Comments (62)

Legalize wrote on January 17, 2007 9:48 AM:

Why is his "apology" not accompanied by a letter of resignation?

dasher wrote on January 17, 2007 9:50 AM:

I agree with Jon Turley (as quoted on Olberman's show) that Stimpson's remarks were "vile" and that he must be fired - stat.

Historical trivia: Not only did John Adams volunteer to defend the British soldiers who were prosecuted for the Boston Massacre, he won them accquitals!

ima sorry wrote on January 17, 2007 9:51 AM:

hey ... at least it was a really apology ("i'm sorry about what i said"), as opposed to a "i'm sorry if anyone was offended by what i said"

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2007 9:56 AM:

Yeah, right, just some flip comment, not a reflection of his "core beliefs." Right...

I also love how he pretends that it took a FOIA request to bring it to light, as if it was some big secret that the law firms were keeping. It's public information that various major law firms represent Guantanamo detainees, available to anyone who downloads the briefs from the various cases, and it didn't take any FOIA request to find out who represents the detainees. That's just more bogus disinformation.

Heraldblog wrote on January 17, 2007 9:59 AM:

"Regrettably, my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo."

So it was all just a big misunderstanding? Good effort, Charles, but I think you need to try again. How about "I truly apologize for my unwarranted remarks directed against attorneys for their zealous and entirely appropriate defense of criminal suspects."

dr. elsewhere wrote on January 17, 2007 10:04 AM:

what you have reported leaves out the KEY point in this entire episode: THE DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE.

the most important thing in all this is the fact that stimson LISTED NO LESS THAN SIX FIRMS IN THE INTERVIEW! he read all these firms out loud for the world to hear! you can't leave that part out of your reporting here!

this was hitting below the belt, and i have no doubt it was orchestrated. along with the firings of all those US prosecutors this week.

they're cornered rats, folks, and they know it, and they're going to be on the no-holds-barred offensive for the duration.

read glenn greenwald's reasons why we should be very worried about what these folks will do as bush's house of cards collapses.

oldtree wrote on January 17, 2007 10:04 AM:

pretty sad when a fine man like this has to apologize for hate speech against terrawrists. especially when he doesn't mean it

DonQ wrote on January 17, 2007 10:07 AM:

What Stimson did in the radio interview was far worse than "question the integrity" of lawyers attempting to defend Guantanamo prisoners. In fact, Stimson urged Americans to punish these attorneys by threatening their income. Without income, few attorneys can afford to take on pro bono work. Who, then, will ensure that the prisoners' rights are upheld? Who will ensure that our system of government is -- and is perceived as being -- just?

The issue of integrity is a red herring. The real issue is whether the Executive branch believes in the rule of law. Stimson clearly does not.

Brianm0122 wrote on January 17, 2007 10:08 AM:

Any lawyers out there?

Are there any legal rules against what he said? could he be disbarred for this? i.e.,interfering with another lawyers client? Retailiating against another law firm?

legion wrote on January 17, 2007 10:10 AM:

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,

Heh. What about those CEOs who saw their bottom line go _up_ after 2001?

Arturo wrote on January 17, 2007 10:17 AM:

He apologizes for making it seem that he questions their integrity. But that is the least of the problems with his original comments. The rule of law in the United States is based on the notion of a confrontational process, where both sides work diligently to establish their case in the hope that truth and justice will emerge from that crucible (yeah, reality may be far from the poetic theory, but still...) Stimson is basically saying that if we "know" some people are guilty, then nobody should defend them, or at least, not beyond a pro forma defense. In other words, let us get back to the years where guilt or innocence was decided by royal fiat and mob mentality. While we hear that every so often from the mob itself in emotionally charged cases, to have an official from the government say it... The "apology" is exactly the same as the kind of defense he is advocating for those the administration accuses: weak, pro forma, and worthless.

susan wrote on January 17, 2007 10:21 AM:

more weasel words. perhaps it would be a tad more believable if it had included a retraction of his comments.

Joel wrote on January 17, 2007 10:26 AM:

Is this guy related to Henry Stimson?

One of the firms he mentioned was Pillsbury Winthrop, formerly Winthrop Stimson. Would be ironic if they were related.

bebimbob wrote on January 17, 2007 10:36 AM:

What an ass. The guy should be summarily fired.

Maybe we should question the Pentagon's integrity for not firing the bastard forthwith.

