Greg,

Do you think he made those comments without the approval of his boss?

Posted by: Dan at January 17, 2007 03:30 AM | Permalink to this comment

Because his alias is Jack Bauer!

Posted by: RiverRat at January 17, 2007 03:31 AM | Permalink to this comment

I hope your persistence pays off, GD!

Posted by: sglover at January 17, 2007 06:24 AM | Permalink to this comment

I hope your persistence pays off, GD!

Posted by: sglover at January 17, 2007 06:26 AM | Permalink to this comment

Cully is still there because the boss, Cheney, will keep him there.

Of particular note is that Cully was addressing corporations and of course the big firms who represent them. I don't think what Cully said really needed to be said in public. These sorts of attitudes get passed along thru normal social channels and you can be sure the this topic is on the minds of all the corporate and law firm elites. By being so pubilc Cully probably set back by just a bit the inexorable trend towards the full integration of the government, the practice of law at the highest level, and the courts themselves into a seemless corporate culture. Cullys words shed a little light in this unseen area and so will provide a bit of pushback and resultant windowdressing.

Note that the professor saw no difference between opposition to the types of representation provided to corporations than to the individuals in these cases. Opposition or rather questioning one is in his mind an exact parrallel to the other. What better proof of my case.

Posted by: rapier at January 17, 2007 06:30 AM | Permalink to this comment

As always there is a side to this that our biased liberal media are not presenting: these meddling do-gooder lawyers are obstucting justice

Posted by: anonymoose at January 17, 2007 03:40 PM | Permalink to this comment

BREAKING NEWS: Cully Apologizes! (Sort of....)

Via TPM Muckraker .

However, true-to-form for Bush Administration offcials caught out in some ethical gaffe or other, I noticed that Mr. Stimson's apology doesn't address, at all, the substance of the criticism levelled at him over his detainee-representation remarks.

While he is careful to proclaim no animus against indvidual attorneys, firms, or the legal profession in general re their representation of Guantanamo detainees, any recantation of his most contoversial notion - that corporate clients of law firms doing said pro bono work should pressure them to drop those cases - is conspicuously absent.

Another non-apology apology from a Bushite drone. Shocking.

Posted by: Jay C at January 17, 2007 03:47 PM | Permalink to this comment

'moose, in both of my cases, I've filed motions to lift the stay and advance the case. In both, DOJ has resisted, successfully (so far). Maybe the AG isn't paying attention. Or maybe, more likely, you're missing some details.

Posted by: CharleyCarp at January 17, 2007 04:00 PM | Permalink to this comment

As always there is a side to this that our biased liberal media are not presenting: these meddling do-gooder lawyers are obstucting justice

anonymoose,

Allow me to help you out here. Obstruction of justice is a crime. If a lawyer, or any other individual, obstructs justice, they will be prosecuted (most likely to the fullest extent of the law).

Please note, though, that a lawyer filing motions and challenges on behalf of his/her client is not an obstruction of justice. That is the rule of law in action. It is the opposite of obstruction of justice, it is the realization of justice.

Worse still, it is the Bush administration - not lawyers for detainees - that have been preventing these cases from moving to federal court.

That the Bush administration and its supporters seem so incapable of grasping basic concepts essential to our legal and political system - our "freedoms" that we are supposedly defending, and that incur the wrath of bin Laden - is getting to be a real pain in the ass.

Wake. Up.

Posted by: Eric Martin at January 17, 2007 04:07 PM | Permalink to this comment

Say I'm looking to hire an attorney. One has worked for a big law firm and done some pro bono work. The other one has the Bush administration listed on his resume. Knowing the Bush trackrecord for ability and efficiency in administration, which candidate's resume looks better to me?
Maybe, Cully is trying to avoid being tarred by the ' I worked for Bush ' brush. After all, imagine what people will think of the Bushies in five, ten years.

Posted by: mark at January 17, 2007 04:51 PM | Permalink to this comment

If this admins track record is any indication, "Cully" will leave when he wants to. He will then receive a cushy appointment and a "Presidential Medal of Freedom". Why would this admin start firing people for fucking up now? The admin only fires for ideological impurity.

Posted by: centrist at January 17, 2007 04:55 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Why is 'Cully' still in charge of detainee affairs?"

Because, my dear Greg, he's doing only what his top-level superiors have ordered him -- and many others -- to do:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2007/01/bush_and_the_ru.html

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011910.php

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at January 17, 2007 05:41 PM | Permalink to this comment

Yes, Cully is definitely a Good, Little German who is Just Following Orders! Ridiculus to think this Administration will ever change its policies as long as Bush & his Master, the Dark Lord, Cheney are both in office.

Posted by: David All at January 17, 2007 10:15 PM | Permalink to this comment

Mark & everyone else: Definitely run like Hell away from anybody who has Bush Jr's Administration on their resume! In addition to being part of this idiotic Administration, anybody who has Boy George on their resume is probably too stupid to realize that is a minus, not a plus to have listed.

Posted by: David All at January 17, 2007 10:20 PM | Permalink to this comment

Robert Pollock of the Wall Street Journal makes a very compelling argument that Stimson is entirely correct. Law firms which represent terrorists would have an inherent conflict of interest barring them from representing US corporations which were the targets of the terrorist attacks.

Posted by: anonymoose at January 20, 2007 05:05 AM | Permalink to this comment