Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Stimson Getting it From All Sides, Deservedly

Posted on January 16, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

From the right: Professor Charles Fried discusses legal representation in America. (Well worth reading.)

From the center and the left:

George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush:

The undersigned organizations call for the censure of Mr. Charles “Cully” Stimson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, for statements attacking the lawyers who are defending the Guantánamo detainees. Mr. Stimson's remarks are aimed at chilling the willingness of lawyers to represent those persons imprisoned at Guantánamo, and are contrary to bedrock principles of the right to counsel and the presumption of innocence.

The threats by Mr. Stimson are not subtle. They imply these pro bono lawyers are terrorists. They exhort corporations to pull business from the firms where these lawyers are employed. These remarks are slanderous, and violate the free association rights of these lawyers and their firms.

We are confident that the corporate world will understand that Mr. Stimson's remarks are contrary to fundamental American values and that lawyers who provide representation to Guantánamo detainees, are acting in the best tradition of their profession. The legal profession and the corporate community should speak with one voice and tell Mr. Stimson he has no right to interfere with the relationships these law firms have with their clients.

The Administration should heed the words of Federal Judge Green, who has handled the many habeas petitions, when she said: “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.”

The administration must not only disavow these remarks, but Mr. Stimson should be publicly admonished and relieved of his duties for making these allegations and threats.

American Association of Jurists
International Association of Democratic Lawyers
National Lawyers Guild
Society of American Law Teachers

cc: Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

In any normal administration he would resign. But this is not a normal administration: it's deeply corrupt in both the ethical and the financial sense.

Posted in Law: Ethics | 3 Comments

Guess Where

Posted on January 16, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

Guess what country this newspaper is talking about here:

  • The President “has suffered a potentially fatal blow to his authority”
  • In “an unprecedented rebuke,” 150 members of the legislature signed a letter bitterly attacking his policies. The signatories included many of “the president’s former fundamentalist allies, now apparently seeking to distance themselves as his prestige wanes.”
  • The mounting criticism is fueling speculation that the President is politically doomed. Observers have even suggested he might be impeached and removed from office.

France? The US? Israel? Newly democratic Iraq? Somewhere else?

Answer below.

Continue reading →

Posted in Politics: International | 4 Comments

In Our Names

Posted on January 15, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

Joseph Margulies has a hard-hitting article, U.S. can’t tell a combatant from a cook in the Chicago Tribune.

We’ve known that there were a lot of innocent people at Guantanamo, but this many?

The Pentagon’s data show that only 8 percent of the prisoners at the base are even alleged to have been Al Qaeda fighters–assuming the allegations against them are true.

Even slave laborers are classified as “enemy combatants”:

Officers told [Abdul] Aliza that having been kidnapped by the Taliban and forced to serve as a cook or a waiter was irrelevant to whether Aliza was an enemy combatant. Aliza found this impossible to comprehend.

“You mentioned that being forced and not being forced are the same,” Aliza told his interrogator. “How can a person that is forced or not forced to do something be equal? . . . [I]f I was taken by force by the Taliban, how can I be a member? If I’m not willing to do something, but forced by a soldier to do it, how can the two have the same meaning. . . . If you don’t agree with them they will beat and torture you and then throw you in prison.”

No one answered Aliza’s questions, and authorities decided he was an enemy combatant. As of late 2006, Aliza was still at the base. He may be there still; the Pentagon refuses to say.

So, correct me if I’m wrong, but under this logic, Jewish inmates in Nazi concentration camps could today be considered “enemy combatants”?

Kafka. It’s pure Kafka:

In summer 2005, the Bush administration announced that 70 percent of the base’s prisoners had been slated for release because they were not a threat. It never happened.

Though some were released, most of the prisoners continue to languish at Guantanamo and, the administration says, may be held there for the rest of their lives, with no evidence presented against them and no opportunity to plead their case in court.

Much of the problem has to do with the words and definitions the administration uses.

Being an enemy combatant does not mean a prisoner did anything wrong, the administration said in documents written by the Department of Defense in 2004.

My tax dollar at work. And yours, if you’re a US taxpayer too.

Surely there must be something we can do about this besides carp and bear witness?

Posted in Guantanamo | 3 Comments

UK-France Merger Discussed in 1956

Posted on January 15, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

Stranger than fiction.

Guardian, France and UK considered 1950s ‘merger’,

Britain and France talked about a “union” in the 1950s, even discussing the possibility of the Queen becoming the French head of state, it was reported today.

On September 10 1956, Guy Mollet, the then French prime minister, came to London to discuss the possibility of a merger between the two countries with his British counterpart, Sir Anthony Eden, according to declassified papers from the National Archives, uncovered by the BBC.

Not, it seems, a joke, as it’s also at the Times, Were we nearly les franglais?

Traumatised by Suez and the fighting in Algeria, a desperate French Prime Minister floated the idea of merging with Britain in 1956 and installing the Queen as head of state of the two countries, the BBC will report tonight.

Records of conversations between Anthony Eden, the British Prime Minister, and his Cabinet Secretary, Sir Norman Brook, show that the idea was swiftly dismissed but that serious thought was given to a secondary proposal to make France a member of the Commonwealth.

Posted in UK | 2 Comments

It’s All About Metrics

Posted on January 15, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

archy asks,

Remember the days when we used to kill the number three guy in al Qayda very few weeks? It seems like months since we last killed him. Does this mean we’re losing our edge?

Posted in Iraq | 1 Comment

Statement by Law Deans on Stimson Remarks

Posted on January 15, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

The following statement, dated January 14, 2007, has been signed by more than 57 U.S. law deans, with more joining by the hour:

We, the law deans undersigned below are appalled by the January 11, 2007 statement of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Charles “Cully” Stimson, criticizing law firms for their pro bono representation of suspected terrorist detainees and encouraging corporate executives to force these law firms to choose between their pro bono and paying clients.

As law deans and professors, we find Secretary Stimson’s statement to be contrary to basic tenets of American law. We teach our students that lawyers have a professional obligation to ensure that even the most despised and unpopular individuals and groups receive zealous and effective legal representation. Our American legal tradition has honored lawyers who, despite their personal beliefs, have zealously represented mass murderers, suspected terrorists, and Nazi marchers. At this moment in time, when our courts have endorsed the right of the Guantanamo detainees to be heard in courts of law, it is critical that qualified lawyers provide effective representation to these individuals. By doing so, these lawyers protect not only the rights of the detainees, but also our shared constitutional principles. In a free and democratic society, government officials should not encourage intimidation of or retaliation against lawyers who are fulfilling their pro bono obligations.

We urge the Administration promptly and unequivocally to repudiate Secretary Stimson’s remarks.

Sincerely,

[first 57 signatories below]

Continue reading →

Posted in Law School | 5 Comments