Legalize wrote on January 17, 2007 10:36 AM:

Sure, the ABA can certainly pursue a number of actions against Stimson for any number of ethical violations: calling into question the integrity of fellow Bar members absent any justification; failing to maintain decorum in the legal profession; attempting to subvert justice by intimidation; seeking to subvert the attorny/client relationship by suggesting that corporate counsel should fire their lawyers; seeking economic reprisals against members in good standing of the Bar, for merely zealously representing their clients, as is their DUTY to do so; etc. etc.

He has revealed himself to be a partisan rat with no appreciation for the integrity of the legal profession, the constitution, other members of the bar, etc. - which he SWORE to uphold when he was admitted. He sought nothing more than to improve his own position by threatening lawyers in good standing vis a vis their corporate clients.

The best outcome is for this snake to be exposed to public scrutiny and held to account for his actions - they really hate that.

Joe wrote on January 17, 2007 10:36 AM:

He could face some sort of disciplinary action, depending on the state in which he is licensed. Anyone should be able to file a complaint. Then, we may find out that he does not have a license to practice law. Wouldn't that be interesting? I understand that he is a former federal prosecutor in DC. That really means nothing, because from what I've seen in the courthouse, about half of that office is incompetent.

David wrote on January 17, 2007 10:44 AM:

They really are cornered rats, especially now that they've lost both the Iraq War and congress. So now they're resorting to blacklisting and purges. Appropriate that the inner circle includes a Sovietologist. She can continue to provide pointers.

Steve Gabel wrote on January 17, 2007 10:50 AM:

I have to agree with Dr. Elsewhere: the damage has been done, it was orchestrated, and we're in for more of this. However, it is just possible that Stimson is a man of limited ability who did not think through the implications of the role he'd been asked to play, but now is aware of the conflict between his actions and his conception of himself. From the viewpoint of Bush insiders, Stimson has revealed himself to be weak and sqeamish.

Remember, this crowd, which never really accepted the legitimacy of Clinton's victories at the polls, is fundamentally an oligarchy. It's gained control of democratic institutions, but not for a second does it feel that it's legitimacy is conferred - or qualified - by what voters indicate.

Bush lost the popular vote, and governed as if he had a mandate. His party was thrashed in the recent mid-term, yet there is absolutely zero indication that the opinions of the majority of voters or the majority in Congress are views as anything other than impediments, to be smashed or paralyzed, to the Will of the Commander-in-Chief.

Nothing that they do should suprise us. These are hard guys, they have no shame, and they have no affection at all for democracy and democratic institutions. They do not play fair.

Nanite wrote on January 17, 2007 10:54 AM:

-- " ... my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo." --

no ... even your apology flies a false flag ... your comments Mr. Stimson left the impression that you want to prevent Guantanamo Bay prisoners from having attorneys ... you should resign

eric wrote on January 17, 2007 10:57 AM:

"Any lawyers out there?

Are there any legal rules against what he said? could he be disbarred for this? i.e.,interfering with another lawyers client? Retailiating against another law firm?

Posted by: Brianm0122"

At first, I didn't even think that this guy was a lawyer. But he did show up on findlaw.

http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2823077_1

Pretty sure that's him. If you are enterprising, look throught the Maryland Lawyer's Rules of Professional Conduct and see if you can get him on something. Off the top of my head, there might be some soft rule about protecting the integrity of the profession, or something like that.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/md/code/MD_CODE.HTM

SecularAnimist wrote on January 17, 2007 11:04 AM:

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs Charles Stimson has, in a sense, done us all a favor, by revealing just what sort of filthy Nazi scumbags are in charge at the Pentagon.

a wrote on January 17, 2007 11:07 AM:

I just want to wish Mr. Stimson good luck in getting a job in the private sector when his government service is done.

pj in jesusland wrote on January 17, 2007 11:08 AM:

Are detainees supposed to be getting a fair trial when their DoD captors have not only pre-judged them but advocate a nationwide boycott of the law firms that represent them?

Fair trials, like human rights, habeus corpus and personal privacy, have become quaint nostalgia items under Republican rule.

Mack wrote on January 17, 2007 11:21 AM:

Somehow the money angle always enters into it. Appealing to CEOs and how it affects their bottom line!!

synykyl wrote on January 17, 2007 11:24 AM:

Stimson's original comment was a thinly veiled threat against the law firms representing the Guantanamo detainees. It was inexcusable. He doen't need to apologize, he needs to resign.

