What makes Gitmo so sexy?
Here’s something I’ve had on the back burner for a while now, about the Gitmo Lawyers and their not-so-pro-bono crusade.
The initial groundswell of elite outrage directed at the efforts to detain and interrogate terrorist prisoners at Guantanamo Bay was not some spontaneous eruption of liberal spleen. Since then, things have taken their own course, but the initial attempt to legitimate the Gitmo detainees and undermine our efforts to interrogate and prosecute them was a deliberate, carefully orchestrated campaign. It was handled by a Crisis PR firm. It was funded by the Kuwaiti government.*
But, I’ve always wondered…why Gitmo? There are enemy combatants being detained around the world. Bagram, Iraq, who knows where else…why do we keep hearing about Gitmo?
Last year, in an interview by a liberal website called The Talking Dog with one of the head Gitmo lawyers, the reason was revealed–emphasis mine:
The Talking Dog: Can you describe the origins of the legal strategy (and am I correct that this IS the legal strategy!) that seems to focus almost exclusively on the Guantanamo detainees, whom I understand are the minority of those held by our government (a tiny minority, counting Iraq), as opposed to elsewhere in “the pipeline”, including of course, Bagram, Kandahar, Diego Garcia and the ghost and black prisons, as well as those “renditioned” elsewhere?
Tina Foster: I do think it was an intentional strategy. GTMO is the easiest detention facility to understand: it is so far from the theater of battle, and so close to the United States. Furthermore, it is sexy, as it was the venue for a Jack Nicholson/Tom Cruise movie! It is certainly more accessible and comprehensible than Bagram, or Abu Ghraib (at least, before the photos came out).
Legally, it is also the easiest challenge, because it was the easiest to demonstrate that the United States is in full and absolute control of the place. [...]GTMO has become the symbol of U.S. detention policy, and that has not changed. …
There is a fear– a wide fear among many in the human rights community– that if the issue expands too far beyond GTMO, the public will not be able to comprehend the full breadth of the problem, and it will be overwhelming and undermine the support that has been won so far.
You may think the government is playing you on this issue. Think that if you like. But don’t tell me the Lefty legal establishment isn’t playing you, too.
___________________________
This is probably the last thing I’ll get a chance to write about the Gitmo lawyers. Please, bloggers, readers, media people: continue to question the PR-firm-massaged narrative they are trying to sell you.
The presence of these PR firms doesn’t, in itself, make the Gitmo Lawyers right or wrong. I’m just sick of their attempts to cover themselves in heroism, and of the uncritical acceptance of everything they say and everything they claim to be. “Pro-bono” does not mean “altruistic”. Money has changed hands for some of this. I imagine professorial appointments and recommendations for judicial clerkships have as well. Though it may spring from sincere motives, it is a sure-fire career move to “stand up boldly” for detainee rights, and it’s damn near consequence-free. (The other side, not so much.)
They should not be above criticism.
And as for the big white-shoe law firms that are so God&$#* proud of defending terrorists that they splash it all over their firm’s pro-bono page: how many of them also sent free high-powered lawyers to help U.S. servicemen in trouble?
Because, if I were looking for a law firm, I might want to know that.
_____________
{Post by See-Dubya. If you’re interested in this story, keep reading these guys.}
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Eric Holder: Seriously, We’re Going to Close Gitmo Pretty Soon
September 20, 2011 04:07 PM by Doug Powers
40 CommentsCharges to be re-filed against KSM and Company
May 30, 2011 11:10 PM by Michelle Malkin
53 CommentsWaPo: Family Visitations For Gitmo Detainees Under Consideration
May 12, 2011 04:08 PM by Doug Powers
105 CommentsWaterboarding Point/Counterpoint: National Security Advisor vs. CIA Director vs. Attorney General
May 3, 2011 08:27 PM by Doug Powers
48 CommentsThe suicide stunts at Gitmo revisited
April 25, 2011 10:12 AM by Michelle Malkin
117 CommentsObama administration retreats (again) on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed civilian trial; Holder blames Congress
April 4, 2011 11:50 AM by Michelle Malkin
129 CommentsOmar Khadr: Guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty
October 25, 2010 10:16 AM by Michelle Malkin
17 CommentsGitmo Horrors Continue: Detainees Limited to One Ice Cream
September 26, 2010 10:21 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Holder on hot seat at Senate Judiciary Committee
April 14, 2010 10:42 AM by Michelle Malkin
27 Comments
Categories: Gitmo
Babalu Blog
» Greece is BurningPatterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hitDaily Caller
» Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizationsNice Deb
» Former DEA Chief Tells Fox News: 3 Other Federal Agencies Knew About Operation ‘Fast and Furious’Gateway Pundit
» Notre Dame Tells Obama: HHS Mandate Is a ‘Grave Violation of Religious Freedom and Cannot Stand’AmSpecBlog
» Weekend Political Wrap-UpJustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidThe Hill
» Rep. Ron Paul not conceding Maine vote
First, Nicholson’s character was right.
Next, there never should have been that many prisoners at Gitmo. 99% of the people there should have been shot on the battlefield. The other 1% should have been put there very quietly. Without public knowledge.
I would bet my next paycheck that every single serviceman that is brought up on a charge has been given a court appointed lawyer if they cannot afford one. You know…a right to counsel and all?
The Gitmo detainees? Not so much.
I think that’s the main difference.
I’ve been thinking that some of us could pursue LAW as our second degree…Some CA universities offer second degree courses for great prices…then we could help advocacy firms……
Thomas More Law sounds like a good place to start…..
Have any of you ever considered being an attorney for the right causes?
A military lawyer. Not a 500 dollar an hour scum-sucking bottom feeder. A high-dollar lawyer wouldn’t dirty himself with somebody in unifom. Unless that person in uniform had a rich relative.
Terrorists on the other hand, they are all to happy to represent.
My wife represents persons with disabilities who are being discriminated against because of those disabilities.
I represent rich people (mainly Republican) who want to keep more of their money.
I think we balance each other out.
At what billable rate does one become scum sucking? I am at $210 right now and concerned.
You don’t see the irony do you?
But nice to know you are denigrating the skill and dedication of our military attorneys.
Oh I do.
chaupoutier–great causes…
Question…How much paper work is involved when doing legal work?…Be honest ….I’m thinking of taking my own advise…..
Oh no, being scum-sucking isn’t a matter of how much you charge. Perhaps I should have worded that better. Scum-sucking is when a lawyer does anything, and everything, to win. Particularly the criminal defense/trial lawyer (John Edwards) type.
It’s not a matter of pay. It’s a matter of morals. It’s a matter of honor.
So you have evidence that the Gitmo lawyers are doing “anything, and everything” to win?
Turture at Guantanamo, Bagram, Abu Graib and other places is a disgrace to America. Even McCain said so, until he started shifting right.
LOL….
That’s funny. When was it I did that?
Having actually had the honor to wear the unifom of the United States Marine, I am one of the last people you will ever find denigrating people who wear the uniform. Individuals? Yes. As a whole? Keep dreaming.
So then you were or were not saying they were as good as the $500/hour scum suckers at the white shoe firms?
Chap..
How much are running shoes and is chasing ambulances dangerous?
or do you hang out at a ER entrance passing out business cards..
LGM ..
is it really torture when water-boarding it part of a training exercise for our troops.. pilots and flight crews in the military?
Didn’t say either way. It was a statement on the scum-suckers, not the lawyers in uniform. My mistake it seems, is having assumed that would have been clear to any reasonable person who happened to read it.
So move every last one of the POWs out to an undisclosed location – for security reasons, of course. That will leave the lawyers standing around with their c*cks in their hands looking rather stupid, and it’s about time.
I do know that when I worked at a white shoe firm (yes I did) we would have weekly meetings about how our pro bono could screw over Republicans. This consisted of getitng tax exempt status for a commie lib organization that wanted to bring political reform to Zimbabwe, as well as a Marxist organization that taught senior citizens how to properly exercise in order to minimize the risk of falling and breaking a hip.
The clear implication, whether you want to back away from it now or not, was that the Gitmo guys were getting better attorneys.
That “A military lawyer….Not a…” comment you made was derogatory.
lgm, why do you and your ilk always seem to whine about US ‘torture’, yet you never mention about ‘insurgents’ drilling holes in people’s heads, dragging them behind vehicles, decapitation, and a multitude of other tortures that would shock even Vlad the Impaler?
That’s what should have done from the beginning.
Contrary to popular belief, the people do not have a right to know everything.
I thought “your ilk” balked at moral equivocation.
If that’s the best you can do to show that I made derogatory comments about people in unifom… Well, I can see why you used to work at a white shoe firm.
A simple statement of fact is not, in and of itself, a derogatory comment.
So answer my question…are “military lawyers” capable of providing as good a representation?
Maybe these white shoe wearing, terrorist sympathizing, slimey lawyers could head out to La LA Land and help out a Marine in trouble.
Former Marine Sergeant and LEO Jose Luis Nazario is being tried for “war crimes” in a civilian court for doing what he was trained to do in combat, kill bad guys.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever seen and I’ve seen some dumb stuff in my time.
Again, those guys will be guaranteed representation by an attorney. The Gitmo detainees, without pro bono attorneys, are not.
On August 17th, 2008 at 10:29 pm, chapoutier said:
“At what billable rate does one become scum sucking? “.
Good question chap… I don’t know the answer, but if you contact Spitzer’s people they can probably get you a menu…
The question’s not relevant. This isn’t about the honor, or skill, of the military lawyers. It is about the lack of honor of certain civilian lawyers.
^5 BrooklynRed.. lol
Awww man… I just ate. Thanks a lot.
Yeah…the desire to not work 12-14 hour days six days a week was a real character flaw on my part, I admit.
No. Your implication was that the servicemen were not getting equal or adequate representation because they were not being represented by $500/hr scum suckers. Either you believe 1)they are getting adequate representation and then I would wonder why you made such an issue of the Gitmo guys getting the same or you think they are not in which case you think that for whatever reason military lawyers are inadequate. Do not run from the question. Which is it?
Heck if the left are so culturally sensitive, how about we exercise their native justice systems on the detainees. For many of them, that would mean an express trip into a wood chipper.
Try being a truck driver sometime. Try training people to drive trucks. 12 to 14 hour days, 6 days a week, would be a nice change of pace. Yea, I could do with that little slowdown.
Those civilian lawyers know that servicemen are represented BY LAW, while Gitmo detainees are not. They choose to represent those not otherwise represented. This is dishonorable to you?
Then get another line of work. And answer my question.
Umm, last time I checked the Constitution, it didn’t say anything about non-citizens captured in a combat zone in a foreign country with weapons, being guarunteed adequate representation.
I can see a take no prisoners mind-set being formed.
Of course, all they have to do is promise to go away and not kill anymore civilians with car bombs and suicide vests, and we’ll stop looking for them.
Oh, and they have to turn over Usama for a fair trial and speedy execution.
When did foreign fighters become citizens of the United States?
I have had many dealings with many different lawyers in the courtroom. It isn’t about the money. When an attorney knows a guy is guilty and he still does everything he can to get him off, including lying, cheating, withholding evidence, or trying to makes the police look bad, then he is a scumbag. It doesn’t matter if he get $500 an hour or only $200.
I didn’t say they were guaranteed anything, did I? I said that attorneys chose to represent those exposed to our legal system and otherwise without representation because they felt it was just.
If he does A. everything he can to get his client off, he is upholding his legal responsibility to represent his client to the best of his ability. If he B. cheats, lies or withholds evidence, he deserves to be disbarred. But A is not the same as B.
“but the initial attempt to legitimate the Gitmo detainees and undermine our efforts to interrogate and prosecute them was a deliberate, carefully orchestrated campaign. It was handled by a Crisis PR firm. It was funded by the Kuwaiti government.”*
Ooooooh, forget scum sucking, let’s go with treasonous.
Again, a simple truth is not a derogatory statement. And again, if you can’t figure out that it was a damning remark about the civilian lawyers, not the military lawyers, then you are intentionally ignoring it. Or I suppose you could just be willfully ignorant.
You can either accept what I said. Or keep trying to read more into it than is there for the sake of soothing your lawyer ego and trying for another “win”.
Either way, I’m not going to play the game you are trying so hard to play. It serves no purpose other than you being able to make excuses for why your fellows are so eager to defend people who would happily cut your heart out.
chap, you too have the right to remain silent… not that anything you have said is untrue, it’s more of a PR thing.
You are avoiding the question.
I said “they are represented by lawyers”.
You said, “Yeah but military lawyers. Not white shoe ones.”
Tell me how this is not saying that military lawyers are incapable of providing as good a representation as white shoe.
Not going for the wood chipper thing?
Nah, see, I actually like what I do. I can go to bed with a clear conscience. I can look myself in the eye when I am in front of the mirror.
How many lawyers can say the same?
So, work with me a minute here and let me see if I understand. There is a group of people that wants to cut your throat. The same group of people wants to enslave your wife. The same group of people want to destroy this nation.
And there are lawyers that will bend over backwards… Wait, scratch that. There are lawyers who will bend over forwards and grab their ankles to defend these animals becuase they “felt it was just”?
Congratulations sir, you damn your fellows more thoroughly than I ever could.
On August 17th, 2008 at 11:24 pm, nyc123me said:
Not going for the wood chipper thing?
… wait for his summation.
Under the customary law of war, all that unlawful combatants are entitled to is 68 grams of high velocity copper jacketed lead, and 108 cubic feet of sand. Although the latter is not guaranteed to be uniquely theirs. Six feet of one inch diameter hemp rope may substitute for the lead. See John André, Major, British Army.
Hmm…
Funny, I don’t see a “but” in there.
chap, look at it this way… suppose that we are the jury. Hell, I would hang a man for hiring you…
Fixed that for ya.
I would too. I would be totally lost in a court room. But I think I am holding my own here.
And twofoot continues to avoid my very simple question.
I don’t think the problem is restricted to the civilian law firms that have signed on to defend the enemies of freedom. Looking at the sentence recently handed down for Bin Laden’s “driver” and the reaction of the military types involved it appears to have spilled over the the military lawyers as well. I don’t know the makeup of the court that tried him, but I’m willing to put some money that the entire court, president of the court, and jury were JAG officers, not line officers.
This is the worst war the US has ever fought — it is overlawyered. Every little move seems to be governed by some “rule of engagement” approved by some d*mn JAG. And every incident seems subject to second guessing by some d*mn JAG. If I had my way, any time a JAG, or civilian DOD or CIA lawyer, makes a decision that results in the death of an American soldier the lawyer would be required to take the soldier’s place on the line.
Lawyers, civilain and military, will be the death of this country.
Aww… how cute. Hey thanks though. After that, you just showed me you have no credibility at all when it comes to discussing terrorists.
Okay then. Just say it. I will spell it below so all you have to do is copy and paste:
Military lawyers are just as capable of representing a client as a “white shoe” attorney.
Just copy and paste. It’s so simple.
These big Wall Street law firms are fighting for GITMO prisoners to represent as fiercely as they usually fight over large corporate clients. The reason for the GITMO obsession is more psychological than political. Most of the lawyers who work for large Wall Street firms have never done an exciting thing in their lives. Their day to day legal work, while lucrative, is not exciting or dramatic. Putting out the legal end of public offerings or bond packages or mortgage backed securities is just achingly boring. There is no way any of these lawyers can go to the club on the weekend and tell exciting stories about what they did.You can’t exactly brag about attending a deposition in a dispute about a trademark infringement. And most of the people they deal with are the same boring Ivy League types. But the chance to jet down to GITMO, to go face to face with the military guards and the military brass, to enter the GITMO detention area, to play Gregory Peck to some bearded terrorist, now this is the stuff of dreams. Can you imagine these prep school lawyers going to the country club on Sunday for brunch and getting to brag about going mano a mano with an MP and a seargeant? Now you can understand the almost libidinous obsession that these dull lawyers have with GITMO. For one small part of their lives, they felt truly alive.
But only because it is a nonsense question designed to get a desired outcome.
chap, re: “But I think I am holding my own here”.
More like pulling your own… face it you are in a non-sympathetic environment. You can continue to feed the layman’s contempt for lawyers if you wish, but to what end?
Avoooooooiiiiiiidannnnnnceeeeee!
I’ve given you the sentence. Just copy and paste.
And Marc, you are clearly not an attorney. Your speculations as to their psychology are laugable.
When the people they represent have no respect for the rights and laws of this country, hell yes thats dishonorable.
The unwritten agreement about rights is that in order to benefit from those rights, you must be willing to grant the same rights to others.
I have yet to see that demonstrated by scum sucking terorists. Unless and until then, they are not entitled to a damn thing except Rule .303.
Lawyers who scream fairness for the detainees would be killed by their clients just as quickly in any other siutation.
We’re not talking about criminals, we’re talking about sadistic twisted monsters who have no respect for human life.
and yes, serial killers, mass murderers, and pedophiles fall into that same category, the only difference being, those criminals are citizens and unfortunately, are protected by the Constitution.
Wow Marc… Kick’em in the boys next time. It’d be less painful than what you just said.
I think you may be onto something there. In fact, it makes perfect, but sad, sense.
I am well aware, but that really is irrelevant as to the truth or falsity as to what anyone here, including me, says.
I am not trying to feed anything. I am laying out a rationale for these attorney’s decision to represent these individuals. You then process that through your own biases and beliefs as it pertains to both Gitmo detainees and lawyers and come up with your own interpretation.
Okay, we’ve reached the state of repeating letters to make a word look really long. What’s next?
Speaking of avoidance, I again congratulate you on damning your fellows far better than I ever could.
concretebob,
Does the differentiation between “accused” and “guilty” mean nothing to you?
Please answer my question, twofoot. You have tried to avoid it long enough.
And this sentence simply makes no logical sense in the context of anything I or you have said. “Speaking of avoidance?” What have I avoided?
chap, re: “I am laying out a rationale for these attorney’s decision to represent these individuals.”
Rationale? more like pathology… OK, I tried.
OK fellas, have at him.
In a civilian court of law yes.
These are terrorists. They continuously demonstrate their willingness to kill innocents in the name of a twisted ideology/religion. They brag about it.
They establish their own guilt. Do you doubt for a monment that they would kill anyone they could? Do you think if they are set free and returned to their country of origin they will not attempt to kill again? If so, you are more naieve than you appear.
Why? It’s the, “Do you still beat your wife” question worded differently. Why would I play such a silly game?
It doesn’t matter what I say. In your mind, I will either have proven you right, or given you the ammunition to prove yourself right.
I won’t speak for others, but to my way of thinking, you prove me right in my statement about a certain class of lawyer that will do anything it takes to win. Including twisting the intent of someones words to the point that they bear no resemblance to what was originally said.
concretebob,
You are exposing your own naivety as to how many of those in Gitmo ended up there. I know its all safe and warm to believe that these people were picked off an active battlefield with an AK-47 in one hand and “Al Quada’s Guide to Killing Americans” in the other, but that is not the truth.
Those that are there, and guilty, let them rot in prison and then in hell. But, small point I guess, I’d just like to be sure as to their actual guilt.
For the record, MrsTFO just chimed in with, “get the wood chipper”. And she also says no, I haven’t beaten her lately.
Love you dear…
Your point was entirely clear. Accused military personnel get inferior representation because they are represented by military attorneys. You just refuse to confirm this or to clarify your statements.
