See, I've learned my lesson.

The urge to think that America has self-corrected because these maniacs no longer control Congress, is a very dangerous one. Now is the time to get involved. It's tough because we are all a little worn down from dictator fatigue, but we have to fight through that and pay attention. These next couple of years could literally determine the fate of mankind on this planet.

See, I've learned my lesson.

"First, we kill all the lawyers". It's the same old same old. If it's not Billy Bob who complains about lawyers because he got screwed in his deevorce from his lovely ex-bride and first cousin Wanda Sue, then it's CEO of Walmart, or the United States State Govt. Wow...maybe it is all us damned lawyers causing this fine country of ours to go to hell in a handbasket...NOT!!! I will give myself permission to not feel like an idiot because I have stooped to argue against idiocy of this magnitude.

I hate to sound nitpicky, but nowhere in the articles you provided is it reported that a Bush national security type or the Bush administration demanded or urged American corporations to do anything. Perhaps radio silence regarding the current President is the best course of action.

I guess you're having trouble reading it.

"nowhere in the articles you provided"

Um, except that that's exactly what the government official, Charles "Cully" Stimson, is reported as doing. He's with the Defense Department, so I suppose you could argue that they aren't involved in "national security".

The Bush Pentagon has made us much less "secure."

See, I've learned my lesson.

As did LCDR Charles Swift.

Willamette Week ran an story of a local attorney volunteering his time to represent a Guantánamo detainee. It's a good story and demonstrates that there are many shades gray in separating good, bad, and dangerous.

I'm not an Bush apologist, but I think you're blowing it a bit out of proportion. IIRC, the sentiment was described in a Wall Street Journal op-ed about the conditions in Guantánamo. I cringed when I read the op-ed, but I understood the thinking. It's analagous to the union members who are forced to pay for unions' political activities. Except, I can choose my law firm, I can't choose my union.

Anyway, since that statement, the administration has made it clear that the statement represented only the personal views of the person who made them.

Like Dave, I guess I'm having trouble reading the article as well. You make it sound as if this is Bush's policy when in fact the article goes on to state "Neither the White House nor the Pentagon had any official comment, but officials sought to distance themselves from Mr. Stimson’s view. His comments 'do not represent the views of the Defense Department or the thinking of its leadership,' a senior Pentagon official said." And further, "In an interview on Friday, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said he had no problem with the current system of representation. 'Good lawyers representing the detainees is the best way to ensure that justice is done in these cases,' he said." It would seem that the Attorney General's comments would mirror the President's thoughts rather than some low-level offical in la-la land.

Ah, you irrepressible optimists! Of course it can't be the policy of the United States to promote a boycott of law firms that attempt to secure representation for the unaccused in concentration camps. So, how do they get the message out to the intended recipients? Just like that. If you think this is the work of some ignorant, wayward, middle-level bureaucrat, you're very naïve.

well said Jack.

the statement represented only the personal views of the person who made them.

"Aaaargh! Light! Everybody back into our cockroach holes!"

Oh, I get it now; you need to read between the lines, right? Assume more than what is stated. Judge based on your personal bias. Kinda like what the Mercury did with Jack's blog on the murder of Jermaine Davis.

Heck, they're not going far enough. How about we refuse to do business with any government whose monetary system is used to buy lunch for lawyers who represent terror subjects? After all, the lawyer is aiding a terrorist suspect, and the monetary system is aiding the lawyer, so it just stands to reason that Ben Bernanke must be giving aid and comfort to the enemy. (The dirty traitor!)

Clearly any responsible American should divest themselves of all dollars. (And as an irresponsible American, I'll be happy to take on the burden of keeping your dollars safe until such time as they can be trusted again.)

Kinda like what the Mercury did with Jack's blog on the murder of Jermaine Davis.

umm...not to take away from the relevance of this blog, but to compare what the Mercury did to what the admin. is trying to do to lawyers/firms attempting to represent prisoners at Guantanamo? That is sick.

People believe what they want to believe...in this blog, any rumor or contention critical of the current administration is treated as it was the gospel. In addition, the Ramsey Clarks and his ilk of this world do little to improve the reputation of lawyers.

With respect to how safe this country is, the proof is in the pudding. No 9-11s since 9-11. One needs to spend time reading about the numerous terrorist plans that have been thwarted. Just removing the idiotic restrictions on interagency communication has done wonders.

I was thinking back: Remember when the NSA story broke and the Bush supporters rushed forward to say, "But this is only for if Osama is making a cellphone call from his cave. This is not domestic spying." Since then we've learned the administration feels it can read our mail whenever it wants and use the military to examine our financial records. At what point does liberty end and the police state begin?

A priceless quote from Charles Stimson: “I think, quite honestly, when corporate C.E.O.’s see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those C.E.O.’s are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firm..."

Here's the thing that he fails to understand (or deliberately confuses): The whole point of the lawyers working down Gitmo way is the idea that maybe, just maybe, some of the people stuck in that rathole AREN'T ACTUALLY TERRORISTS.

How horrible would it be if there were someone there for the last 5+ years that was just a case of mistaken identity?

The whole point of legal representation is the presumption of innocence. Ugh.

This Stimson guy has gotta go.

GERALD HOWARD:

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant. Does it really matter if Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese or the Germans? They both deserve our enmity.

Ditto with the most outrageous NeoCons and the White House: they are all unmitigated evil in the eyes of fashionable progressives. So jump on the Bush-Bash train, and feel proud you didn't vote for him.

Put a bumpersticker on your car that says "Impeach Now"...That'll show 'em.

Many Democrats loathe Wal-Mart, and they actively discriminate against them with legislation specfically crafted with Wal-Mart in mind, or with restrictive zoning revisions/interpretations (as seen at Jantzen Beach and other Portland locations).

Most Democratic Pols won't sleep in a non-union hotel, and many of their faithful won't drink Coors or advertise in the Washington Times, or buy gasoline from an Exxon filling station for the same reason.

Many business and consumer purchasing decisions are predicated on misinformed prejudice, or green-friendly marketing campaigns that have little basis in truth (BP: Beyond Petroleum?)...

But boycotts (misguided or not) are still a legal form of free expression. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe the White House endorsed Cully's remarks, but (even if they did) they are well within their rights to do so.

Ron-

No 9-11s happened before 9-11, so with your logic, the proof is in the pudding that 9-11 did not, in fact, happen.

Mr. T-

I have no idea what your rant had to do with the articles.

Travis: George Bush didn't say that business should boycott the referenced law firms. So far as we know, Cully "Charles" Stimson was expressing his personal views (a right which even federal bureacrats retain). Either way, the comments in this thread a blaming George Bush for an underling's comments. Would it be fair to hold Erik Sten liable for every rant that TorridJoe types on company time?

On the other hand, even if George Bush was calling on all Americans to boycott these law firms (or Burger King, for that matter), he would be well within his constitutionally protected free speech in doing so. Consumer boycott's are still a legal form of expression: you don't have to be a liberal to engage in or support a boycott.

"Frankly, I find it difficult to believe the White House endorsed Cully's remarks, but (even if they did) they are well within their rights to do so."

This is just the kind of nutsoid thinking we need. The federal government is "well within their rights" to sponsor a collective boycott of lawyers for their representation of prisoners? It's a small wonder the constitution is being shredded before our very eyes, if this is representative of the level of ignorance about civics in our communities. Back to grade school, Mister Tee, and you could start with the pledge of allegiance if you can understand those big words.

Right on Jack. This type of thing is truly sickening.

Without getting into the whole argument on Gitmo, the real problem I have with Charles Stimson's comments is that he is the senior civilian representative for detainee affairs in the Dept of Defense. A person who vilifies legal representation for any detainees does not have the personal qualities necessary for the position.

The US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs has two main roles: (1) protect the legal rights of the detainees, and (2) provide for the welfare safety of the detainees. How can this person execute these responsibilities when he fundamentally has concluded that all detainees at Gitmo are terrorists, and that terrorists have surrendered the basic legal rights to representation and review?

As to any of you who think that employees of DoD, civilian or otherwise, are entitled to express their personal opinions without blessings of the administration or DoD, think again. If he did so, and it violated DoD policy, expect him to be fired or reassigned.

Compare the potential harm of his opinion versus this Air Force sergeant:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/12/playboy.military.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Allan: do you actually believe that a single radio interview with a deputy undersecretary of defense constitutes a "Federally sponsored...collective boycott of lawyers...."?

Even if it were true, how many knee-jerk liberals will direct new business to the Terrorist's Lawyers" in order to defy the "Bush Boycott"?

How is this any different than the multi-faceted attacks on the lawyer http://www.newsregister.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=217305 who represented Bayard Foreign Marketing (the alleged shell company owner of the CIA's alleged Gulfstream Jet).

It's ok to try and disbar a sole practioner/lawyer for representing a suspected CIA shell company, but we shouldn't discriminate against the most powerful lawyers/firms in the nation if they choose to represent suspected terrorists?

Only liberal boycotts/witch hunts are legal?

From the above article in the Register-Guard:
Human rights groups have raised concerns about the "rendition" of terror suspects, some of whom have charged they were tortured in the countries where they were sent. The United States has said it does not send anyone to countries that torture.

Michael Scheuer, a CIA veteran and former chief of a unit that tracked Osama bin Laden, said the program is a needed tool in the battle against terrorism.

"The American people certainly don't realize the rendition program is one of the most successful programs we've ever had," Scheuer said. "Sometimes all the publicity does is destroy an asset that took 10 or 15 years to build."

Sheesh.

Since then we've learned the administration feels it can read our mail whenever it wants and use the military to examine our financial records.

The Clinton administration?

Not to make a point out of nothing, but the "erosion" of our liberties has been going on for far longer than the current administration. All of the surveilence techniques here were accepted as given and confirmed as constitutional under Clinton's tenure. And rightly so.

And as far as anyone "encouraging" businesses to boycott anyone, government official or not, it's not as if the government itself has suddenly begun engaging in Sulla's proscriptions.

I have little fondness for Bush (from the other side of the ideological fense from most here), but thinking this is equal to the Republic having fallen is a bit too much.

A little shrill, perhaps, Professor?

Were even our POWs entitled to "legal representation" in the Stalags? Did anyone even think about arguing that recognized POWs (who have more rights than whatever the non-uniformed, haphazard, motley lot in Gitmo migh possibly claim) could get out of a military prison before teh end of hostilities?

Setting aside the question of whether these folks should be covered by Geneva, on what possible basis can one say that foreigners captured, in arms against our nation, "deserve" legal representation to be released? They were fighting against our nation and they chose the wrong side. In any other armed conflict, they would be lucky to continue breathing, given their lack of any military insignia or other identifiable military identification. Only if the Gitmo "detainees" somehow "deserve" this representation can any action against those who aid men found in arms against us be seen as somehow even morally wrong.

Indeed, why not boycott those who give aid and comfort to those found carrying weapons against our troops?

Mister Tee,
You're pretty hopeless, so I don't see much point in continuing to comment on your comments, except to say (a) that you did not correctly represent what I wrote above (you can look it up), and (b) that the Bayard case is different in that it involves allegations of ethical violations by the lawyer. Why don't you try to bring a little mental rigor to your posts?

Travis: Your logic escapes me. Think a minute and re-read your post. Kindly explain how the fact that something happened once and has not happened again negates what took place. And quit smoking that stuff.

I'll leave the arguments to hotter and/or more egg-shaped heads; but I wanted to mention that their is an interesting article in the August, 24th issue of Rolling Stone about a Taliban fighter currently in Gitmo. He's been in US custody since he was fifteen years old.

No 9-11s since 9-11.

Thanks to George Bush? Give me a break. Number of world terrorists increased a hundredfold.

And quit smoking that stuff.

You're done for a while.

Krog,

Actually, the majority of the detainees at GITMO were not captured on the battlefield with weapons in hand. They were turned over by Afghan and Pakistani tribal leaders to US forces for a cash bounty. The only evidence against most of the these people are their ethnic profiles: foreigners in Afghanistan or Pakistan. The US forces accepting custody did not inquire into any other evidence that may exist to prove their association to Al-Qaeda.

Fact is that the reason most of these prisoners have not had a trial is because there is no objective proof that they fought against the US. None.

Do you know that a few of the detainees were no more than truck drivers recruited in the former USSR to drive supplies to Kabul before the war? That they were then detained after hostilities started when they crossed a check point by the Norther Alliance, had their goods taken, and then sold into captivity?

One of the detainees was in Pakistan on a bus when it crossed a tribal checkpoint and then was sold back to the US for profit?

That four of the detainees are Chinese muslims who had nothing to do with 9-11 or Al-Qaeda. And that the US knows this but cannot release them back to China because of how China will treat them, but at the same time cannot send them elsewhere because the Chinese have officially demanded that they go nowhere other than China?

We've been fed a pack of lies that all detainees at GITMO are the "worse of the worse." Yes, some are some pretty bad people who threaten our country. But ironically, the real terrorists enjoy more legal rights at GITMO than the non-terrorist population. The real terrorists have assigned lawyers, they have pre-trial proceedings, there are files of evidence, et cetera.

Meanwhile, the bulk of the GITMO detainees sit in perpetual limbo because the government cannot bear to admit that the people running GITMO do not have a spit of information on the majority of the detainees.

If you support continued detention of these folks, then you support arbitrary detention of people based solely on their profile. It is that straight forward. You have nothing to bitch about when an American is detained in some remote crap-hole of the world for being a "spy" and then indefinitely held without representation, access to consular officials, or evidence.

International norms, rules, and laws are based upon the theory of reciprocity. How we treat detainees in our custody is excactly what we can expect from others.

Even if the other country falls well short of our standards, our nation is supposed to be the example. The America I believe in does not torture, indefinitely detain people without evidence based solely on race, religion, or ethnicity, it does not engage in rendition, it supports the rule of law, and it is a beacon of democracy, human rights, and dignity.

The rest of you, I believe, have lost your way.

"No 9-11s happened before 9-11"

i'm certainly pleased to find out that the 1993 attack on the world trade center never happened.

Whenever the subject of sweeping new powers comes up with this President, you Right Wingers turn to Bill Clinton as if by running into his warm arms for a hug, you can protect yourselves from reality. It's cute, but if you don't think Cheney and company set out to expand the power of the executive branch past anything the forefathers had in mind, you need to clue in. Of course the plan required a war and how convenient! We have the War on a Terror - a war that will not end in our lifetimes. Too bad - I was hoping it would be America that didn't end in our lifetimes.

But boycotts (misguided or not) are still a legal form of free expression.

Yes, they are -- by private citizens. But not by the government.

At one time, there was a boycott in Oregon by progressives against Shilo Inns. Mark Hemstreet, their owner, was rightly concerned that the state government had unlawfully instructed state employees to boycott his hotels. That turned out not to be true - but if it were, that would have been a very bad thing.

Mr. Stimson seems to have forgotten that when you're a senior adminstration official, you're speaking for the federal government.

Here's the text of the letter that Senate Minority leader Reid (et al) sent to the Disney corporation,

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200609/POL20060908b.html

THREATENING THEIR FCC LICENSE if they continued with their planned "Path to 9/11" broadcast and tie-ins.

We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney's plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

It reads an awful lot like a boycott to me.

No, No, No.

(I can't help myself)

Mister Tee,

It reads an awful lot like a boycott to me.

That's not a boycott - that's implicit extortion.

When, oh when will you bring more "mental rigor" to your posts - you know, the type of rigor that produces purity of thought and conformity of expression. The type of rigor that leads to comments like "nutsoid" and "hopeless". The type of rigor that embraces civil discourse of this type: "Back to grade school, Mister Tee, and you could start with the pledge of allegiance if you can understand those big words."

Some people...

What is "mental rigor", anyway? Is it anything like intellectual rigor?

Mental rigidity is more like it.

rr:

It's not implicit extortion (which would require a monetary or property motive); rather, it's legislative coercion and censorship.

"Purity of thought and conformity of expression." That sounds like something Chairman Mao or Pol Pot would have said.

I have many impure thoughts, RR, and I have little interest in conforming to the "Bush is the devil incarnate" party line.

Back to the topic...Which of the below choices represent the greatest threat to American Democracy (pick one or two):

A) A sole practioner/lawyer who may have filed corporate papers for a CIA front company.

B) A group of five U.S. Senators threatening to pull the FCC license of the Disney Corporation if they don't modify the content of their programming.

C) A Deputy Undersecretary of Defense who suggests a boycott of suspected terrorist's law firms might be a legitimate form of expression.

D) A new kind of "fairness doctrine" which requires that we extend all the rights and privileges of American Citizenship to the Islamo-Fascists who are willing to devote their lives to killing and terrorizing us in the hope of ushering in the next Islamic Caliphate.

OK, I see the light now. Not getting to see "The Path to 9/11" in school would be just like being locked up at Guantanamo with no charges, no hearings and no legal representation.

What I want to know is if (or why) no one has filed complaints with whatever state Bar Associations (s) of which Stimson is a member? As an officer of the court he is ethically and legally bound to not even impugn the equitable administration of justice.

Frankly, we are here in part because for the last 6 years the ABA and state Bar associations have largely abdicated their responsibilities to stand up against predatory lawyers like Gonzales and Stimson how who have provided the legal ideology, and the judges/justices who have ignored the plain language of the Constitution in their rulings, as they have destroyed our civil rights.

MRT, your posts are remarkably obtuse. In your point (D) you assume the truth of the allegations that are at issue for detainees. If we knew that, everything else would be easy.

Mr. T said, "A new kind of "fairness doctrine" which requires that we extend all the rights and privileges of American Citizenship to the Islamo-Fascists who are willing to devote their lives to killing and terrorizing us in the hope of ushering in the next Islamic Caliphate."

The problem with using labels is that it makes it too easy for rogue states to avoid international rules and norms. It is too easy for "Islamo-Fascists" to turn around and strip away rights of legitimate US combatants by calling them "Satanic Infadel Capitalists."

There is no new fairness doctrine in international law; however, there is flexibility in international law. The flexibility is the pragmatic analysis of reciprocity.

Billy McD...

Your comments cut both ways. Clinton expanded powers in his administration (ie 'warrantless' searches) with nary a peep from the left. Furthermore, the left loves to bring up how great the US was during Clinton's administration.

I would hope you would be intellectually honest enough to admit that the erosion of our civil liberties is a bi-partisan effort and has been going on for years.

Unless you think universal health care, banning trans-fats and gun control are examples of a limited government.

"the erosion of our civil liberties is a bi-partisan effort and has been going on for years"

That misstates things pretty egregiously. The "USA Patriot Act" and its amendments are under Bush. So are the signing statements qualifying the President's compliance with law. So are the expansion of "extraordinary rendition", the creation of new "military tribunals", the abrogation of the Geneva Conventions, rejection of the international court of justice, the institution of torture as national policy, the creation of "enemy combatant" status, its application to US citizens, the elimination of habeas corpus rights, the nomination of right-wing judges and supreme court justices, judicial attacks on the press and press attacks on political opponents.

Allan,

Thorough, if a bit familiar, litany. Unfortunately it does not address the point.

If you are trying to say that Bush has continued or increased the rate of the "erosion of civil liberties", bravo! If you are trying to support your allegation of a misstatement on the part of Chris McMullen (and krog) you fail to bring one contradicting point to the argument.

Is that "obtuse", or what?

Yeah Allan, those Dems are real civili libertarians...like Dennis Kucinich's Fairness Doctrine which denies broadcasters their first amendment rights.

Congressional Dems voted for the Patriot Act and the Defense Authorization for 2007. And the Military Commissions Act, which suspended Habeas Corpus.

What about Clinton's Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty act which expanded the authority of secret courts and allowed the INS to deport American citizens. Not to mention the military operation on American soil (Waco).

Hell, you can look back at the Wilson, FDR and Johnson administration's egregious attacks on the constitution.

Your argument is specious at best.

"Your argument is specious at best."

I don't think you know what "specious" means, Chris. I'm not sure you know what "argument" means. It's tiresome for all of us to re-plow the same ground. To the comment you made earlier, that the government's current attacks on civil liberties are just a continuation of a bi-partisan pattern, I pointed out the specific infringements of constitutional rights that have happened under the current government, that are very significant. Their significance is not diminished, I would argue, by the recent support of ignorant politicians of any party, or by past actions of past administrations. Nor is it diminished by characterizing the list as a "familiar litany". How are our current government's unlawful acts excused by the mistakes of earlier administrations? That sort of argument didn't even work in kindergarten.

The Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 (and the Democratic Congress didn't make a peep), forcing American citizens of Japanese Ancestry into internment camps. Ironically, J. Edgar Hoover (a Republican) believed it was unconstitutional, and said so.

Sentator Harry F. Byrd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_F._Byrd%2C_Sr.) chose to close the public schools rather than desegregate them (following Brown v. Topeka Board of Education).

Senator Robert C. Byrd (no relation) was a the Exalted Cyclops in the local KKK chapter. He is the senior member of the Senate Democrats.

I doubt it necessary to review the segregationist history of Southern Democrats from the post reconstruction era until the 1960's.

Dubya is a piker compared to these historical giants of unconstitutional and racist laws and practices. He also gets very little credit for having the most diverse cabinent in history (including the first African American SoS).

the first African American SoS

The first and, alas, the second.

It's tiresome for all of us to re-plow the same ground.

Oh please. Why don't you just switch to the royal "we"?

...I don't see much point in continuing to comment on your comments...

All of us understand that you're retired and may be easily fatigued, but your zest for regurgitating talking points, complete with boilerplate hyperbole, seems undiminished. Despite your professed ennui with your antagonists' positions and reasoning, you persist. Your "protected speech" continues unabated, indeed your fervor and jejune (just for you, Jack) insults seem redoubled. Tiresome, indeed!

None of us would blame you if you ceased because you needed the rest.

After all, you didn't get a snow day.

Some people never learn.

Wow...quite the snow day blog tussle we have going here boys. Let's not forget that W likes to show off his thingy to everyone, and Gitmo is just more of the same old same old. He doesn't like boring lawyer types screwing up the fun, and that was the point of this post at the outset.

I don't know whether this has been posted here yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5E3w7ME6Fs