Spud1 wrote on January 17, 2007 11:36 AM:

When you actually listen to his statement, you can hear the contempt he has for the detainees and anyone that would defend them (or the rule of law, for that matter).

His apology is bullshit, and he's just trying to save his job.

Nell wrote on January 17, 2007 11:41 AM:

Not enough. He has to resign or be fired.

As TPM and Muckraker coverage has shown, Stimson's wasn't any offhand comment. This was an organized McCarthyite mini-campaign, which included a piece in the Wall Street Journal. Look at his phrasing: "I think the news story that you’re really going to start seeing in the next couple of weeks is this ... 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."

pj wrote on January 17, 2007 11:45 AM:

The best that CheneyBush can hope for now is to hang on by their fingernails for two years, then retire in shame. Unfortunately, that may be the best we can hope for as well. They still wield terrifying power, and if any more wheels fall off, they may resort to even worse tactics. At that point our last chance may be -- here I speculate wildly, but desperate nightmares summon up desperate dreams -- a revolt in the military, a cabal of political and military people taking control of the country. In short, a coup.

Has it actually come to this? That I could suggest a military coup might be a good thing... for us? No, a military coup would not be a good thing. It is possible, however, to imagine a situation where that would be the lesser of two evils. Desperate nightmares do summon up desperate dreams.

scarshapedstar wrote on January 17, 2007 11:50 AM:

Where's his second apology where he explains why he's taking so long to tender his resignation? This is the guy in charge of detainee affairs?

Bruce/Crablaw wrote on January 17, 2007 11:51 AM:

His attorney conduct in this manner - using government power to interfere tortiously in the lawyer-client relationship of dozens of law firms, multiple Guantanamo clients and corporate clients including government contractors with the Department of Defense - is, by my read, a textbook example of "conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice" under the applicable codes of ethics, which conduct at least my state Maryland sometimes punishes with disbarment. He needs to lose his attorney permits, firing is not enough.

Leo wrote on January 17, 2007 11:51 AM:

I agree with those who say his comments were calculated and not just an offhand remark.
He was,after all, on a friendly radio talk show and it was a grand opportunity to throw some red meat to the yahoos.
If, as one reader says, anyone can file a bar complaint, let's hope someone does.
Damned, but these guys are such rats.

Legalize wrote on January 17, 2007 11:53 AM:

Nell is exactly right. This was not an off-hand remark that accidentally left a bad impression; we know that these rats to not play that way. This was a carefully executed ploy to get the attention of corporate CEOs by essentially propagandizing through the WSJ editorial page. Like every decision corporate boards make, he wants to force them to think about their bottom lines by associating their counsel with "terrorists."

If President Clinton can be disbarred by lying about a non-material fact in a civil deposition, this skunk can be disbarred for essentially seeking to undermine the very principles that permit him to even collect a paycheck.

rmadilo wrote on January 17, 2007 12:01 PM:

Two points:

1. He didn't apologize for 'core' suggestion that corporate clients should push the issue and ask their law firm to make a choice: us or them.

2. If these are not his core beliefs, whose are they? Probably those who are not firing him.

I think basically his apology is that he didn't say what he said: we were wrong. I'm sorry that you misunderstood me.

dasher wrote on January 17, 2007 12:02 PM:

"If President Clinton can be disbarred by lying about a non-material fact in a civil deposition, this skunk can be disbarred for essentially seeking to undermine the very principles that permit him to even collect a paycheck."

Ah, but you are forgetting: IOKIYAR!

(It's OK if you are a Republican!)

srk wrote on January 17, 2007 12:08 PM:

The Stimson comments are, not surprisingly, a rehash of Bush administration strategies of the not-so-distant past.

Last spring, in connection with the Hamdan case, Air Force Colonel Moe Davis, chief Guantanamo prosecutor, rolled out some thinly veiled threats aimed at chilling the advocacy of firms that represent both Gitmo clients and defense contractors--and Boeing, in particular.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1143207019627

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002898905_danny30.html

Viewed in this context, it's clear that Stimson's comments are not just the ramblings of a renegade lawyer, but represent a view that has been at least tolerated, if not encouraged, at the Pentagon.

A Lawyer wrote on January 17, 2007 12:15 PM:

>"Any lawyers out there?
>Are there any legal rules against
>what he said? could he be disbarred
>for this? i.e.,interfering with
>another lawyers client? Retailiating
>against another law firm?

