Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

A Hypothesis about Irbil

Posted on January 12, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

rc3 asks, Anyone have any light to shed on the US arrest of Iranian “diplomats” in the Kurdish area of Iraq on Wednesday?

I think I have a hypothesis, but it sort of fits the facts. From what I can gather, the so-called “consulate” at which these Iranian officials worked was not accredited to the national Iraqi government headquartered in Baghdad. Rather, they were there at the invitation of the Kurdish authorities. While the Kurdish authorities operate what is almost a defacto state, and indeed have invited diplomats from their nearby neighbors to come and set up ‘consulates’ neither the US nor Iraq-in-Baghdad nor most of the world recognizes the independence of Kurdistan and thus those governments also do not recognize the validity of any diplomatic credentials or immunities issued by what they see as a mere provincial government.

Thus, from the US point of view, the building in question had no special legal status, regardless of whether it was flying (as reported) an Iranian flag.

As to what motivated the US action, I still have no more idea than I did yesterday, when I worried that this might be a deliberate provocation of Iran in the wake of Bush’s bellicose speech. And I don’t see why the US forces would be willing to act in a way that would doubtlessly anger (and did anger) the local Kurdish authorities.

But I’m starting to think that I understand the US legal position — and that if the facts are as I hypothesize, even to agree with it as regards the non-diplomatic status of the building and its occupants. (None of this of course speaks to whether there was justification for the raid, its motives, or how the persons detained may be being treated.)

Posted in Iraq | 1 Comment

White House Tries Economic Pressure on Lawyers Representing Guantanamo Detainees

Posted on January 12, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

I’m sorry, but this is just disgusting. Now that there’s a real chance that the might lose in the courts, the White House is trying to put the economic screws on lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees.

This radio interview with Cully Stimson, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, heralds the start of an organized campaign by the White House to encourage major law firm clients to pressure those firms to drop their pro-bono representation of Guantanamo detainees.

The Washington Post had a forceful editorial about this today, which says almost everything that needs saying:

MOST AMERICANS understand that legal representation for the accused is one of the core principles of the American way. Not, it seems, Cully Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs. In a repellent interview yesterday with Federal News Radio, Mr. Stimson brought up, unprompted, the number of major U.S. law firms that have helped represent detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

“Actually you know 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 [Freedom of Information Act] 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 said.

Mr. Stimson proceeded to reel off the names of these firms, adding, “I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out.”

Asked who was paying the firms, Mr. Stimson hinted of dark doings. “It’s not clear, is it?” he said. “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 monies from who knows where, and I’d be curious to have them explain that.”

It might be only laughable that Mr. Stimson, during the interview, called Guantanamo “certainly, probably, the most transparent and open location in the world.”

But it’s offensive — shocking, to use his word — that Mr. Stimson, a lawyer, would argue that law firms are doing anything other than upholding the highest ethical traditions of the bar by taking on the most unpopular of defendants. It’s shocking that he would seemingly encourage the firms’ corporate clients to pressure them to drop this work. And it’s shocking — though perhaps not surprising — that this is the person the administration has chosen to oversee detainee policy at Guantanamo.

It’s true that the list of law firms donating time to representing the victims of torture, humiliation (and a total lack of due process) at Guantanamo reads a bit like a who’s who of the elite of the corporate bar. And they deserve credit for it.

I’d just add one thing: the first firm to cave on this issue is going to find it awfully hard to recruit elite law students, as they will have demonstrated a serious lack of moral fiber. If you won’t stand up for your most desperate clients, what kind of firm are you?

Posted in Guantanamo, Law: Ethics | 10 Comments

Pirate Bay Wants to Buy Sealand

Posted on January 12, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

Pirate Bay launches bid to buy country

NEFARIOUS file-sharing site The Pirate Bay says it is planning to buy its own country and turn it into a copyright-free piracy paradise.

The torrent outfit launched a “Buy Sealand” campaign this week, with the aim of acquiring the former World War 2 gun platform now known as the Principality of Sealand, located just six miles from the UK coast.

