By William Fisher
Suspected illegal immigrants held in detention by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security are failing to receive timely medical treatment and adequate food, being subjected to frequent sexual harassment, and having their access to lawyers, relatives and immigration authorities improperly limited.
These are among the findings of the department’s inspector general, based on an audit of the U.S.-owned and operated Krome Service Processing Center in Miami, a contract Corrections Corporation of America facility in San Diego, and local jails and prisons in Berks County, Pa., and Hudson and Passaic counties, N.J.
But critics of the agency called the report disappointing, contending that it watered down recommendations and ignored the most serious allegations of abuse collected since June 2004, which they said included physical beatings, medical neglect, food shortages and mixing of illegal immigrants in administrative custody with criminals.
Mark Dow, author of “American Gulag,” a scathing expose of immigrant detention facilities, goes further. He told IPS that the Inspector General’s report “has helped ensure that, for now, the mistreatment will continue.”
He contends the reason is that the IG recommends that the DHS agency responsible for the detention of immigrants, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) police itself.
“That is telling the agency responsible for the mistreatment of its prisoners, and whose own inspections are deficient, ‘ensure that periodic oversight and inspection procedures are in place to address compliance with the Detention Standards’. The (IG’s) report neglects to mention that ICE has refused to promulgate its detention standards as regulations because they would then be, at least theoretically, legally enforceable”, he says.
He adds: “The bottom line is that ‘auditing’ without truly independent enforcement is meaningless.”
In response to the IG’s report, more than a dozen national organizations have filed a petition with the DHS to create enforceable regulations governing detention standards. If the federal government agrees to the request, DHS will promulgate binding standards for the safety, health, and conditions for thousands of detainees around the country.
These advocates believe DHS regulations governing detention standards will ensure effective protection of detainees’ human rights. “Today’s petition highlights our unconscionable detention system. The reality is that county governments vie for lucrative contracts with the federal government to warehouse non-citizens without any binding standards of care.”
The signatories included the American Friends Service Committee Immigrant Rights Program, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the Seton Hall University Law Center for Social Justice.
Among the most significant issues raised in the IG’s report was that detainees face significant hurdles when attempting to make complaints about their conditions of confinement. It further points to the current ineffectiveness of ICE’s own annual inspections of detention facilities. “The report exposes gaping holes in the protection of detainee rights. We cannot trust the jail officials to address detainees’ concerns, and we cannot trust ICE to effectively review the jails’ practices.
Many of the detention centers for immigrants have been privatized and are being run by such companies as the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and Wackenhut. In 1999, the feds farmed out less than three percent of beds; but seven years later, the number had reached almost one in five.
The boom in privatized prisons began shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when the Department of Justice rounded up thousands of “Middle Eastern-looking” immigrants and detained many of them for months, abusing many, treating them as criminals, and denying them access to lawyers.
A 2003 report by the DHS Inspector General forcefully condemned the treatment of immigrants inside various jails in its report, “The September 11 Detainees: A Review of the Treatment of Aliens Held on Immigration Charges in Connection with the Investigation of the September 11 Attacks.” Infractions included routine abuse of basic prisoner rights, mental and physical abuse, denial of health care and medical treatment, prison overcrowding, and a lack of working showers, and toilets.
None of those held were ever charged with a terror-related crime. Some were deported for immigration violations.
Privatized detention facilities have grown apace amid the clamor for a crackdown on alleged undocumented immigrants. Contracts for these new jails flowed to the private prison industry despite many previous allegations of mismanagement and scandal.
Detainee advocates accuse prison companies of cutting corners in training guards and in providing basic services. The government has done little to regulate prison administration, but has sanctioned exploitive labor practices and rip-off telephone costs for inmates.
For example, a former detainee in a CCA facility in San Diego testified that “The guards would scream and shout at us as if we were little kids. If we would ask them to stop, they would threaten to lock us down for a few days, which would happen constantly. Three people being locked in a two-man cell, in a 12 x 7 room. This happened a lot; sometimes as punishment for the actions of one or two inmates, the other 105–115 detainees would suffer.”
“Other times” he said, “It seemed ‘just because.’ A lot of the detainees would be missing money on their accounts, which I was recently told by a detainee who keeps in contact with me was being stolen by the staff, according to [an] OIG investigation. We would get underserved during meal times. When we complained to the unit manager she would say that we were given the right amounts, which in my opinion is the appropriate portion for a ten or eleven year old. Some of the guards and staff would curse at us. They would purposely lower the televisions so we couldn’t hear them, just to mess with us. During our free time they would take their time turning on the phones so we wouldn’t be able to call our families. Just to be cruel.”
For the second quarter of 2005, CCA announced that its revenue had increased three percent over the previous year, for a total of almost $300 million. CCA calculates that it expenditure of $28.89 per inmate, per day allows it to make a daily profit of $50.26 per inmate.
Meanwhile, on July 1, 2005, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement awarded CCA contracts to continue running the 300-bed Elizabeth Detention Center in New Jersey and the 1,216-bed San Diego Correctional Facility. Both of these contracts are for three years with five three-year renewal options. In 2005 CCA also secured new prison contracts with the Kentucky Department of Corrections, the state of Kansas, and the Florida Department of Management Services.
Wackenhut has also shared in the private prison boom. Before 2001, Wackenhut, like CCA, had been at the center of all manner of inmate-abuse scandals: Guards were caught having sex with underage inmates, there were routine reports of extreme mistreatment of inmates, and there was even a disproportionately high level of deaths in their facilities.
After a CBS Television report exposed the repeated rape of a 14-year-old girl at a Wackenhut juvenile jail and two guards were found guilty, its CEO said, “It’s a tough business. The people in prison are not Sunday-school children.” Still more worrying was Wackenhut’s record with inmate-on-inmate killings. In 1998–99 alone, Wackenhut’s New Mexico facilities had a death rate of one murder for every 400 prisoners. For the same period in all U.S. prisons, the rate was about one in 22,000.
Wackenhut's most public response was to change its name to the GEO Group. It continues to win lucrative government contracts.
The corrections industry has routinely argued that privatizing prisons dramatically lowers costs. A 1996 U.S. General Accounting Office report concluded, however, that there was no clear evidence supporting this contention. Prison companies do have clear advantages over other corporations: They are able to save large amounts of money on labor practices that would illegal under any other circumstances. Inmate jobs in all prisons pay a pittance, but immigrant prisons are even worse. Because DHS guidelines mandate that non-citizen prisoners cannot earn more than $1 per day, the company gets janitors, maintenance workers, cleaners, launderers, kitchen staff, sewers and grounds keepers at almost no cost.
Author Mark Dow says, “It isn't politically popular to speak up for alien inmates, but Congress has a responsibility to establish independent oversight of the ICE detention system. Congress should hold hearings on ICE detention - with meaningful follow-up.” It should “Create a statutory-based ombudsman's office or independent oversight body outside the Department of Homeland Security. It must have subpoena power as well as authorization to make unannounced inspections of all facilities holding ICE detainees.”
“Eventually, the very nature of our immigration detention system must be
reexamined. We take it as a given that a visa violator, or an asylum seeker, or a thirty-year lawful resident who has paid taxes but committed a non-violent misdemeanor decades ago, should be strip-searched, dressed in a prison jumpsuit, and denied contact with her children.”
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Monday, January 29, 2007
AT OUR BECK AND GALL
By William Fisher
Champions of our Constitution’s First Amendment should be resting easier now. ABC’s hiring of Glenn Beck to appear as a regular on its “Good Morning America” show surely proves that, despite the Bush Administration’s efforts, freedom of speech is still alive and well in the United States.
