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.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Gitmo
Right Pundits
» Joe Lieberman: Fort Hood Shooter Is ‘Home-Grown Terrorist’Legal Insurrection
» Bruni de la Motte for Health Care CzarRiehl World View
» Obama: No Military Death Shall Go UnexploitedLegal Insurrection
» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No ReidThe Other McCain
» Paralysis by analysisThe Powers That Be
» Obama: ‘Don’t Jump to Conclusions’ About Ft. Hood; Immediately Jumps to ConclusionsLegal Insurrection
» NY Times Names Names
And the heavens opened up and the angels started to sing! Feebiebabe I would buy that man a beer.
There, see, I was wrong. There is a trial lawyer out there who is also a decent human being. (The part about him being a Marine-no such thing as ‘was’-is what makes him such a good person
)
I think his politics sux, but I have to give credit where credit is indeed due.
Ah well, MrsTFO says it’s time to say goodnight Gracie. So, goodnight Gracie.
Hey thanks again for the laughs Chap. You were great. Really.
Many of the terrorist detainees at Gitmo should have been shot out of hand if their interrogation was not required. Those who were interrogated should have been shot following the interrogation, or released on a case-by-case basis. Holding any great number of terrorists in confinement is a bad idea as it acts as a goad for their fellows to find ways to free them. One of those ways is to take hostages, employ PR firms to make political hay of their detainment, or hire lawyers. Holding detainees “in perpetuity” makes little sense and if they are dead none of these options are available.
The Geneva Convention allows all of this.
Article 4 requires that combatants who are to be given POW status have a “fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance”. This would IMHO cover uniformed military personnel as well as militias such as Hamas and Fatah who have distinctive signs (blue scarf/Kaffiyeh).
Maybe we can accord Rachel Ray and other Hollywood types POW status when they wear the Kaffiyeh?
Terrorists are not members of a militia as defined by the Geneva Conventions.
Article 5 covers cases where; “Should any doubt arise” and in such a case their status should be determined by a “competent tribunal”.
Guys this hasn’t been said in awhile-
“Don’t feed the trolls/trolletts”
I wonder what pro bono work Ms. Foster might be doing for her other country (in her interview she mentions that she holds dual citizenship). Silly me to question her loyalties; Iran condemned the 9/11 attacks.
Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
Date: 13th century
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
A hypocrite despises those whom he deceives, but has no respect for himself. He would make a dupe of himself too, if he could.
-William Hazlitt
1. I have never claimed any virtue, and I have certainly never claimed any religion.
2. If you can show me where I have acted in contradiction to any belief or feeling, please do. Or is it that you just assume something about me based on my desire to see Gitmo detainees have legal representation? In fact I fully believe in the right of any individual to keep as much of their money as they are allowed by law and to pay as little tax as possible under the law.
One last comment on this thread.
My understanding is that in a military court, the defense attorney is an officer appointed by the presiding judge, also an officer. No prior legal experience is required. That may be incorrect now, so I may be way off base.
If that is indeed the case, then by default, a civilian attorney, or “white-shoe lawyer” is better equipped to handle the defense.
Sweet talk will not work here.
But you have my respect.
Why is that see-dub? You aren’t being muzzled are you? We need to know about these things !!
Probably because they will in all likelihood close Gitmo down in the wake of Boudemine.
Thank you chapoutier, I was truly concerned with his comment. I’m a big fan of the 1st Amendment and will fight to the death for it.
#13 lgm said:
But no more a disgrace than the “turtered” expression on the corpse of a fellow American who landed just south of Liberty Street, right after Tower One was hit. (What evidence of “turture” do you have at Gitmo that rivals what I saw downtown, “Mr. Human Rights Now?”
Wow chap…sorry I missed all the fun lawyer bashing. I’m at $375 per, so I must be total scum.
BTW, for the massively uninformed around here, there are many ex-military corporate lawyers walking the halls of the big white shoe firms in this country.
We should be expanding gitmo . I say send all criminals there and hang them high. No bill of rights for criminals and terrorists. Founding fathers created constitutional rights and bill of rights for white American men only.
nyc123me said (#22):
Because I care about my country than about theirs.
Some of you should watch the movie again. Jack Nickolson is the bad guy. “You can’t handle the truth.” is an excuse for a murderous coverup.
#117 lgm said:
But to the point where you “care” enough to consistently trump up the charges against your own Country, while allowing your silence to speak volumes about how you downplay the savagery exhibited by your own enemy?
Something doesn’t add up with your equation, lgm.
In ‘A Few Good Men,’ even Lt. Weinberg (aka Rob Reiner) eventually conceded that the majority of the US Military were acting honorably on the behalf of his freedom, and that the character of Colonel Nathan Jessep was the exception and not the rule.
lgm, caring for you country starts with supporting our troops and military at all times. The “torture” and “mistreatment” you bitch about, is a small price for your freedom.
(see #118) It’s the same today. Most people in the military oppose torture. Unfortunately, the corrupt few who support it include the President.
#120 lgm said:
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve never seen such a poll, and I don’t know how such a question could be asked of US service members. Would you qualify the question by referencing only the 2-3 al Quada who have actually been water boarded? Would you qualify “torture” as the humane treatment that enemy combatents have been receiving at Gitmo?
How was the question asked, lgm?
Brian…would you consider the techniques used on John McCain to be torture? And, if you do, would you consider those techniques to be torture when used on anyone else by an other individual? If not, was John McCain then not tortured? Should we adopt the modern vernacular and say that McCain’s interrogation was merely “enhanced?”
#122 said:
Sure.
Sure.
No.
I don’t understand this question. Are you implying that the US is treating captured combatants the same way John McCain and others were treated in Hanoi?
If so, where is your physical proof?
Unless you don’t consider stress positions, hoods, and mock executions to be torture techniques, I would imagine that the extensive photographic evidence from Abu Ghraib would suffice.
If that isn’t enough or if you perhaps consider those who committed acts of torture at Abu Ghraib to be a few bad apples who disobeyed orders, one can easily find the litany of memos from Bush advisors regarding the Geneva Convention and the need for “enhanced” interrogation. (Gonzalez’s, Taft’s and Yoo’s from ‘02, and the Defense Dept. task force memo from ‘03 which stated “that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal anti-torture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation’s security.” There are also the memos between the CIA and the Office of Legal Counsel from ‘02 to ‘04 which discuss the intent of interrogators (and how if their intent is not to harm the individual, then, essentially, it’s not torture) and also waterboarding. There’s also Jay Bybee’s memo, which defines torture so narrowly, that only if the detainee dies or suffers organ failure would the acts committed by his interrogator be considered torture.
Things, of course, get murky. We will likely never know exactly what happened in Jose Padilla’s final interrogation, as the DVD was “lost” and, thus, not offered as evidence in the trial against him. We do know that he was considered a “high profile” detainee and that techniques such as stress positions and sleep and sensory deprivation could and likely would have been used on him.
We’ll likely never know what truly happens as a result of Extraordinary Rendition, created under Clinton, and continued under Bush. But the nature of the program, should worry anyone concerned about the use of torture if not directly by military personnel but at our government’s behest.
Defenders of torture seem to want to have it both ways. They want to be able to torture but they also want the moral high ground, with ticking clocks and 24-style tension. They want to say, well, yes, torture has taken place, but only a few times. And they want to do the opposite of what the Bush administration has done. They want to now define torture much more strictly so that things that were considered torture when done to American soldiers (like John McCain) now no longer count. And they want to pretend that it works. Ask John McCain or maybe get in a time machine and ask him before he started running for president. It doesn’t work. It just conditions you to say whatever it is you think will make it stop.
That’s McCain’s account.