Guantanamo/Detainees
WSJ Calls Gitmo Pro Bono Lawyers ‘the Latest in Radical Chic’
Posted Dec 16, 2008 10:53 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Large law firms have lined up to provide “legal dream teams” for the world’s most dangerous men at Guantanamo, outgunning the 60 or so Justice Department lawyers handling about 200 habeas appeals, according to a newspaper editorial.
The Wall Street Journal column decrying the imbalance is headlined “Gitmo Lawyers Are the Latest in Radical Chic.”
The newspaper suggests that the DOJ lawyers could also use some free legal help. It offers one suggestion: Talented law firm partners or legal scholars could wade through amicus briefs supporting the detainees and offer their own analysis.
It says many of the partners at big law firms helping the detainees are “backed up by legions of associates, outside legal experts, human-rights centers and concerned law students.” Many of the firms are aided by law professors from schools such as Stanford, Yale, Northwestern and Fordham.
“Helping out Justice would be a service to both the country and the rule of law,” the article says.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
- NU Law Dean Adjusts 'Super Lawyers' Rankings to Reflect Law School Size
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
J.D.
Dec 16, 2008 12:09 PM CST
A father who lost his son in the bombing of the USS Cole recently came to the same conclusion while watching a proceeding on the incident at Gitmo. He noted all the effort being put out by American defense teams on behalf of the battlefield-captured jihadists, as compared to the minimal support given the prosecution.
In his words:
“Its unfortunate and sad that representatives of the media and groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch seem to show more solidarity with the accused terrorists than with the actual victims of terrorist attacks.”
The rest of his statement:
http://armiesofliberation.com/archives/2008/11/03/gary-swenchonis-sr-reports-from-gitmo-on-the-trial-of-bahlul/
Of course, Obama’s A.G. appointee, Eric Holder, is currently working at a law firm that has invested all sorts of pro bono time to the Gitmo jihadists. Chic, indeed.
Flag this comment
Franklin Roosevelt
Dec 16, 2008 2:00 PM CST
I find the “radcial chic” tag far too romantic and generous to describe the ideological fog that has enshrouded the brains of some law school professors and attorneys. At the risk of not being “radically chic”, I find the rush to defend Islamic killers, but not, for example, the Haditha Marines, to be a sad commentary on the state of the American bar and its increasingly ideological educational institutions. How does one explain American law professors, students, and attorneys who are FREE to enjoy the prestige and privilege of working or studying in American academia or major firms…in a DEMOCRACY and who enjoys unequalled FREEDOM - paid for by the blood and lives of men and women in the military far braver than they - gleefully, perhaps euphorically, rush to defend GITMO’s unrepentant Islamo-fascist genocidal killers, and say little or nothing publicly against mass murder by Al Qaeda in Iraq, or against Al Sadr, or against Hamas, or against Hisbollah, or against the Taliban, et al.? Even more absurd, if not delusional, some of these attorneys actually view GITMO’s Islamist killers as “victims” rather than the people they murdered? Now that I’m 62, and a former Lieutenant of Marines, I recall other “radical chic” ideologues that stood in solidarity with Hanoi’s or Moscow’s or Peiping’s Politburo Communist thugs (while sleeping in warm, protected Ivory Tower beds in America where it was safe) as Mao’s “Cultural Revolution” turned the clock back to the year “zero” and killed 20, 40, 60, 80 million (but then, who’s counting) or Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge murdered or starved 2 million in the “Killing Fields” of Cambodia, and, consistency being the hobgoblin of fools, ignoring to this day the “re-education camp” starvation, torture, and genocide of a 1/4 million in Communist Vietnam. Just as Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda and a host of radically chic celebrities joined by radically chic professors, students, and lawyers of that day stood mute and refused to criticize Communist mass murder, now we have those who can’t see Islamist genocide for the horror that it is due to the stacks of bodies blocking their “radically chic” view. Now, the old radicals and a new generation of Thought Police scoff at, or just ignore, the genocide of Saddam, not to mention being oblivious to his bribery of government officials of UN Security Council members and staff of the UN Secretary General, as if it never happened. Similarly, Saddam’s hundreds of mass graves (uncovered only because of the bravery of American and British soldiers) are apparently imaginary despite the mounds of dismembered skeletons and holes in skulls discovered after the invasion. Perhaps, when genocidal, women enslaving/women stoning/adolescent girl “honor” killing/genital mutilating Islamist followers of a 7th century slave owning pedophile and mass murdering racist warlord come to impose Sharia Law on these pompous, sanctimonious, condescending, proselytizing “radically chic” ideologues of the Academe and the bar, they will acquire an in depth understanding of what it means to be a radically chic “victim” of Islamo-fascism.
Flag this comment
Brett
Dec 16, 2008 2:34 PM CST
It is encouraging to see American lawyers lead the fight to protect human rights and enforce even a modicum of due process protections as provided by international conventions and treaties. The particular recipients of this assistance are irrelevant. What is important is the understanding throughout the world that American justice should stand up for those accused of even the most wretched and horrible offenses.
The defendants at Nuremberg, who participated in the slaughter of millions of people, were entitled to and received excellent defense counsel. So, too, should those who are kept at Gitmo.
Flag this comment
J.D.
Dec 16, 2008 2:48 PM CST
Right over your head, Brett. Right over your head.
Flag this comment
Andy the Lawyer
Dec 16, 2008 5:09 PM CST
Note to J.D.—Gitmo Jihadists? Maybe. Some of the prisoners there are. Some are not—as evidenced by the several hundred Gitmo prisoners whom the Bush administration has released during the past 7 years.
The problem is that a lot of the prisoners were taken not from any battlefield, but after getting ratted out by personal enemies settling old scores or seeking the multi-thousand dollar rewards the US government offered for information leading to “terrorist” arrests. The only way to sort them out is to try them, free the acquitted and imprison the guilty.
As for the hand-wringing and wailing about lawyers interested in levellling the playing field instead of rubber-stamping the Bush administration’s accusations—so what? The government doesn’t need the private sector’s assistance to prosecute any gitmo prisoner. Its resources are unlmited, and it has the benefit of national security laws that often prevent any accused from knowing what evidence is claimed to support his conviction or from confronting his accusors—the bare minimums of a civilized society’s legal system.
No doubt the families of 9/11 and similar terror attacks have a vital interest in seeing terrrorists brought to justice. But they have no interest in the imprisonment of anyone who did not commit the crimes for which he’s charged. Let the courts sort it out.
Flag this comment
J.D.
Dec 17, 2008 9:16 AM CST
Andy, I appreciate your measured response.
I still do think that there is a lot of hand-wringling from the legal and media community about the Gitmoees, and not so much concern from the same group when it comes to the troops or Americans, generally.
Why did no legal groups come to the defense of the Haditha troops when Rep. Murtha was calling them “cold-blooded murders” from the House floor only hours after the incident? They’ve sense been exonerated, but that didn’t stop endless amounts of finger-pointing and outright accusation of guilt from CNN/FOX/MSNBC and a host of Dems in government—all based on very little information.
It just seems that there are a lot of lawyers who are falling all over each other to defend individuals who would likely slit our throats in a heartbeat, but not much effort being put out to protect and defend our own boys.
Flag this comment
DC Atty
Dec 17, 2008 1:10 PM CST
If these claims had any real merit and weren’t political theater maybe more attorneys would support the prosecutions. But its obvious we know better.
Flag this comment
J.D.
Dec 17, 2008 3:26 PM CST
If it wasn’t for the asymmetrical warfare, we would have not have a need to capture these individuals; we would have killed most of them on the battlefield.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.