No matter how outrageously uninformed and bigoted that speech may be.
Doubtless, Beck’s arrival will catapult the show’s ratings exponentially. And his former home, at CNN Headline News, will sink further into irrelevance.
Beck, you will recall, is the esteemed Middle East scholar who interviewed Keith Ellison, our first Muslim congressman back in November, and asked him to “prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.”
Surely a question worthy of Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh.
Beck’s anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rants should be producing apoplexy in Ted Turner, who founded CNN to broadcast news. Just the facts, ma’am.
Here are some of Beck’s recently-broadcast facts:
Muslims “who have sat on [their] hands the whole time rather than “lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head” will face dire consequences. One of those consequences being that Muslims will be “looking through a razor wire fence at the West.”
Before joining CNN, Beck hosted a radio talk show, distributed by that star player in the vast left-wing media conspiracy, Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks. There, he told his audience that "The world is on the brink of World War III," and then warned:
“All you Muslims who have sat on your frickin' hands the whole time and have not been marching in the streets and have not been saying, 'Hey, you know what? There are good Muslims and bad Muslims. We need to be the first ones in the recruitment office lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head.' I'm telling you, with God as my witness... human beings are not strong enough, unfortunately, to restrain themselves from putting up razor wire and putting you on one side of it. When things—when people become hungry, when people see that their way of life is on the edge of being over, they will put razor wire up and just based on the way you look or just based on your religion, they will round you up. Is that wrong? Oh my gosh, it is Nazi, World War II wrong, but society has proved it time and time again: It will happen.”
On September 5, Beck broadcast the same message to his CNN Headline News audience, declaring, "In 10 years, Muslims and Arabs will be looking through a razor wire fence at the West." The “razor wire” is a reference to the internment of tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans during World War Two. About which Beck warned, "The razor wire will be coming. "
He explained: “Since 9/11, Americans have gotten so fed up with the "yes, but" Muslims. The "yes, but" Muslims are the ones who show up on talkshows and in the media and say, "Yes, terrorism is bad, but"—and then they go through a list of reasons on why we should try and sympathize with people who fly planes into buildings.... If, God forbid, there's another attack, we won't have anymore patience for the "yes, buts." The Muslim community better find a spokesman who isn't a "yes, but" Muslim. They shouldn't even understand the word "but," because if they don't, when things heat up, the profiling will only get worse, and the razor wire will be coming.”
“You want the profiling to stop?” he asked Muslims. His answer: “Here's an idea. Stop murdering innocent people. Stop excusing the people who do. You do that for a while, and I guarantee you won't have any more problems at the airports. Stop blowing stuff up and the world just might be your oyster. Otherwise, it's going to be like that movie, The Siege. You remember that movie? The Muslims will see the West through razor wire if things don't change.”
He went on. “Look, I'm not saying all Arabs and Muslims are anti-American. Far from it. We should get to know these people and embrace the good Muslims, and eliminate the bad ones. Here's what I don't know. I don't know if the Muslim community will ever step to the plate like the Japanese-American community did during World War II. You know, it was absolutely disgraceful how we rounded innocent people up then and, sadly, history has a way of repeating itself no matter how grotesque that history might be. The Muslim community can prevent this if they act now.”
In an exercise of obvious futility, the three leading Arab- and Muslim-American advocacy groups dashed off a letter to ABC/Disney expressing dismay and requesting a meeting to discuss their concerns.
They wrote: “During his tenure at CNN Headline News and as a talk-radio host, Beck has demonstrated an obvious anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice in his broadcasts through threats and blatantly inaccurate statements. (Beck's) addition to 'Good Morning America' would disseminate his prejudiced, openly-hostile and ignorant commentary to an even broader national audience, and diminish the credibility of your reputable and highly-rated news show," the letter said, adding, "To provide a platform for his hateful speech is dangerous and irresponsible, and we strongly and urgently implore you to reconsider this move."
The response from ABC News expressed its willingness to discuss the organizations’ concerns, but added that it intends to hire Beck.
Of course it does. It knows the formula:
Rantings + Ravings = Ratings.
Champions of our Constitution’s First Amendment should be resting easier now. ABC’s hiring of Glenn Beck to appear as a regular on its “Good Morning America” show surely proves that, despite the Bush Administration’s efforts, freedom of speech is still alive and well in the United States.
No matter how outrageously uninformed and bigoted that speech may be.
Doubtless, Beck’s arrival will catapult the show’s ratings exponentially. And his former home, at CNN Headline News, will sink further into irrelevance.
Beck, you will recall, is the esteemed Middle East scholar who interviewed Keith Ellison, our first Muslim congressman back in November, and asked him to “prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.”
Surely a question worthy of Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh.
Beck’s anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rants should be producing apoplexy in Ted Turner, who founded CNN to broadcast news. Just the facts, ma’am.
Here are some of Beck’s recently-broadcast facts:
Muslims “who have sat on [their] hands the whole time rather than “lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head” will face dire consequences. One of those consequences being that Muslims will be “looking through a razor wire fence at the West.”
Before joining CNN, Beck hosted a radio talk show, distributed by that star player in the vast left-wing media conspiracy, Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks. There, he told his audience that "The world is on the brink of World War III," and then warned:
“All you Muslims who have sat on your frickin' hands the whole time and have not been marching in the streets and have not been saying, 'Hey, you know what? There are good Muslims and bad Muslims. We need to be the first ones in the recruitment office lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head.' I'm telling you, with God as my witness... human beings are not strong enough, unfortunately, to restrain themselves from putting up razor wire and putting you on one side of it. When things—when people become hungry, when people see that their way of life is on the edge of being over, they will put razor wire up and just based on the way you look or just based on your religion, they will round you up. Is that wrong? Oh my gosh, it is Nazi, World War II wrong, but society has proved it time and time again: It will happen.”
On September 5, Beck broadcast the same message to his CNN Headline News audience, declaring, "In 10 years, Muslims and Arabs will be looking through a razor wire fence at the West." The “razor wire” is a reference to the internment of tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans during World War Two. About which Beck warned, "The razor wire will be coming. "
He explained: “Since 9/11, Americans have gotten so fed up with the "yes, but" Muslims. The "yes, but" Muslims are the ones who show up on talkshows and in the media and say, "Yes, terrorism is bad, but"—and then they go through a list of reasons on why we should try and sympathize with people who fly planes into buildings.... If, God forbid, there's another attack, we won't have anymore patience for the "yes, buts." The Muslim community better find a spokesman who isn't a "yes, but" Muslim. They shouldn't even understand the word "but," because if they don't, when things heat up, the profiling will only get worse, and the razor wire will be coming.”
“You want the profiling to stop?” he asked Muslims. His answer: “Here's an idea. Stop murdering innocent people. Stop excusing the people who do. You do that for a while, and I guarantee you won't have any more problems at the airports. Stop blowing stuff up and the world just might be your oyster. Otherwise, it's going to be like that movie, The Siege. You remember that movie? The Muslims will see the West through razor wire if things don't change.”
He went on. “Look, I'm not saying all Arabs and Muslims are anti-American. Far from it. We should get to know these people and embrace the good Muslims, and eliminate the bad ones. Here's what I don't know. I don't know if the Muslim community will ever step to the plate like the Japanese-American community did during World War II. You know, it was absolutely disgraceful how we rounded innocent people up then and, sadly, history has a way of repeating itself no matter how grotesque that history might be. The Muslim community can prevent this if they act now.”
In an exercise of obvious futility, the three leading Arab- and Muslim-American advocacy groups dashed off a letter to ABC/Disney expressing dismay and requesting a meeting to discuss their concerns.
