Sunday, January 14, 2007

I Have Here in My Hand a List...

Pentagon officials and others in the Bush Administration can try to distance themselves all they want from the shameful and, yes, un-American comments made the other day by Charles Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, who suggested that businesses not employ law firms representing those held at the Guantanamo prison.

But they reap what they sow, and so however depressing and despicable Stimson's statements are, they are hardly surprising from someone working for a President who has long signaled that constitutional and other legal protections are inconveniences to be ignored or, at the least, explained away in the name of "national security." That's why it is not enough that alleged terrorists from other countries are held at Guantanamo without charges or any meaningful opportunity to prove that our government may be wrong. Or that Jose Padilla (are there others?) is kept in psychosis-inducing isolation for years while government lawyers advance the stunning claim that a president can simply decree that an American citizen may not receive the due process guaranteed by our Constitution. No, having lost on its recent claims for absolute power, this Administration has to try to scare off the lawyers with the ability, commitment, and means to help those whom Stimson and his ilk would prefer that we forget.

Fortunately, it won't work. As Talk Left reminds us by re-printing these thoughts by and about John Adams, these are not new attacks. And so Mr. Stimson can take comfort in knowing that, no matter what he gets charged with, there will be a lawyer willing to take his case.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

How shameful, indeed -- and from a lawyer. The guy should examined by the state bar to which he is admitted since he, clearly, is not of good moral character, which is required in all states for continued membership in the bar. He swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Plainly, he had no idea what that oath meant.
-- A friend in Philly

4:11 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home