My take on this is that his comments aren't sufficient to actually sustain a charge of unethical conduct. Interfering with contractual relationships requires a little more than saying "Did you know your attorney represents sleazebags?" There might be enough to warrant an investigation or a hearing, and maybe a reprimand, but disbarment is taken pretty seriously. Not to mention the fact that there are serious First Amendment protections regarding what he said.

ldayan wrote on January 17, 2007 12:23 PM:

this apology should not cut it, because it was not an offhand comment; he named names and clearly had a list of "guilty" law firms from which he was reading; it was premeditated and he's apologizing only because his comments were greated with such widespread scorn. he must be fired

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on January 17, 2007 12:34 PM:

From the NYT:
"In a 2006 interview with the magazine of Kenyon College, his alma mater, Mr. Stimson said that he was learning “to choose my words carefully because I am a public figure on a very, very controversial topic.”"

From the WaPost:
"..my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo."

"Zealous" is another backhanded smackdown from the obviously less-than-contrite Charles D. Stimson. Would Stimson have refrained from making his odious charge if those corporate lawyers were less than zealous in their defense of terrorists?

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2007 12:38 PM:

The rage I feel over this episode reminds of the rage I felt when no one in the Congress had the guts to call Ashcroft on his own use of Stimson's tactic.

I clearly remember Ashcoft sitting before some congresional committee, I think it was for Patriot Act hearings, saying rather stridently "we're talking about terrorists." Big emphasis on "terrorists" - he pactically shouted it. No one had the wits, or more likely the guts, to remind him "No, we're talking about ALLEGED terrorists. Alleged by you." I was yelling it in my office but there was no media coverage.

Stimson did basically the same thing. When it goes unchallenged in the reporting, that elision reinforces the lie, exactly as the speaker intended. The "apology", when it comes, doesn't matter one whit - the damage is done and the media is complicit. C'mpon folks - you can spell 'vigilante', can't you?

scared soul wrote on January 17, 2007 1:00 PM:

these bastards say this stuff. out loud. in front of people.
yet, very few people seem to understand what is truly being said and unfortunately it seems even fewer care.
someone please save us all.

markg wrote on January 17, 2007 1:05 PM:

Where did he question the lawyers' integrity? What he did was try to intimidate them with a threat of economic retaliation, which is far worse in my view. I don't see an apology for that.

mbbsdphil wrote on January 17, 2007 1:21 PM:

Every bureaucrat wants to keep his job, every lawyer his license to practice law. Mr. Stimson's comments suggest he should lose both. Ironically, his greatest sin may not be his extraordinarly arrogant and dismissive attitude toward the law, his chosen profession. His attitude pales when compared to Mr. Cheney's. His greatest sin will be that he was too honest in promoting his bosses' goals. A rare attribute among lawyers.

Buce wrote on January 17, 2007 2:01 PM:

"I want everyone to know that all those vicious anti-semitic remarks I made when drunk are not the real me."

Henry C wrote on January 17, 2007 2:12 PM:

His apology is (deliberately?) mispalced. His offense was not questioning the integrity of the pro bono lawyers. His offenses were (1) trying to blackmail pro bono attorneys out of representing people with interests supposedly adverse to his, (2) arguing that there is something untoward about representing people who have been imprisoned for years without conviction, and (3) declaring the detainees to be "terrorists," when in fact none have been tried and convicted of terrorism, the government refuses to give them their "day in court" to prove whether they are in fact terrorists, and most probably are not terrorists.

Translator wrote on January 17, 2007 2:12 PM:

His only regret is that he spoke honestly and lacked political coaching from the like of Karl Rove and his ilk. Think that's cynical?

Look at the way in which several prominent US Attorneys involved in corruption prosecution are being fired. Never is the obvious acknowledged: they're firing USA who threaten them. That order came straight from "high level officials" in the WH.

In each case there will be a well thought out excuse claiming it's for the public good in some entirely unrelated way.

BrianM wrote on January 17, 2007 2:20 PM:

Where is the apology? His initial comments did not question the integrity of the lawyers working to defend the GITMO prisoners. It made no statement of inappropriate conduct by these attorneys and their firms, it merely stated that these [...firms with integrity...] should be made to pay for doing the right thing and standing up for those charged (even though they are not) with a crime.

What's next...a list of the firms defending tax evaders...maybe a list of firms defending republican crooks?

feckless wrote on January 17, 2007 2:23 PM:

I love that he tries to flaunt his defense atty cred, "lots of my friends are negroes".

First: "Military Defense Lawyer" is an oxymoron.

Second: it makes his statement all the worst, for he as a fmr defense attorney should have the deepest understanding of the essential nature of universal access to legal counsel.

Then again he probably keeps a picture of John Yoo next to his bedstand.

Translator wrote on January 17, 2007 2:28 PM:

Instead of speaking about it to the press these things are usually done quietly.

It's simple: go down the list of pro-bono attorney's, then go down the client lists of thir firm. Cross reference those clients with the RNC faithful database, and make sure the firm gets the message and the attorney gets the message.

That's the way this administration has always done things, and to an unprecedented degree of viciousness.

The only "mistake" here was this guy was so enthralled with power that he foolishly bragged about it publicly.

Biff Spaceman wrote on January 17, 2007 2:31 PM:

The right is very comfortable with the trappings, terminology, and practice of dictatorship. Now they are just getting lax about lying about their totalitarian bent because they are comfortably assured of their continued control.

parrot wrote on January 17, 2007 2:39 PM:

It sounds like someone has abused their office and violated their oath to uphold the Constitution. When will the Congress do something about it? After we're all rounded up and subjected to summary justice? Wow. Inspiring.

kiwiwannabe wrote on January 17, 2007 2:45 PM:

Well, if that statement did not 'reflect' your 'core beliefs,' Mr. Stimson, then can you elaborate what DOES it reflect? Hmm?

wagonjak wrote on January 17, 2007 3:06 PM:

The assault upon the Constitution by this gang of criminals continues unabated, even though the rocks these roaches are hiding under are now being overturned and exposed to sunlight with the new Congress.

Crush them when they scurry out!

Bob Lehman wrote on January 17, 2007 3:09 PM:

Any chance he's heading off to rehab, here's my thoughts on the statements from Saturday.

http://badfollowthru.blogspot.com/2007/01/administration-and-defense-officials.html

Mooser wrote on January 17, 2007 3:16 PM:

Would something like this ordinarily provoke a mistrial?

Leslie wrote on January 17, 2007 3:43 PM:

Uh, no, Stimson's comments didn't "leave the impression" that he doesn't support one of the cornerstones of the Constitution. He said as much. When is an apology not an apology. Why hasn't this guy resigned?

Another Lawyer wrote on January 18, 2007 12:57 AM:

From above: "Sure, the ABA can certainly pursue a number of actions against Stimson for any number of ethical violations..."

Just to be clear, the American Bar Association is not a body that enforces local legal ethical rules of practice. The ABA folks provide help to state bodies in writing rules, and offer up occasional non-binding (but well respected) opinions on interesting questions, but they don't enforce the rules (and have no power to do so in the first place).

As for whether the comments violated the rules of professional responsibility, I stand with the other attorneys' comments above -- Vile in many senses, and maybe a violation of his obligations as a representative of the government, but the rules of attorney ethics probably won't reach here. It's very hard to enforce those rules where the action in question is arguably not even an action done in the role of an attorney. In some cases one can pin enough on a lawyer to bring general character and the like into play (lawyers who themselves commit crimes are the best example), but that sort of generalized attack on character is a high hurdle for the state attorney ethics boards compared with a more practice-of-law focused point (like "didn't maintain his own client's information in a confidential manner" or "failed to disclose a conflict of interest"). One incident that itself was not an act of the practice of law, even an incredibly stupid incident but short of actual criminal conduct, is probably not enough to put his license into play.

All of which is to suggest that the 'attorney rules' dog won't hunt as well as the one that's been doing the hunting so far -- Raw political power. Bring it on...

ebhsnkrs wrote on January 18, 2007 7:12 AM:

Now that the damage has been done, I'd like to see a published list of the companies that follow Stimson's suggestion. I'd like to hear their names read out in response to the question: Who are the companies that do not believe in habeus corpus representation, our consitution, or the rule of law?

ra d dawson wrote on January 19, 2007 12:27 AM:

I suggest his remarks also fit into the pattern of calculated disparagement of lawyers in general, be they tort, malpractice or environmental advocates, etc. He has thrown the net a bit wider than normal. Glad to see the concern. It's the same gig...eh?

rand dawson

Diane wrote on January 26, 2007 11:58 AM:

all he needs to do is go on Fox news and all we be forgiven.

Fred Farkel wrote on January 26, 2007 6:29 PM:

Lawyers have caused most of the strife in this country so let Wild Dick Cheney shoot them all in the face after a couple of beers and we'll let it go.

harry@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 6:30 PM:

hello

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 4:10 AM:

Hi
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye