some far-off desert (purportedly to guarantee due process rights to other counties) seems a bit hypocritical. Apparently, some people think that the comments from Stimson are OK, and maybe even warranted. The President's rhetoric about "making the world free for democracy" implies more than just voting. One of the most fundamental rights is the right to defend ones self against accusation; the complexity of the legal system demands that a person enlist the help of a legal expert in order to fully exercise this right. If this legal expertise is withheld, a person is essentially incapable of defense. The fact that some attorneys are willing to take these cases pro bono is not grounds to question the attorney's motive. In fact, we should encourage lawyers to do this type of work, so that the best legal help is available to people that may not ordinarily have access to it. Anyone in "The Land of the Free" who willfully withholds rights from suspected criminals based on the nature of the crime, and smears the integrity of people who try to guarantee those rights, should not be in a position of authority in our government. Unfortunately for Stimson, he was the person to open his mouth; this does not mean, however, that he is the only official that feels this way. The Pentagon and DOD released an official statement condemning Stimson's remarks, but there has been very little else from governmental leaders. The only problem with Stimson's resignation is that he didn't take some of his cohorts with him.