They wrote: “During his tenure at CNN Headline News and as a talk-radio host, Beck has demonstrated an obvious anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice in his broadcasts through threats and blatantly inaccurate statements. (Beck's) addition to 'Good Morning America' would disseminate his prejudiced, openly-hostile and ignorant commentary to an even broader national audience, and diminish the credibility of your reputable and highly-rated news show," the letter said, adding, "To provide a platform for his hateful speech is dangerous and irresponsible, and we strongly and urgently implore you to reconsider this move."
The response from ABC News expressed its willingness to discuss the organizations’ concerns, but added that it intends to hire Beck.
Of course it does. It knows the formula:
Rantings + Ravings = Ratings.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
MEA CULPA MINIMUS
By William Fisher
The senior defense department official who suggested that major corporations should stop doing business with large law firms who represent Guantanamo Bay detainees without charge has apologized for his remarks – but his apology has failed to satisfy some legal and human rights advocates.
The remarks were made on a Washington, D.C. radio program on Tuesday by Charles D. “Cully” Stimson, a deputy assistant secretary of defense and a former Navy defense lawyer. They drew an avalanche of anger from lawyers, legal ethics specialists, and bar association officials, who said they found his comments repellent and displayed an ignorance of the duties of lawyers to represent people in legal trouble.
Lawyers expressed outrage at that, asserting that they are not being paid and that Mr. Stimson had tried to suggest they were by innuendo. Of the approximately 500 lawyers coordinated by the Center for Constitutional Rights, no one is being paid. One Washington law firm, Shearman & Sterling, which has represented Kuwaiti detainees, has received money from the families of the prisoners, but Thomas Wilner, a lawyer there, said they had donated all of it to charities related to the September 2001 terrorist attacks.”
The Pentagon disowned Stimson’s remarks and said they did not represent DOD policy.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales also disowned Stimson’s remarks. "Good lawyers representing the detainees is the best way to ensure that justice is done in these cases," he said.
But in a speech in Washington on Wednesday, he said Guantanamo defense lawyers were responsible for much of the delay in charging detainees and putting them on trial.
He was apparently referring to the delays caused by a lawsuit brought by a Guananamo detainee, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, against then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in which some of the lawyers referenced by Stimson participated.
That suit resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court last summer striking down the military commissions President Bush established to try suspected members of al-Qaeda, emphatically rejecting a signature Bush anti-terrorism measure and the broad assertion of executive power upon which the president had based it. The court ruled that the commissions, which were outlined by Bush in a military order on Nov. 13, 2001, were neither authorized by federal law nor required by military necessity, and ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions.
Congress then passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA), which is also being challenged in the courts.
Yesterday, Stimson issued an apology, published in the Washington Post newspaper.
It said, “Regrettably, my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo. I do not," Stimpson wrote in response to the furor over his remarks. "I apologize for what I said and to those lawyers and law firms who are representing clients at Guantanamo. I hope that my record of public service makes clear that those comments do not reflect my core beliefs," he wrote.
Stimson also said he supports pro bono work and believes the legal system works best when both sides have competent legal counsel.
But his apology failed to satisfy some legal and human rights advocates. Mary Shaw of Amnesty International USA, told us, “Stimson's apology illustrates that he recognizes the grave unfairness of his earlier attempts to discredit the attorneys who represent Guantanamo detainees. Everyone is entitled to due process, including legal representation, and the prisoners at Guantanamo are no exception. This is especially important considering that many detainees have already been released when it was determined that they had been wrongly imprisoned. Supposedly, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Discrediting those who work to ensure justice for our prisoners is akin to discounting the very concept of justice.”
And Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights – an advocacy group that has been responsible for organizing much of the legal representation for Guantanamo detainees -- told us, “After the outcry, what could Stimson do except apologize? But, sadly, his remarks were part of a policy that was approved at the highest levels. This is demonstrated by Gonzales’s fallacious claim that the Guantanamo lawyers are responsible for delaying the trials of Guantanamo detainees and by his attacks on judges who have said Guantanamo detainees have rights. The apology may quiet the waters for a moment, but the denial of fundamental rights to detainees is still at the heart of the administration’s practices.”
The controversy appears to have been triggered when a conservative radio talk show host, Monica Crowley, filed a request under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act for the names of all law firms representing Guantanamo detainees. The information she received contained the names of 14 prominent law firms, 12 of which were named by Stimson in his radio interview.
Stimson said, "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."
He then went on to say, “I think, quite honestly, when corporate C.E.O.’s see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those C.E.O.’s 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.”
When asked in the radio interview who was paying for the legal representation, 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.”
The outcry from legal experts and civil and human rights organizations was swift. Four law organizations said in a letter to president Bush that Stimson should be fired for remarks that were aimed at "chilling the willingness" of lawyers to represent Guantanamo detainees.
"The threats by Mr. Stimson are not subtle. They imply these pro bono lawyers are terrorists," read the letter signed by the American Association of Jurists, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, the National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers.
Stimson's remarks were aimed at "chilling the willingness" of lawyers to represent Guantanamo detainees and were contrary to the "bedrock principles" of the right to counsel and the presumption on innocence, the letter read.
Secretary Stimson should be fired immediately, said George Washington University law school Prof. Jonathan Turley, appearing on Keith Olbermann’s “Countdown” TV show. He asked rhetorically, “What does it take to get someone fired in the Bush Administration?”
But Stimson’s remarks were supported in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. In a editorial by Robert L. Pollock, a member of the newspaper’s editorial board, quoted an unnamed “senior U.S. official” as saying, “Corporate C.E.O.’s seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists.”
This is not the first time US military officials have criticized Guantanano defense lawyers. In March of last year, Col. Moe Davis, chief prosecutor for the Guantanamo tribunals, told journalists that several major law firms that have defense contractors as paying clients are providing pro bono lawyers to defend Guantanamo detainees in habeas petitions.
"It's somewhat ironic that the weaponry that we use in the war on terrorism is helping fund the defense of the alleged terrorists," Davis said at the time.
About 50 U.S. federal public defenders are also representing Guantanamo detainees, pro bono, in habeas corpus petitions.
About 395 prisoners remain at the Guantanamo prison camp, suspected of al Qaeda and Taliban links. More than 770 captives have been held at the facility which opened five years ago, soon after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in response to the September 11 attacks. Only 10 detainees have charged with crimes.
In the environment created by fear of further terrorist attacks, the question of whether Secretary Stimson’s apology is sufficient is academic. His point of view continues to reflect the Bush Administration’s attitude toward the rule of law and the centrality of due process – even for accused terrorists.
The senior defense department official who suggested that major corporations should stop doing business with large law firms who represent Guantanamo Bay detainees without charge has apologized for his remarks – but his apology has failed to satisfy some legal and human rights advocates.
The remarks were made on a Washington, D.C. radio program on Tuesday by Charles D. “Cully” Stimson, a deputy assistant secretary of defense and a former Navy defense lawyer. They drew an avalanche of anger from lawyers, legal ethics specialists, and bar association officials, who said they found his comments repellent and displayed an ignorance of the duties of lawyers to represent people in legal trouble.
Lawyers expressed outrage at that, asserting that they are not being paid and that Mr. Stimson had tried to suggest they were by innuendo. Of the approximately 500 lawyers coordinated by the Center for Constitutional Rights, no one is being paid. One Washington law firm, Shearman & Sterling, which has represented Kuwaiti detainees, has received money from the families of the prisoners, but Thomas Wilner, a lawyer there, said they had donated all of it to charities related to the September 2001 terrorist attacks.”