The cut-throat file sharers claim the platform is up for sale having been badly damaged by fire in the summer of 2006.

The Pirate Bay hopes to fund the £100 million sale through donations from users who will automatically become citizens of the principality.

£100 million ???

Posted in Internet, Law: Copyright and DMCA | 1 Comment

Roof!

Posted on January 12, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

Back in October 2005, we had ourselves a little hurricane called Wilma. It beat up my neighborhood quite a bit, although of course what we suffered was nothing like the damage to people in New Orleans and Texas under Katrina.

It turned out that we lost a large number of roof tiles in Wilma, a galling loss as the roof itself was only a few months old. It also turned out that we were not alone — the whole county seemed to have damaged roofs. And then it turned out that there was a shortage of roofers. And of roof tiles. And in due course I discovered that we had the rarest roof tiles in South Florida — indeed, it seemed in all of America. They’re barrel tiles called Altusa Fume, and they come from Venezuela, and it seems for a while there was some problem getting Venezuelan goods into the USA. So no roof tiles. Or no roof tiles unless you wanted to pay for a bale of them even though you only needed under a hundred.

Every so often I’d call the roofing company and get various sorts of promises, all of which involved calling me back at some point and all of which were religiously broken. At first I understood – they were fixing roofs with leaks, not just those with damaged tiles (which in addition to being ugly increase the chances of further damage and leaks in the next storm). We went through an entire hurricane season with the broken tiles — but fortunately no hurricanes. Meanwhile the contractors were all off doing new roofs which, I gather, pay better than repairs.

But now I’m here to tell you that the age of miracles is still upon us (or is it perhaps an age of new construction downturn?) : a roofing contract appeared in the mail last week. I sent it back, and yesterday we had a real live roofer putting real new tiles on my roof.

And now it’s all fixed.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on Roof!

Amygdala In Trouble

Posted on January 11, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

Gary Farber of Amygdala (and sometime contributor to the comments here) is having some serious troubles. He’s put out a plea for help (as in $$$) — or for work he can do remotely as an editor, proofreader, or researcher.

Just think — if we had a decent health care policy in this country, this wouldn’t be an issue.

Posted in Blogs | Comments Off on Amygdala In Trouble

We’re In Trouble

Posted on January 11, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

We’re in big trouble.

Have a look at The Washington Note, whose latest begins like this:

Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.

The President may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country.

If this is true, we’re in very big trouble. Or, if the rumor was sparked by an order ‘only’ authorizing clandestine operations (or, worse, bombardment) as a form of provocation, this is serious stuff. But even if it’s not at all true in any way, we’re in pretty big trouble, as the spread of this rumor means we’ve reached a point in our politics when sober, quite moderate, people like Steve Clemons are starting at shadows.

I can only remember one time that felt like this: when Nixon was in the last weeks of his Presidency, and people — including the then-Secretary of Defense– got worried that Nixon might try to start a war to distract the country from his troubles, or even stage some sort of coup. People in DC even began to speculate as to what military forces could be assembled as a counterweight in the event that Nixon, rumored to be drunk and unstable, chose to subvert the Constitution.

According to reports published after Nixon resigned, Defense Secretary James Schlesinger even went as far to tell some of the highest-ranking military officers to inform him if any ‘extraordinary orders’ went out from the White House and to refrain from carrying out any orders which came from the White House outside the normal military channels. (An action, incidentally, of dubious formal legality on the part of both James Schlesinger and his generals.)

Those were not good times.

Any time there is serious speculation by ordinarily sober people that the President has launched a secret war against one — or two! — countries, well, those are not good times either.

I think this is true whoever you think is at fault — the administration for being Hell-bent for lunacy, or the DC Democrats (or if you prefer the DC Establishment), for being a bunch of strategic cowards. Whenever the level of trust within the governing class has so broken down, we are in for hard times indeed.

And if, as Clemons’s article suggests, the White House is launching a new secret war (or two), then we’re far worse off than we were in 1974, for who in the modern White House would cast him or herself as our modern James Schlesinger?

Posted in Iran, Law: Constitutional Law | 71 Comments