Were Gitmo lawyers leaking info to detainees?
posted at 3:03 pm on July 21, 2007 by see-dubya
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
There’s a new ruling on the Guantanamo detainees and their relationship with their lawyers out of the DC Circuit. Andy McCarthy notes that the NYT has, as usual, spun it as a dramatic rout of the Bush administration when in fact it looks to him (and to me) that both sides won a few arguments.
Skipping the Times’ spin on it, I went straight to the text of the ruling (pdf here). I’ll leave the legal analysis to the specialists in this area like McCarthy, but I found a pretty big news nugget stuffed down on page 18. The Government was seeking to control what information lawyers could communicate to their clients–they wanted to make sure that it was limited to legal filings and documents and not chit-chat and world news. Well, actually, they already prohibited that; now they want to be able to examine the text of documents sent from lawyers to detainees in order to enforce it. Here’s why, emphasis mine:
The Government responds that while the Status Quo Order was in
effect, some counsel — though the Government does not suggest counsel for the present petitioners — did use legal mail to inform their clients about prohibited subjects, including military operations in Iraq, terrorist attacks, Hezbollah’s attack upon Israel, and the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. The Government asserts such information can “incite detainees to violence” or cause “unrest,” such as a riot, hunger strike, or suicide — as, indeed, it has done in the past.
Sounds like a news hook to me–especially since it tends to spread some blame for the detainee media-stunt suicides onto big-mouth defense lawyers. What’s more, the Court agreed with the government on this one:
Regrettably, however, we cannot disagree with the Government that past breaches of the Status Quo Order by some counsel for detainees justify the Government’s proposal to narrow the topics about which all counsel may correspond with a detainee and to hold all counsel accountable by screening the legal mail they send to their detainee clients.
Can’t say I’m surprised at all. I’ve been following this OJ-trial legal circus for a while now. Given that one of the Gitmo lawyers is Tookifying these jailbirds by publishing the poems they scribbled on styrofoam cups, and given that another supposedly “pro bono” firm actually undertook a PR operation on the detainees’ behalf on the Kuwaiti government’s dime, it’s not a big stretch to see them sneaking in a little outside information.
And yet, despite all this work on their behalf –and this fact was alluded to in this latest ruling–the detainees just aren’t warming up to their lawyers.
PS: Note to media types reading this: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs Charles D. Stimson spoke out about the Gitmo lawyers back in January and lost his job as a result. San Francisco lawyers, free speech champions all, have even tried to yank his California bar license for daring to suggest that all was not hunky-dory with attorney-detainee relations. But more and more information is coming out to vindicate him. Don’t you think he ought to get a little air time to explain himself? I’d love to hear what he has to say now, even if it’s just “told ya so”.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
One day the NYT will post this headline “We want our country back”. By then it will be too late. They are clueless today, blinded by socialist idealism, on how they’ll be affected.
Thanks See-Dubya for creating awareness on who the ones are who look out for their country.
Entelechy on July 21, 2007 at 3:16 PM
These a-holes wanted anyone associated with the Boy Scouts of America kicked out, too. It pisses me off that the state bar would even entertain such a bogus complaint.
Blake on July 21, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Is the Pope Catholic?
Is Teddy Kennedy an alcoholic?
Is John Kerry a traitor to his country?
Is Keith Olbermann a closet fascist?
Is Al Gore out of his ever-lovin’mind?
Is John Edwards a callow pretty boy?
Is Barack Obama an obvious phoney?
Is Michael Moore a big poo-poo head?
Is Rosie O’Donnell a loudmouthed illiterate?
Is– ?
ahem on July 21, 2007 at 3:53 PM
It boggles the mind that these lawyers are breaking the law to sneak unauthorized information to people who, if given the opportunity, would kill them in an instant.
BadgerHawk on July 21, 2007 at 3:57 PM
The war isnt just being fought in the middle east. It is being fought in our own back yard.
Quislings are far too eager to take up the enemies call
William Amos on July 21, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Never forget Lynee Stewart, the terrorist’s all-time fav lawyer whose signed documents agreeing she would not pass notes between the blind sheik and his supporters, which of course she did, and as a result at least one Egyptian spy on OUR side was killed. But then that’s ok w/the terror-lovin’ attorneys…and their stupidity (the lawyers) is absolutely beyond belief…I am currently in law school and the crap these kids believe would blow your mind…they are the result of the liberal-socialist education…I tell you, we need more conservative lawyers or this country is DOOMED. Anyone who lives in a city that has a law school you can go to in the evenings and get your degree – do it before it’s too late. Your grandchildren will thank you.
JustTruth101 on July 21, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Speaking of Lynne Stewart, has she ever surrendered to do her time? I can’t find any mention of it.
Blake on July 21, 2007 at 4:46 PM
The sedititous behavior of the blind Sheik’s lawyer (from the other WTC bombing trial) lends credence to the possibility.
Suicidally-simplistic self-loathing lawyers.
In love with their own machinations.
Quislings and cretins.
Remember their folly.
profitsbeard on July 21, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Yes, I’d love to him speak as well. How about an interview on Hot Air?
PS- I wonder if this Stimson is related to the former Secretary of State from the early 30’s?
Zorro on July 21, 2007 at 6:57 PM
The New York Timers is undermining America?! Stop the presses! This is headline news!
Seriously though, I appreciate this site because the newspapers I read refuse to print this stuff.
aengus on July 21, 2007 at 7:05 PM
Hmmmm, is that opportunity I hear knocking?
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers” –
Dick The Butcher in Shakespeare’s Henry VI, act 4 – scene 2
Herikutsu on July 21, 2007 at 8:23 PM
Here’s your answer, Blake:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=29126
andycanuck on July 21, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Let’s see: Stimson spoke the truth and lost his job…. No wonder the Bush Administration was (properly) accused this past week by Newt Gingrich of waging a “phony war.”
No: Bush is not quite quitting (at least not YET, anyway) in Iraq, but — as Michael Savage pointedly observes — NEITHER is he willing to do what it takes to WIN IN IRAQ, either!
Our troops deserve better, gutsier, and better vision at every level of leadership — from the White House, to the Cabinet, to the Congress, to the Pentagon.
Time to to dig deep and ask ourselves if we are willing to fight to WIN, even if it means some civilians die in the process or some prisoners get panties placed on their heads.
So what does the President do… but issue an Executive Order directing the CIA to “play nice” during interrogations.
Dumb. Just. Plain. Dumb.
sanantonian on July 22, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Well said. One of the curious mysteries of life.
sanantonian on July 22, 2007 at 1:36 AM
Thanks, Andy. That is amazing. The judge delayed sentencing how many years? He then reduced the sentence and allowed her to remain out on bail. There is no doubt that she is guilty of what she was accused of. Initially, I thought it had to be a mistake in that no atty in their right mind would violate security rules. One can be the biggest true believer but you are just plain nuts if you don’t think your clients aren’t dangerous. After reading the transcripts and seeing the tapes, it’s clear she is guilty as hell. Sickening.
Blake on July 22, 2007 at 7:56 AM
Just another example as to how pathetic some lawyers really are. These liberal lawyers and the NYSlimes have proven time and time again how far they will go to violate the security of our nation.
lynnv on July 22, 2007 at 8:49 AM
Everyone says that no one got hurt because of Stewart’s actions but I she passed on onformation that the Blind Sheik had repealed his cease fire in Egypt. Then I beleive the tourist busses got attacked at the pyramids.
davod on July 22, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Comment pages: