Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rights and Liberties

Pentagon Attacks Lawyers of Guantanamo Detainees

By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet. Posted January 16, 2007.


Guantanamo prisoners are entitled to protections under the Constitution, yet the government is trying to deny them due process.
Advertisement

In one of the most severe blows the Bush administration has dealt to our constitutional democracy, the Pentagon attacked the lawyers who have volunteered to represent the Guantánamo detainees.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Charles Stimson threatened corporate lawyers who agree to defend the men and boys imprisoned there. Flashing a list of corporations that use law firms doing this pro bono work, Stimson declared, "Corporate C.E.O.'s seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists."

In 1770, John Adams defended nine British soldiers including a captain who stood accused of killing five Americans. No other lawyer would defend them. Adams thought no one in a free country should be denied the right to a fair trial and the right to counsel. He was subjected to scorn and ridicule and claimed to have lost half his law practice as a result of his efforts.

Adams later said his representation of those British soldiers was "one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country."

Federal Judge Green, who has handled the many habeas corpus petitions filed by the Guantánamo detainees, expressed appreciation for the lawyers: "I do want to say we are very grateful for those attorneys who have accepted pro bono appointments. That is a service to the country, a service to the parties. No matter what position you take on this, it is a grand service."

More than 750 men and boys have been held like animals in cages during the last five years at Guantánamo. Many were picked up by warlords and sold to the U.S. military for bounty. None has been tried for any crime. Very few even have any criminal charges against them.

Ironically, there were no alleged terrorists connected with 9/11 there until Bush recently transferred 14 men from his secret CIA prisons to Guantánamo. Meanwhile, hundreds of detainees languish in custody, aided by 500 courageous lawyers from 120 firms who have volunteered countless hours to represent them.

Under the Military Commissions Act Bush just rammed through Congress, the Guantánamo prisoners could be held for the rest of their lives without ever seeing a judge. Those who decide that death could not be worse than life at Gitmo have participated in a hunger strike.

Rather than subject the Bush administration to embarrassment when prisoners die in U.S. custody, military guards force feed them. Thick plastic tubes are forced down their throats with no anesthesia. Tubes are not sterilized before being reused on other prisoners. The UN Human Rights Commission called the force-feeding "torture." Many prisoners also report being tortured during interrogations.

Guantánamo has become the symbol of U.S. hypocrisy. While fighting the "war on terror" and attacking other countries for their human rights abuses, the officials in the Bush administration have become war criminals. Torture and cruel or inhuman treatment are punishable as war crimes under the U.S. War Crimes Act.

The Supreme Court held in Rasul v. Bush that the Guantánamo prison is under U.S. jurisdiction, so prisoners there are entitled to the protections of the Constitution. The Sixth Amendment mandates that every person charged with a crime has the right to be defended by an attorney. The government is forbidden by the Fifth Amendment from denying any "person" -- U.S. citizen or not -- due process of law. The presumption of innocence is enshrined in our legal system.

Bush's attack on lawyers is the latest assault on our civil liberties, which now includes warrantless surveillance of our phone calls and email, and most recently, our U.S. Mail. Although Bush says he's spying on the terrorists, those who criticize his policies, including his illegal and immoral war on Iraq, are also invariably in his cross hairs.

All Americans should heed the words of Martin Niemoller: "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left who could stand up for me."

George W. Bush must immediately renounce Stimson's threats and relieve him of his duties. A country that would sacrifice its own values under the guise of protecting them has no moral authority in this world.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: guantanamo, civil liberties, gitmo

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists. Her book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, will be published in June.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Alibaba
Posted by: alibaba on Jan 16, 2007 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one more issue we should be screaming about. Thank you for writing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wait a sec...
Posted by: Scientz on Jan 16, 2007 5:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm all for closing Guantanamo... Let's get that on the table... But the article's headline says "Guantanamo prisoners are entitled to protections under the Constitution" which I believe to be false...

"Enemy combatant" prisoners are not entitled to the same protections, which is exactly why we should be up arms over this...

...anyone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The problem Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: The problem Posted by: Australia
» RE: The problem Posted by: Conservasaurus
Say hello to...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jan 16, 2007 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... the possible beginings of a martial law police state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stimson the just
Posted by: jockohazeldene on Jan 16, 2007 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Stimson is obviously not a gentleman but rather a bully, who is prepared to deny justice in order to serve his own needs. This chap's actions undermine the unapproachable reputation of the Great American People. The fellow should hang his head in shame.
Enjoyed your article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Reputation???? Posted by: moflard
» RE: eputation???? Posted by: Intraspecto
» RE: eputation???? Posted by: moflard
Paul Craig Roberts:
Posted by: rwa on Jan 16, 2007 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush’s entire "war on terror" is based on lies. The Bush Regime, desperate to keep its lies covered up, is now trying to prevent American law firms from defending the Guantanamo detainees. The Bush Regime is fearful that Americans will learn that the detainees are not terrorists but props in the regime’s orchestrated "terror war."

The only reason for the Bush Regime’s policy of indefinite detention without charges is that it has no charges to bring. The detainees are not terrorists. They are the Bush Regime’s props in a fake war that serves as cover for the Regime’s hegemonic policy in the Middle East.

The only action that can stop Bush is for both the Democratic and Republican leadership of the House and Senate to call on the White House, tell Bush they know what he is up to and that they will not fall for it a second time. The congressional leadership must tell Bush that if he does not immediately desist, he will be impeached and convicted before the week is out.

Can a congressional leadership that lives in fear of the Israel Lobby perform this task?

All the rest is penny-ante. Revoking the Iraqi War Resolution as Rep. Sam Farr has proposed or requiring Bush to obtain congressional authorization prior to any US attack on Iran simply lets Bush and his Federalist Society apologists for executive dictatorship claim he has commander-in-chief powers and proceed with his planned aggression. Cutting off funding is not itself enough as Bush can raid other budgets. Non-binding resolutions of disapproval are meaningless to a president who doesn’t care what anyone else thinks.

Nothing can stop the criminal Bush from instituting wider war in the Middle East that could become a catastrophic world war except an unequivocal statement from Congress that he will be impeached."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CIVIL COMMITMENT
Posted by: brotherjonah on Jan 16, 2007 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look, the Hanoi Model of treating POWs as unlawful combatants instead of either war prisoners under Geneva and Hague or Civil criminals is often cited by the Bushiites in defense of their policies.

There is a valid corollary in American jurisprudence, and since they have pushed for it against Joe Average in terms of the Three Strikes law and sex predator laws, they have opened a legal venue to get him the FUCK OUT OF OFFICE. And into some very secure custody. Civil Commitment. There are probably at least a couple of magistrates or Justices of the Peace in the District of Columbia who will willingly sign the orders, a whole shitload of psychiatrists who will sign the order, the signs of their collective dementia and the clear and present danger are well, clear. And present.

This is probably the last ditch method the Rule of Law actually can use to put them down.

The Congress have been backed up against a wall. The high courts have been taken by Bushiites and Reagan freaks.

But there is plenty of precedence and even decided by the Supreme Court to do such a thing, and it is through the lowest level of the court system, and with no effective appeals process. The appeals processes have been struck down in recent decisions by the Same-old same-old Court now in power, with its majority of Nixon, Reagan and Bush/Bush redux appointees. I know there are VietNam vets who recognize the samo-samo phrase for what it really means, "same-same buffalo" in Annamese means literally fuck the livestock.

But Same-same Court has a nice ring to it. Plus they do make same-same with the constitution. It might take months for the full deployment of the escalation oops I mean Troop Surge to get done, but I bet we could pull the soldiers out much faster and in the time Mr Bush and his favorite Dick are cooling their heels in the same Nut Hatch as John Wayne Hinckley (sp?)
Maybe they (bush and cheney)(not the troops) will be room mates with him.
Hinkley (again, sp?) would be tickled pink to have an opportunity to talk to the two most influential people in his being continuously confined for 25 years, On a charge that he would have discharged the sentence in less than 20 if he hadn't tried the insanity defense.

The other alternative would be to ditch the Rule of Law entirely, storm the White House, drag them out and hang them in the trees by their own intestines, while they are still alive.

I vote to give Rule of Law every opportunity to work before other people go that far. I can't say as I would commit such an act myself, but I would be powerless to prevent anybody else from doing it. And most people aren't nearly as pacifistic as me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Massive Incompetence and Stupidity
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 16, 2007 6:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's be straight, "enemy combatant," "prisoner of war," however and whatever you call it, and which every way the lawyers try to slice and dice it, wrong is wrong. To throw someone in jail, indefinetly and without charges, what is the justification for this? Even during wartime (real war, not GW Bushes fake war on terrorism), prisoners are often repatrioted. They are certainly not held for some indeterminite time in never, never land, while the "Commander in Chief" and his lawyers try to figure out some type of jerry-rigged Kangaroo Court System. Who even knows why many of these guys were even put in jail in the first place? It's already been admitted that many mistakes were made. Goat herders interrogated relentlessly with an attempt to make them "confess" to crimes they never committed. And, the real question is never asked, if these guys are so, so bad, why cannot we really put them on trial? Instead, we get drivel-drabble from the President and his Administration about protecting "secret sources," and the like. Yeah, right, it's really all about protecting those in power from exposure of massive incompetence. The kind of incompetency and stupidity that got America into Iraq to begin with. Just to create an illusion of winning the "war on terror," probably half the guys in Guantanamo remain there for that reason alone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Had enough?
Posted by: Sweeet Pea on Jan 17, 2007 4:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://marchtoimpeach.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» REALLY had enough? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» good response... Posted by: dover23
Guantanamo
Posted by: Maddibee on Jan 17, 2007 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stimson is obviously a know-nothing who hasn't a clue about our wonderful Constitution and Bill of Rights. He should be demoted instantly -- along with the immediate Impeachment Process against the president and vice president who have encouraged and condoned and used our money to pay for the abomination that is Guantanamo and Mr. Stimson!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A New Revolution
Posted by: dkm on Jan 17, 2007 10:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1776 we declared our independence from our colonizers. In 1810 the Mexican war for independence began. The Mexicans lost their country to a dictator, Porfiro Diaz, and in 1910 the revolution began which resulted in the present government. So there is a precedent for a revolution against a dictatorship to regain a democracy.

We managed to keep our democracy longer than the Mexicans did, but now that we've lost it, we need to think about what to do. The Mexican Revolution resulted in the deaths of almost 3 out of every 50 inhabitants. If we had a violent revolution now, it would probably kill about as many people (3/50) and certainly result in the destruction of our country. You know that the Bushites and their corporate owners are not about to let their cash cow get away, so their resistance would be tenacious and lethal. JFK said that when peaceful change is impossible, violent change becomes inevitable. It is up to the new Congress to ensure that peaceful change is still possible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stimson apologizes but
Posted by: Boctaoe on Jan 17, 2007 10:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to the AP today, he apologized for his remarks, but he still should be fired. Someone who thinks like him should not be in charge of Guantanamo. Also I would like to know how far up the ladder goes the rot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bgllano
Posted by: bgllano on Jan 17, 2007 1:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In 1770, John Adams defended nine British soldiers including a captain who stood accused of killing five Americans. No other lawyer would defend them."

If I recall correctly, John Adams was not alone--the Boston Massacre defendants were jointly represented by Adam and his mentor, James Otis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

frank67
Posted by: frank67 on Jan 17, 2007 4:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
William Kristol is at again: "we've got to increase our troop strength." I just can't stand these chickenhawks! WE...Okay Bill, I'll be right behind you!!! You and the rest of the wingnuts must lead the charge!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: frank67 Posted by: bob t
Despicable
Posted by: andrushka on Jan 18, 2007 5:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole Guantanamo concept stinks. I have just read a book written by a former prisonner Mourad Benchellali who after four years in that chicken coop was released, not guilty of anything. Yes, but his live is ruined. Mr. Bush could not careless, I think of all the others in the same situation who have lawyers who unfortunatly can do very little and would do even less if the Pentagon has its way. Empty that jail and replenish it with the Bushies et al.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stimpson Accidently Revealed...
Posted by: bob t on Jan 18, 2007 1:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the truth of where bush and the rethugs really want to go with our America. Stimson just accidently revealed some truths about the Bushistas and the rethugs, and probably the truth about our military and the SCOTUS as well. These people are driven by their dedication to unlimited GREED. Oil and the unending transfer of taxpayer dollars to their friends in BIG RELIGION, BIG BUSINESS and world wide power via the NEOCON agenda for America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]