The Pentagon disowned Stimson’s remarks and said they did not represent DOD policy.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales also disowned Stimson’s remarks. "Good lawyers representing the detainees is the best way to ensure that justice is done in these cases," he said.
But in a speech in Washington on Wednesday, he said Guantanamo defense lawyers were responsible for much of the delay in charging detainees and putting them on trial.
He was apparently referring to the delays caused by a lawsuit brought by a Guananamo detainee, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, against then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in which some of the lawyers referenced by Stimson participated.
That suit resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court last summer striking down the military commissions President Bush established to try suspected members of al-Qaeda, emphatically rejecting a signature Bush anti-terrorism measure and the broad assertion of executive power upon which the president had based it. The court ruled that the commissions, which were outlined by Bush in a military order on Nov. 13, 2001, were neither authorized by federal law nor required by military necessity, and ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions.
Congress then passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA), which is also being challenged in the courts.
Yesterday, Stimson issued an apology, published in the Washington Post newspaper.
It said, “Regrettably, my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo. I do not," Stimpson wrote in response to the furor over his remarks. "I apologize for what I said and to those lawyers and law firms who are representing clients at Guantanamo. I hope that my record of public service makes clear that those comments do not reflect my core beliefs," he wrote.
Stimson also said he supports pro bono work and believes the legal system works best when both sides have competent legal counsel.
But his apology failed to satisfy some legal and human rights advocates. Mary Shaw of Amnesty International USA, told us, “Stimson's apology illustrates that he recognizes the grave unfairness of his earlier attempts to discredit the attorneys who represent Guantanamo detainees. Everyone is entitled to due process, including legal representation, and the prisoners at Guantanamo are no exception. This is especially important considering that many detainees have already been released when it was determined that they had been wrongly imprisoned. Supposedly, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Discrediting those who work to ensure justice for our prisoners is akin to discounting the very concept of justice.”
And Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights – an advocacy group that has been responsible for organizing much of the legal representation for Guantanamo detainees -- told us, “After the outcry, what could Stimson do except apologize? But, sadly, his remarks were part of a policy that was approved at the highest levels. This is demonstrated by Gonzales’s fallacious claim that the Guantanamo lawyers are responsible for delaying the trials of Guantanamo detainees and by his attacks on judges who have said Guantanamo detainees have rights. The apology may quiet the waters for a moment, but the denial of fundamental rights to detainees is still at the heart of the administration’s practices.”
The controversy appears to have been triggered when a conservative radio talk show host, Monica Crowley, filed a request under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act for the names of all law firms representing Guantanamo detainees. The information she received contained the names of 14 prominent law firms, 12 of which were named by Stimson in his radio interview.
Stimson said, "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."
He then went on to say, “I think, quite honestly, when corporate C.E.O.’s see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those C.E.O.’s 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.”
When asked in the radio interview who was paying for the legal representation, 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.”
The outcry from legal experts and civil and human rights organizations was swift. Four law organizations said in a letter to president Bush that Stimson should be fired for remarks that were aimed at "chilling the willingness" of lawyers to represent Guantanamo detainees.
"The threats by Mr. Stimson are not subtle. They imply these pro bono lawyers are terrorists," read the letter signed by the American Association of Jurists, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, the National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers.
Stimson's remarks were aimed at "chilling the willingness" of lawyers to represent Guantanamo detainees and were contrary to the "bedrock principles" of the right to counsel and the presumption on innocence, the letter read.
Secretary Stimson should be fired immediately, said George Washington University law school Prof. Jonathan Turley, appearing on Keith Olbermann’s “Countdown” TV show. He asked rhetorically, “What does it take to get someone fired in the Bush Administration?”
But Stimson’s remarks were supported in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. In a editorial by Robert L. Pollock, a member of the newspaper’s editorial board, quoted an unnamed “senior U.S. official” as saying, “Corporate C.E.O.’s seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists.”
This is not the first time US military officials have criticized Guantanano defense lawyers. In March of last year, Col. Moe Davis, chief prosecutor for the Guantanamo tribunals, told journalists that several major law firms that have defense contractors as paying clients are providing pro bono lawyers to defend Guantanamo detainees in habeas petitions.
"It's somewhat ironic that the weaponry that we use in the war on terrorism is helping fund the defense of the alleged terrorists," Davis said at the time.
About 50 U.S. federal public defenders are also representing Guantanamo detainees, pro bono, in habeas corpus petitions.
About 395 prisoners remain at the Guantanamo prison camp, suspected of al Qaeda and Taliban links. More than 770 captives have been held at the facility which opened five years ago, soon after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in response to the September 11 attacks. Only 10 detainees have charged with crimes.
In the environment created by fear of further terrorist attacks, the question of whether Secretary Stimson’s apology is sufficient is academic. His point of view continues to reflect the Bush Administration’s attitude toward the rule of law and the centrality of due process – even for accused terrorists.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
AXES OF EVIL
By William Fisher
Now here’s a trio that makes Alberto Gonzales look like Clarence Darrow!
This trio consists of a senior Bush Administration official, a member of the editorial page board of the Wall Street Journal, and a conservative syndicated talk show host.
Their tawdry tale begins with right-wing talk show host Monica Crowley, a former Nixon apparatchik, who briefly appeared from California on an ill-fated MSNBC show with co-host Ron Reagan, son of the late president, from New York. It’s a blessing they weren’t in the same city, because their trans-Continental catfights sounded like “Firing Line” on steroids.
Well, seems Ms. Crowley filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the government for the names of all law firms representing detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. Why she had to spend her $50 to make this request is known only to her; the names have been available publicly and published innumerable times in various mainstream media and on a thousand Internet blogs.
But request she did, got the list, and was no doubt preparing to make a big media deal of it.
Except that someone stole her thunder. That someone turned out to be the senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees suspected of terrorism, Charles D. “Cully” Stimson, a deputy assistant secretary of defense.
Stimpson said in a radio interview with a local Washington-based station aimed at government employees 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.
Then apparently warming to his task, he went on to say, "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."
That F.O.I.A. reference was, of course, to Monica Crowley’s rerquest.
Obviously a believer in a boffo close, Stimpson went on to say, “I think, quite honestly, when corporate C.E.O.’s see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those C.E.O.’s 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.”
Mr. Stimson, who, as bizarre as it may seem, is himself a lawyer, named more than a dozen of the firms listed on the 14-page report provided to Ms. Crowley, describing them as “the major law firms in this country.”
In my newsgathering work, it happens that I have spoken with a number of the lawyers from these major law firms representing Guantanamo detainees. There isn’t space here to write of their commitment to the rule of law or recount all their tales of military obstruction and interference with their efforts to provide representationation for their clients. But, trust me, almost any other pro bono case would be easier.
The New York Times reported that when asked in the radio interview who was paying for the legal representation, 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.”
According to The Times, “Lawyers expressed outrage at that, asserting that they are not being paid and that Mr. Stimson had tried to suggest they were by innuendo. Of the approximately 500 lawyers coordinated by the Center for Constitutional Rights, no one is being paid. One Washington law firm, Shearman & Sterling, which has represented Kuwaiti detainees, has received money from the families of the prisoners, but Thomas Wilner, a lawyer there, said they had donated all of it to charities related to the September 2001 terrorist attacks.”
But this was a bandwagon that the third member of the trio apparently couldn’t resist. He is Robert L. Pollock, a member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, who mentioned the list of law firms in an article about life at Guantanamo. Pollack quoted an unnamed “senior U.S. official” as saying, “Corporate C.E.O.’s seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists.”
Predictably, Stimpson’s comments produced an avalanche of anger from lawyers, legal ethics specialists, and bar association officials, who found his comments repellent and displayed an ignorance of the duties of lawyers to represent people in legal trouble.
The Pentagon, of course, disowned Stimpson’s remarks and said they did not represent DOD policy. You may recall they did the same thing when Gen. Jerry Boykin made disparaging remarks about Muslims while wearing his US Army uniform. And then did – virtually nothing.
But here’s the good news. None other than that valiant champion of the rule of law, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, couldn’t sit still for Stimpson’s bile. Nor could he blow off the whole affair by claiming executive privilege or by refusing to disclose “operational details,” as he has on so many earlier occasions.
"Good lawyers representing the detainees is the best way to ensure that justice is done in these cases," said the AG.
Good job, Alberto!
Secretary Stimpson should be fired immediately, but as George Washington University law school Prof. Jonathan Turley rhetorically asked on Keith Olbermann’s “Countdown” TV show, “What does it take to get someone fired” in the Bush Administration?
Firing is probably not going to happen. As Plan B, however, the Bush Administration should sentence Stimpson to listen to the confirmation hearings of now Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Roberts, you may recall, regailed the committee with many accounts of his pro-bono work for Supreme Court petitioners whose views he didn’t happen to share. Whatever shall we do with these activist jurists?
Or, as an alternative cruel and unusual punishment, maybe Secretary Stimpson should be ordered to watch repeated episodes of Law and Order, where he will hear many times, “You are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent,” et cetera, followed by: “You have the right to an attorney. If you can’t afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.”
That’s the Miranda warning mandated by a United States Supreme Court decision. And it says nothing about having a second-rate lawyer, nor does it say this right is available only to selective defendants.
But, of course, Secretary Stimpson knows all that. After all, he’s an attorney -- a former Navy lawyer and a graduate of George Mason University.
Maybe he just needs some refresher courses.
Right!
Now here’s a trio that makes Alberto Gonzales look like Clarence Darrow!
This trio consists of a senior Bush Administration official, a member of the editorial page board of the Wall Street Journal, and a conservative syndicated talk show host.
Their tawdry tale begins with right-wing talk show host Monica Crowley, a former Nixon apparatchik, who briefly appeared from California on an ill-fated MSNBC show with co-host Ron Reagan, son of the late president, from New York. It’s a blessing they weren’t in the same city, because their trans-Continental catfights sounded like “Firing Line” on steroids.
Well, seems Ms. Crowley filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the government for the names of all law firms representing detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. Why she had to spend her $50 to make this request is known only to her; the names have been available publicly and published innumerable times in various mainstream media and on a thousand Internet blogs.
But request she did, got the list, and was no doubt preparing to make a big media deal of it.
Except that someone stole her thunder. That someone turned out to be the senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees suspected of terrorism, Charles D. “Cully” Stimson, a deputy assistant secretary of defense.
Stimpson said in a radio interview with a local Washington-based station aimed at government employees 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.
Then apparently warming to his task, he went on to say, "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."
That F.O.I.A. reference was, of course, to Monica Crowley’s rerquest.
Obviously a believer in a boffo close, Stimpson went on to say, “I think, quite honestly, when corporate C.E.O.’s see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those C.E.O.’s 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.”
Mr. Stimson, who, as bizarre as it may seem, is himself a lawyer, named more than a dozen of the firms listed on the 14-page report provided to Ms. Crowley, describing them as “the major law firms in this country.”
In my newsgathering work, it happens that I have spoken with a number of the lawyers from these major law firms representing Guantanamo detainees. There isn’t space here to write of their commitment to the rule of law or recount all their tales of military obstruction and interference with their efforts to provide representationation for their clients. But, trust me, almost any other pro bono case would be easier.
The New York Times reported that when asked in the radio interview who was paying for the legal representation, 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.”
According to The Times, “Lawyers expressed outrage at that, asserting that they are not being paid and that Mr. Stimson had tried to suggest they were by innuendo. Of the approximately 500 lawyers coordinated by the Center for Constitutional Rights, no one is being paid. One Washington law firm, Shearman & Sterling, which has represented Kuwaiti detainees, has received money from the families of the prisoners, but Thomas Wilner, a lawyer there, said they had donated all of it to charities related to the September 2001 terrorist attacks.”
But this was a bandwagon that the third member of the trio apparently couldn’t resist. He is Robert L. Pollock, a member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, who mentioned the list of law firms in an article about life at Guantanamo. Pollack quoted an unnamed “senior U.S. official” as saying, “Corporate C.E.O.’s seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists.”
Predictably, Stimpson’s comments produced an avalanche of anger from lawyers, legal ethics specialists, and bar association officials, who found his comments repellent and displayed an ignorance of the duties of lawyers to represent people in legal trouble.
The Pentagon, of course, disowned Stimpson’s remarks and said they did not represent DOD policy. You may recall they did the same thing when Gen. Jerry Boykin made disparaging remarks about Muslims while wearing his US Army uniform. And then did – virtually nothing.
But here’s the good news. None other than that valiant champion of the rule of law, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, couldn’t sit still for Stimpson’s bile. Nor could he blow off the whole affair by claiming executive privilege or by refusing to disclose “operational details,” as he has on so many earlier occasions.
"Good lawyers representing the detainees is the best way to ensure that justice is done in these cases," said the AG.
Good job, Alberto!
Secretary Stimpson should be fired immediately, but as George Washington University law school Prof. Jonathan Turley rhetorically asked on Keith Olbermann’s “Countdown” TV show, “What does it take to get someone fired” in the Bush Administration?
Firing is probably not going to happen. As Plan B, however, the Bush Administration should sentence Stimpson to listen to the confirmation hearings of now Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Roberts, you may recall, regailed the committee with many accounts of his pro-bono work for Supreme Court petitioners whose views he didn’t happen to share. Whatever shall we do with these activist jurists?
Or, as an alternative cruel and unusual punishment, maybe Secretary Stimpson should be ordered to watch repeated episodes of Law and Order, where he will hear many times, “You are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent,” et cetera, followed by: “You have the right to an attorney. If you can’t afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.”
That’s the Miranda warning mandated by a United States Supreme Court decision. And it says nothing about having a second-rate lawyer, nor does it say this right is available only to selective defendants.
But, of course, Secretary Stimpson knows all that. After all, he’s an attorney -- a former Navy lawyer and a graduate of George Mason University.
Maybe he just needs some refresher courses.
Right!
Monday, January 15, 2007
IN PRAISE OF PROF. DREYFUSS
By William Fisher
A ton of important news stories got spiked amidst the cacophonous white noise created by the Baker Hamilton report and the Bush “surge” plan and reaction thereto.
One of the more important was the effort by Richard Dreyfuss to reintroduce civics to our public schools. The movie legend has launched a personal campaign to urge educators to teach their young students about the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, and other government basics.
As a first step, the actor called together a group of school administrators, television producers, writers, and local leaders in Martha's Vineyard to discuss launching a civics pilot program at one of the island community's elementary schools. He told the media he’s hopeful the effort will become a model for other schools across the country.
"By not teaching civics, our children are not learning about current events and how the government works. They need to be informed on what it means to maintain the system while sharing political space," he said.
Bravo, Prof. Dreyfuss! Americans’ ignorance of their own history and institutions is no longer a matter of debate. It has been verified in survey after survey.
For example, one survey, cited by Rosa Brooks in the Los Angeles Times, found that although 52% of Americans could name two or more of the characters from "The Simpsons," only 28% could identify two of the freedoms protected under the 1st Amendment. Another recent poll found that 77% of Americans could name at least two of the Seven Dwarfs from "Snow White," but only 24% could name two or more Supreme Court justices. Yet another poll showed that only two-thirds of Americans could identify all three branches of government; only 55% of Americans were aware that the Supreme Court can declare an act of Congress unconstitutional; and 35% thought that it was the intention of the founding fathers to give the president "the final say" over Congress and the judiciary.