As opposed to the myth that most of those who are there were just innocently minding their own business, delivering pizzas no less, when kidnapped by the evil coalition forces?
LOL
Cute, but no it isn’t. In that scenario, the ultimate issue is still the same no matter how you answer. That is not the same as saying that you have to choose between one of two undesirable, but entirely distinct, options based on your decision.
You backed yourself into the corner. Not my fault.
Most? Not all? What about that small innocent minority?
Good lady, that MrsTFO.
Since I never made a statement about the quality of military lawyers, there is no corner.
You on the other hand, seem obsessed. I have to thank you for providing me with a better night of entertainment than could have been found otherwise in this tiny little mom and pop truck stop in western Colorado.
Then please do so now. Are they better, worse, or about equal in general as your average “white shoe” lawyer?
The line from the movie, and the caption to the picture on the main page, is:
Variation on a theme:
Lets look back at your original comment:
Please explain exactly what you meant by this.
Nope. It’s not relevant to the fact that the civilian lawyers who race to Gitmo to defend terrorists are scum.
So the Left is picking on Gitmo because its more *sexy*? Outstanding. (heh?) That cluck is off her onion admitting that one, I tell ya. lol
As far as posting “pro-bono” cases all over their websites….A little discretion in their valor is apparently a little too much to expect.
Yet, I find the money trail a little more disturbing then the “quality” representation of the detainees at Gitmo.
You are the one that first made the distinction, not me. And now you are running from it like a coward .
CW – the Kuwaiti gov connection which you link to is very important – more people should be aware of it.
Your lousy title for your post only serves to distract from it.
The handful of commenters who are … well.. girls will be girls …
don’t even mention it once.
Good night girls.
I could be mistaken, but it seems pretty evident to me. A uniformed servicemember is usually represented by a military lawyer.
Simple statement of fact.
A high-dollar lawyer wouldn’t dirty himself with somebody in unifom. Unless that person in uniform had a rich relative.
Another simple statement of fact.
Saying the first niether impugns nor affirms the quality of military lawyers. Nor will it, since these aren’t the lawyers the post was started about.
Saying the second is a statement on the honor, or lack thereof, of the civilan lawyers who are all to eager to defend enemies of this nation. You know, the lawyers this post originally addressed?
Heck, Im ok with the detainees getting Tina as their counsel. ROFL
Coward? After the ‘repeating letters to make a word look really long’ stage, I was wondering how long it would take to get to the outright insult stage.
But really, coward? You can do better than that can’t you?
Hey, whats up with that?!
According to MrsTFO, you are doing a fair to middling job at the lawyer trick of getting them to focus on something else though.
I am not familiar with Military Laws, but can someone tell me if outside civilian counsel is permitted to represent a defendant in a Military court room?
wood chippers. so easy, so simple.
Yes.
Works for me. And for MrsTFO
You were not making simple statements of fact. You were making judgment calls as to the quality of representation given both groups. For you to say otherwise is a lie, obvious to anyone with any intellectual integrity. A conclusion supported by the fact that you still will not answer my simple question.
Mrs tfo. is welcome to seek other counsel if she feels I do not serve her needs.
Perhaps you’re right. Partially. The first was a simple statement of fact. Military defendants are served, most times, by military lawyers.
The second? That a scum-sucking lawyer wouldn’t represent a man, or woman, in uniform? You may be right. There may be a lawyer out there somewhere who would defend, for “free” a man or woman in uniform as gleefully as they represent people who want to cut your throat.
But for the life of me I’m stumped as to where you’d find him.
Yea, according to her, I meet her needs just fine. hehe.. Lord I love that woman.
Besides, she’s not the type to consort with people who are obsessed over petty points.
I hate to break it to you TF, but I have a close family relative that is a defense attorney, a very good one and a Democrat. And he was also a Marine.
He also does JAG for next to nothing from what he would be paid in private practice.
He does not boast about it or use it to drum up business (granite, he doesnt have to).
I am no fan of the Left. But this might be your exception.