Other studies sadly point in the same direction. One showed that a majority of college students thinks the press has too much freedom. Another found that most Americans believe the freedoms of American Muslims should be restricted. Still another found that a majority of high school graduates couldn’t find China on a map. And year after year, America’s knowledge scores vis a vis other industrialized democracies keeps going south.
On the birthday of Martin Luther King, it is instructive to quote Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post, who wrote of a recent survey of college students that found that while more than 81 percent knew that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was expressing hope for "racial justice and brotherhood" in his historic "I Have a Dream" speech, most of the rest thought King was advocating the abolition of slavery.
The question we should be asking is: How did these survey respondents ever get to be college students? Could there be a sadder example of the dereliction of responsibility in our primary and secondary schools?
Somehow, No Child Left Behind has managed to leave a heap of kids behind.
Lately, amidst our xenophobic immigration debate, there’s been lots of chatter about the new test the government is proposing to determine which immigrants qualify for naturalized U.S. citizenship. The LA Times’ Rosa Brooks writes, tongue in cheek, that it “will rigorously assess immigrants' knowledge of ‘the fundamental concepts of American democracy’," asking tough questions such as ‘Why do we have three branches of government? , ‘What is the rule of law?’, and ‘What are inalienable rights?’ “
Ms. Brooks says that requiring those who want the privileges of U.S. citizenship to have some minimal knowledge of American civics “is a great idea.” Why, she asks, “should this country mint new so-called citizens who don't know the first thing about American history or law?”
Her zinger, however, is that she wants to make native-born Americans take the test too — and deport them to their last known countries of ancestry if they flunk. Why, she asks, “should we ask first-generation immigrants to know more about the United States than the rest of us?”
Good question.
Many readers will remember Richard Dreyfuss’s 1996 film, “Mr. Holland’s Opus,” about a high school music teacher who "never gives up." In one scene, the principal tells him, "Your job as a teacher, Mr. Holland, is to 'give a compass for life' to the students..."
I’m all for people listening to their emotions and beliefs. But it’s tough to get a reliable compass for life absent information. And there is no information more critical to our country’s future than the history of what has made us Americans. And what is expected of us if we are to remain Americans.
My family, I think, is more fortunate than most. My ten-year-old granddaughter’s current assignment is to research and report on the life and work of Rosa Parks, and what it meant to her country and her countrymen. This, I hasten to add, had nothing to do with MLK’s birthday. It was simply one of many subjects that are a regular part of her curriculum.
Would that this were the situation in most public schools in our country – where civics education has become a seriously endangered species. I hope that at least a few readers will keep that in mind when their local school board chooses football over civics!
A ton of important news stories got spiked amidst the cacophonous white noise created by the Baker Hamilton report and the Bush “surge” plan and reaction thereto.
One of the more important was the effort by Richard Dreyfuss to reintroduce civics to our public schools. The movie legend has launched a personal campaign to urge educators to teach their young students about the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, and other government basics.
As a first step, the actor called together a group of school administrators, television producers, writers, and local leaders in Martha's Vineyard to discuss launching a civics pilot program at one of the island community's elementary schools. He told the media he’s hopeful the effort will become a model for other schools across the country.
"By not teaching civics, our children are not learning about current events and how the government works. They need to be informed on what it means to maintain the system while sharing political space," he said.
Bravo, Prof. Dreyfuss! Americans’ ignorance of their own history and institutions is no longer a matter of debate. It has been verified in survey after survey.
For example, one survey, cited by Rosa Brooks in the Los Angeles Times, found that although 52% of Americans could name two or more of the characters from "The Simpsons," only 28% could identify two of the freedoms protected under the 1st Amendment. Another recent poll found that 77% of Americans could name at least two of the Seven Dwarfs from "Snow White," but only 24% could name two or more Supreme Court justices. Yet another poll showed that only two-thirds of Americans could identify all three branches of government; only 55% of Americans were aware that the Supreme Court can declare an act of Congress unconstitutional; and 35% thought that it was the intention of the founding fathers to give the president "the final say" over Congress and the judiciary.
Other studies sadly point in the same direction. One showed that a majority of college students thinks the press has too much freedom. Another found that most Americans believe the freedoms of American Muslims should be restricted. Still another found that a majority of high school graduates couldn’t find China on a map. And year after year, America’s knowledge scores vis a vis other industrialized democracies keeps going south.
On the birthday of Martin Luther King, it is instructive to quote Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post, who wrote of a recent survey of college students that found that while more than 81 percent knew that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was expressing hope for "racial justice and brotherhood" in his historic "I Have a Dream" speech, most of the rest thought King was advocating the abolition of slavery.
The question we should be asking is: How did these survey respondents ever get to be college students? Could there be a sadder example of the dereliction of responsibility in our primary and secondary schools?
Somehow, No Child Left Behind has managed to leave a heap of kids behind.
Lately, amidst our xenophobic immigration debate, there’s been lots of chatter about the new test the government is proposing to determine which immigrants qualify for naturalized U.S. citizenship. The LA Times’ Rosa Brooks writes, tongue in cheek, that it “will rigorously assess immigrants' knowledge of ‘the fundamental concepts of American democracy’," asking tough questions such as ‘Why do we have three branches of government? , ‘What is the rule of law?’, and ‘What are inalienable rights?’ “
Ms. Brooks says that requiring those who want the privileges of U.S. citizenship to have some minimal knowledge of American civics “is a great idea.” Why, she asks, “should this country mint new so-called citizens who don't know the first thing about American history or law?”
Her zinger, however, is that she wants to make native-born Americans take the test too — and deport them to their last known countries of ancestry if they flunk. Why, she asks, “should we ask first-generation immigrants to know more about the United States than the rest of us?”
Good question.
Many readers will remember Richard Dreyfuss’s 1996 film, “Mr. Holland’s Opus,” about a high school music teacher who "never gives up." In one scene, the principal tells him, "Your job as a teacher, Mr. Holland, is to 'give a compass for life' to the students..."
I’m all for people listening to their emotions and beliefs. But it’s tough to get a reliable compass for life absent information. And there is no information more critical to our country’s future than the history of what has made us Americans. And what is expected of us if we are to remain Americans.
My family, I think, is more fortunate than most. My ten-year-old granddaughter’s current assignment is to research and report on the life and work of Rosa Parks, and what it meant to her country and her countrymen. This, I hasten to add, had nothing to do with MLK’s birthday. It was simply one of many subjects that are a regular part of her curriculum.
Would that this were the situation in most public schools in our country – where civics education has become a seriously endangered species. I hope that at least a few readers will keep that in mind when their local school board chooses football over civics!
First They Came for the Lawyers
By Marjorie Cohn
In one of the most severe blows the Bush administration has dealt to our constitutional democracy, the Pentagon attacked the lawyers who have volunteered to represent the Guantánamo detainees. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Charles Stimson threatened corporate lawyers who agree to defend the men and boys imprisoned there. Flashing a list of corporations that use law firms doing this pro bono work, Stimson declared, "Corporate C.E.O.'s seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists."
In 1770, John Adams defended nine British soldiers including a captain who stood accused of killing five Americans. No other lawyer would defend them. Adams thought no one in a free country should be denied the right to a fair trial and the right to counsel. He was subjected to scorn and ridicule and claimed to have lost half his law practice as a result of his efforts. Adams later said his representation of those British soldiers was "one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country."
Federal Judge Green, who has handled the many habeas corpus petitions filed by the Guantánamo detainees, expressed appreciation for the lawyers: "I do want to say we are very grateful for those attorneys who have accepted pro bono appointments. That is a service to the country, a service to the parties. No matter what position you take on this, it is a grand service."
More than 750 men and boys have been held like animals in cages during the last five years at Guantánamo. Many were picked up by warlords and sold to the US military for bounty. None has been tried for any crime. Very few even have any criminal charges against them.
Ironically, there were no alleged terrorists connected with 9/11 there until Bush recently transferred 14 men from his secret CIA prisons to Guantánamo. Meanwhile, hundreds of detainees languish in custody, aided by 500 courageous lawyers from 120 firms who have volunteered countless hours to represent them.
Under the Military Commissions Act Bush just rammed through Congress, the Guantánamo prisoners could be held for the rest of their lives without ever seeing a judge. Those who decide that death could not be worse than life at Gitmo have participated in a hunger strike. Rather than subject the Bush administration to embarrassment when prisoners die in US custody, military guards force feed them. Thick plastic tubes are forced down their throats with no anesthesia. Tubes are not sterilized before being reused on other prisoners. The UN Human Rights Commission called the force-feeding "torture." Many prisoners also report being tortured during interrogations.
Guantánamo has become the symbol of US hypocrisy. While fighting the "war on terror" and attacking other countries for their human rights abuses, the officials in the Bush administration have become war criminals. Torture and cruel or inhuman treatment are punishable as war crimes under the US War Crimes Act.
The Supreme Court held in Rasul v. Bush that the Guantánamo prison is under US jurisdiction, so prisoners there are entitled to the protections of the Constitution. The Sixth Amendment mandates that every person charged with a crime has the right to be defended by an attorney. The government is forbidden by the Fifth Amendment from denying any "person" - US citizen or not - due process of law. The presumption of innocence is enshrined in our legal system.
Bush's attack on lawyers is the latest assault on our civil liberties, which now includes warrantless surveillance of our phone calls and email, and most recently, our US Mail. Although Bush says he's spying on the terrorists, those who criticize his policies, including his illegal and immoral war on Iraq, are also invariably in his cross hairs.
All Americans should heed the words of Martin Niemoller: "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left who could stand up for me."
George W. Bush must immediately renounce Stimson's threats and relieve him of his duties. A country that would sacrifice its own values under the guise of protecting them has no moral authority in this world.
Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, is president of the National Lawyers Guild and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists. Her book, "Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law," will be published in June.
In one of the most severe blows the Bush administration has dealt to our constitutional democracy, the Pentagon attacked the lawyers who have volunteered to represent the Guantánamo detainees. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Charles Stimson threatened corporate lawyers who agree to defend the men and boys imprisoned there. Flashing a list of corporations that use law firms doing this pro bono work, Stimson declared, "Corporate C.E.O.'s seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists."
In 1770, John Adams defended nine British soldiers including a captain who stood accused of killing five Americans. No other lawyer would defend them. Adams thought no one in a free country should be denied the right to a fair trial and the right to counsel. He was subjected to scorn and ridicule and claimed to have lost half his law practice as a result of his efforts. Adams later said his representation of those British soldiers was "one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country."
Federal Judge Green, who has handled the many habeas corpus petitions filed by the Guantánamo detainees, expressed appreciation for the lawyers: "I do want to say we are very grateful for those attorneys who have accepted pro bono appointments. That is a service to the country, a service to the parties. No matter what position you take on this, it is a grand service."
More than 750 men and boys have been held like animals in cages during the last five years at Guantánamo. Many were picked up by warlords and sold to the US military for bounty. None has been tried for any crime. Very few even have any criminal charges against them.
Ironically, there were no alleged terrorists connected with 9/11 there until Bush recently transferred 14 men from his secret CIA prisons to Guantánamo. Meanwhile, hundreds of detainees languish in custody, aided by 500 courageous lawyers from 120 firms who have volunteered countless hours to represent them.
Under the Military Commissions Act Bush just rammed through Congress, the Guantánamo prisoners could be held for the rest of their lives without ever seeing a judge. Those who decide that death could not be worse than life at Gitmo have participated in a hunger strike. Rather than subject the Bush administration to embarrassment when prisoners die in US custody, military guards force feed them. Thick plastic tubes are forced down their throats with no anesthesia. Tubes are not sterilized before being reused on other prisoners. The UN Human Rights Commission called the force-feeding "torture." Many prisoners also report being tortured during interrogations.
Guantánamo has become the symbol of US hypocrisy. While fighting the "war on terror" and attacking other countries for their human rights abuses, the officials in the Bush administration have become war criminals. Torture and cruel or inhuman treatment are punishable as war crimes under the US War Crimes Act.
The Supreme Court held in Rasul v. Bush that the Guantánamo prison is under US jurisdiction, so prisoners there are entitled to the protections of the Constitution. The Sixth Amendment mandates that every person charged with a crime has the right to be defended by an attorney. The government is forbidden by the Fifth Amendment from denying any "person" - US citizen or not - due process of law. The presumption of innocence is enshrined in our legal system.
Bush's attack on lawyers is the latest assault on our civil liberties, which now includes warrantless surveillance of our phone calls and email, and most recently, our US Mail. Although Bush says he's spying on the terrorists, those who criticize his policies, including his illegal and immoral war on Iraq, are also invariably in his cross hairs.
All Americans should heed the words of Martin Niemoller: "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left who could stand up for me."
George W. Bush must immediately renounce Stimson's threats and relieve him of his duties. A country that would sacrifice its own values under the guise of protecting them has no moral authority in this world.
Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, is president of the National Lawyers Guild and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists. Her book, "Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law," will be published in June.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
MOHAMED AL- HATFIELD VS. AHMED AL-McCOY
By William Fisher
It’s now a few days since President Bush spoke to the American people about his new “strategy” for “victory” in Iraq. Reading the newspapers, listening to radio and watching television, one would think all the words that could possibly be written or spoken on this speech have finally been exhausted.
But when the punditocracy gets hold of this kind of issue, the last word is never written or spoken. And I am under no delusions that my words will be anything near the last.
But I will write them anyway, because there were a couple of things that struck me.
One of them was the way of most of both the print and broadcast media bought into the President’ s characterization of his plan as both “new” or a “strategy.” It is not new; we’ve had several unsuccessful “surges” in the past. And what Mr. Bush terms a “strategy” is little more than a tactical adjustment. It is “stay the course” 101.1.
The second thing that struck me was the almost total America-centricity of the media coverage. This seemed especially true on cable television. On MSNBC, for example, analysis of Bush’s speech was left in the hands of such well-known Middle East scholars as Chris Matthews, Pat Buchanan, and assorted retired US military officers. The result of choices like that took all the complexity and nuance out of the discussion. But I suppose that, since John Kerry’s 2004 campaign, nuance has become a dirty word.
Granted, America has a huge stake in how this misadventure unfolds. It is the blood of our surging troops that will be spilled and our tax dollars that will get spent. Still, with all its bulging rolladexes, wouldn’t you think the cable news folks might have come up with a commentator or two who actually knows something about the war zone, its history, its customs, and its idiosyncrasies?
The fact is that without this kind of information, the American public has little chance of really understanding the roots or the dynamics of what’s happening in Iraq today.
As I listened to Pat Buchanan spouting on about the US political party maneuvering going on behind the scenes, I recalled an experience that said a lot that wasn’t being explained.
When I lived in Egypt, I had a driver named Said. I once went with Said to his little village about 30 miles outside Cairo, where we were greeted by and spoke with many of his brothers, sisters, cousins, neighbors, etc. These were people Said knew all his life; he watched some of them being born. This was his part of his tribe.
But I noticed that Said passed one guy by several times and never even said hello. Later, I asked him why. He said his family had a "vendetta" (that's the English equivalent of the Arabic word he used) against this man's family. It was a feud that started some 300 years earlier, but no one in either family has forgotten it, although Said told me he had long since forgotten what it was all about. The vendetta resulted over the years in continuing hatred and periodic murders between these two families. And both families happen to be Sunni, as are most Egyptians. This was the Middle East version of The Hatfields and The McCoys!
So, with Chris Matthews chattering on in the background, I thought: If these two families, from the same branch of Islam, haven’t been able to reconcile their differences in 300 years, how can we expect Iraqis from different Muslim sects to reconcile theirs?
They won’t. And understanding the importance of this tribalism is a very important part of MidEast history and of the Iraq war, and one before and now largely ignored by the president.
The suffering inflicted on Shia Muslims – to say nothing of the Kurdish minority -- by Sunni Saddam Hussein’s apparatchiks is of much more recent vintage. It is burned into the consciousness even of those unborn when the Ba’ath Party took power. Little wonder then that the Shias now seek their revenge. It’s their vendetta. That’s what we see in the piles of tortured and executed bodied that grace our TV screens every morning. That’s what we saw when we watched an official lynch mob hanging Saddam. And the Shias ain’t giving it up just because America says they should.
That’s how we got to the 60 percent solution. Iraq’s Shias represent some 60 percent of the country’s population. Sunnis and Kurds make up the remaining 20 percent each. The president of the country may be a Kurd, but the real power is with the Prime Minister, a Shia, and his supporters, including some of the most bloodthirsty murderers in the country.
These murderers have their own armies – Muqtada Al-Sadr alone has some 60,000 fighters -- and have seriously infiltrated both the official Iraqi army and the police. It is overwhelmingly from these Shia gangs and police that the death squads and sectarian cleaners have risen. They act out their vendettas every day, and of course the Sunnis fight back. Neither side needs Al-Qaida, despite what George W. Bush says.
Does our President really believe that Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has asked for a surge in US troops so they can go into the Sadr City slums of Baghdad and kill off his fellow Shias? When pigs fly! That’s exactly why Mr. Al-Maliki has resisted this surge – despite what the President says -- and why most of the Iraqi army troops promised in the past somehow never showed up.
I have serious doubts they will show up this time. That will leave thousands more of our troops knocking down doors in a country where we can’t even understand what anybody’s trying to say to us.
So, in a best-case scenario, Iraq will end up with a 60 percent solution – a Shia government determined to get even with their Sunni countrymen. And it will have been American military force – and American incompetence, ignorance, and hubris – that opened this Pandora’s box.
That vendetta could go on, like Said’s, for another 300 years.
But now for the good news. America and Iran are finally on the same page: accepting, if not exactly sharing, the same vision of the Iraq of the future. A Shia future.
It’s now a few days since President Bush spoke to the American people about his new “strategy” for “victory” in Iraq. Reading the newspapers, listening to radio and watching television, one would think all the words that could possibly be written or spoken on this speech have finally been exhausted.
But when the punditocracy gets hold of this kind of issue, the last word is never written or spoken. And I am under no delusions that my words will be anything near the last.
But I will write them anyway, because there were a couple of things that struck me.
One of them was the way of most of both the print and broadcast media bought into the President’ s characterization of his plan as both “new” or a “strategy.” It is not new; we’ve had several unsuccessful “surges” in the past. And what Mr. Bush terms a “strategy” is little more than a tactical adjustment. It is “stay the course” 101.1.
The second thing that struck me was the almost total America-centricity of the media coverage. This seemed especially true on cable television. On MSNBC, for example, analysis of Bush’s speech was left in the hands of such well-known Middle East scholars as Chris Matthews, Pat Buchanan, and assorted retired US military officers. The result of choices like that took all the complexity and nuance out of the discussion. But I suppose that, since John Kerry’s 2004 campaign, nuance has become a dirty word.
Granted, America has a huge stake in how this misadventure unfolds. It is the blood of our surging troops that will be spilled and our tax dollars that will get spent. Still, with all its bulging rolladexes, wouldn’t you think the cable news folks might have come up with a commentator or two who actually knows something about the war zone, its history, its customs, and its idiosyncrasies?
The fact is that without this kind of information, the American public has little chance of really understanding the roots or the dynamics of what’s happening in Iraq today.
As I listened to Pat Buchanan spouting on about the US political party maneuvering going on behind the scenes, I recalled an experience that said a lot that wasn’t being explained.
When I lived in Egypt, I had a driver named Said. I once went with Said to his little village about 30 miles outside Cairo, where we were greeted by and spoke with many of his brothers, sisters, cousins, neighbors, etc. These were people Said knew all his life; he watched some of them being born. This was his part of his tribe.
But I noticed that Said passed one guy by several times and never even said hello. Later, I asked him why. He said his family had a "vendetta" (that's the English equivalent of the Arabic word he used) against this man's family. It was a feud that started some 300 years earlier, but no one in either family has forgotten it, although Said told me he had long since forgotten what it was all about. The vendetta resulted over the years in continuing hatred and periodic murders between these two families. And both families happen to be Sunni, as are most Egyptians. This was the Middle East version of The Hatfields and The McCoys!
So, with Chris Matthews chattering on in the background, I thought: If these two families, from the same branch of Islam, haven’t been able to reconcile their differences in 300 years, how can we expect Iraqis from different Muslim sects to reconcile theirs?
They won’t. And understanding the importance of this tribalism is a very important part of MidEast history and of the Iraq war, and one before and now largely ignored by the president.
The suffering inflicted on Shia Muslims – to say nothing of the Kurdish minority -- by Sunni Saddam Hussein’s apparatchiks is of much more recent vintage. It is burned into the consciousness even of those unborn when the Ba’ath Party took power. Little wonder then that the Shias now seek their revenge. It’s their vendetta. That’s what we see in the piles of tortured and executed bodied that grace our TV screens every morning. That’s what we saw when we watched an official lynch mob hanging Saddam. And the Shias ain’t giving it up just because America says they should.
That’s how we got to the 60 percent solution. Iraq’s Shias represent some 60 percent of the country’s population. Sunnis and Kurds make up the remaining 20 percent each. The president of the country may be a Kurd, but the real power is with the Prime Minister, a Shia, and his supporters, including some of the most bloodthirsty murderers in the country.
These murderers have their own armies – Muqtada Al-Sadr alone has some 60,000 fighters -- and have seriously infiltrated both the official Iraqi army and the police. It is overwhelmingly from these Shia gangs and police that the death squads and sectarian cleaners have risen. They act out their vendettas every day, and of course the Sunnis fight back. Neither side needs Al-Qaida, despite what George W. Bush says.
Does our President really believe that Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has asked for a surge in US troops so they can go into the Sadr City slums of Baghdad and kill off his fellow Shias? When pigs fly! That’s exactly why Mr. Al-Maliki has resisted this surge – despite what the President says -- and why most of the Iraqi army troops promised in the past somehow never showed up.
I have serious doubts they will show up this time. That will leave thousands more of our troops knocking down doors in a country where we can’t even understand what anybody’s trying to say to us.
So, in a best-case scenario, Iraq will end up with a 60 percent solution – a Shia government determined to get even with their Sunni countrymen. And it will have been American military force – and American incompetence, ignorance, and hubris – that opened this Pandora’s box.
That vendetta could go on, like Said’s, for another 300 years.
But now for the good news. America and Iran are finally on the same page: accepting, if not exactly sharing, the same vision of the Iraq of the future. A Shia future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
