 |
January 13, 2007Shearman, Cleary, Etc: New Enemies of the State!NYT: The senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees suspected of terrorism said in an interview this week that he was dismayed that lawyers at many of the nation’s top firms were representing prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and that the firms’ corporate clients should consider ending their business ties. Wow. What depths won't this Administration stoop too? Will the President renounce these comments? Will this dirty whiff of McCarthyism be condemned at the highest levels? Repugnant. P.S. The notion that CEOs will steer business away from storied firms like Cleary Gottlieb and Shearman & Sterling is absurd, of course, per Stimson's ridiculous talk of law firms having to make a 'choice' between "representing terrorists or representing reputable [clients]". It's not these firms' bottom lines I'm worried about, of course (they'll keep doing just fine, no fear), but that the senior official responsible for detainee affairs, himself a lawyer, would think it permissible to make such an incredibly irresponsible (not to mention incredibly stupid) statement. Staggering stuff, really--even given all we've witnessed these past five or so years. UPDATE: Hilzoy has much more on this. AND MORE: Heh, as they say. Comments
Supposedly this has been disavowed by Gonzalez and the Pentagon. Posted by: Ugh at January 13, 2007 05:14 PM | Permalink to this comment
Give me a link, Ugh. Because it seems obvious that this was a coordinated effort - see Josh Marshall, http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011910.php - I expect a weaselly non-disavowal, and no more. Posted by: dave l at January 13, 2007 05:23 PM | Permalink to this comment
yeah i'd like to see a link to gonzalez's statement too. better yet, an explicit renunciation from POTUS, accompanied by stimson losing his job, or at very least getting reprimanded. this is an outrage. Posted by: greg djerejian at January 13, 2007 05:28 PM | Permalink to this comment
I was going on the fourth comment here. The NYTimes story says a senior official at the Pentagon disavowed the comments. Posted by: Ugh at January 13, 2007 05:30 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Will this dirty whiff of McCarthyism be condemned at the highest levels?" Geez, Greg, "condemned" at the "highest levels"? Where do you think the idea of this disgusting rant came from?? Posted by: Jay C at January 13, 2007 05:37 PM | Permalink to this comment
The remarks are disgusting, and asking the Bush Admin to repudiate them flies in the face of the gestalt the Bushies have constructed. It's not "merely" a matter of intimidating attorneys and law firms from representing detainees in Bush's various torture mills. It's also, perhaps even primarily, a matter of intimidating anyone from opposing the Bush Administration's self-bestowed power to do as it pleases without answering to anyone for it. It's interesting, too, in that the targets of this latest attack aren't the usual suspects - dissenters, Constitutional scholars, anti-war activists, or even liberals per se, or even the individual attorneys - but law firms, and powerful and wealthy law firms at that. To any student of history, this is an obvious logical progression in the rise of authoritarianism: first, the authoritarians go after the easy targets, the ones who can't muster much financial or social power to protect themselves. Then the authoritarians go after those on the higher rungs, the ones who thought their status protected them. It puts the firms' managing partners in a tricky position: stand by their associates, and see their firm lose clients and income; or cut their losses by cutting the associates, and deciding never to take on those kinds of pro bono cases again. The authoritarians win, and they didn't even have to put anyone in prison. Posted by: CaseyL at January 13, 2007 06:15 PM | Permalink to this comment
CaseyL - AFAIK, representing the detainees would likely require approval by several partners, possibly up to and including the managing partner of those firms (or at least of the office doing the representation). From what I hear, no client is likely to drop a firm over this (and many actively support it). Posted by: Ugh at January 13, 2007 06:26 PM | Permalink to this comment
casey l: "It puts the firms' managing partners in a tricky position: stand by their associates, and see their firm lose clients and income; or cut their losses by cutting the associates, and deciding never to take on those kinds of pro bono cases again. The authoritarians win, and they didn't even have to put anyone in prison." rest assured the vast majority of the partners at these firms don't consider themselves in anything remotely approaching a "tricky position" given this idiocy from stimson. the pro bono representations will go on, at both associate and partner levels (perhaps more so now). this whole idiotic episode won't even have a de mimimis impact on their per partner profits (their clients are way too sophisticated for this crap), it's the principle they'll care about, and rightly so. Posted by: greg djerejian at January 13, 2007 06:57 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg: don't forget the WSJ op ed saying the same thing, yesterday. (Via TPM) Posted by: hilzoy at January 13, 2007 07:09 PM | Permalink to this comment
and Sully has even more disturbing news. Posted by: Ugh at January 13, 2007 07:20 PM | Permalink to this comment
most partners at these types of firms i've been in contact w/ are rather underwhelmed by the WSJ op-ed pages, and read the paper for the hard (and fire-walled off) news section--and to keep abreast of the Street. The Tarantos and Henningers are not taken seriously by your typical, say, M&A partners at S&C, at least I'd hope. But maybe the dumbing-down even of our elites is worse than I realize....though again, that hasn't been my general experience. But still, I take Hilzoy's comment, and wonder too if this might be getting coordinated somehow in wider manner (beyond Stimson and this joker Crowley giving Coulter a run for her money)? If so, even more important we get higher-ups in the Administration to explicitly renounce. Meantime, Pat Leahy and others on the Hill need to raise a shit-storm over this. This is exactly the kind of stuff the election was about. Posted by: greg djerejian at January 13, 2007 07:24 PM | Permalink to this comment
During the McCarthy era, many of the big firms each worked together to provide pro-bono representation to people accused of being evil communists. Many of the major firms agreed to each represent one defendant so as to avoid being singled out and black balled, just as you are seeing here. There has been an effort, and it appears to have been successful, to have large firms commit pro-bono resources to the prisoners in Cuba. The legal machine is slow to start it's wheels but the heavy hitters are getting in the game and the administration is scared shitless. These firms have the resources, brains and balls to stand up against this undemocratic administration. Watch for more rhetoric and more desperation as each of their legal arguements are slowed shredded out from under them. Posted by: tregen at January 13, 2007 07:33 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg is quite correct, there is no direct actual danger to said firms, indeed one rather suspects the inverse with respect to the effort as the clumsy, rube-like nature of the demarche will infuriate the White & Case, Clear Gottlieb world. What is dangerous is the fact that someone so clearly unfit for the position and with such profoundly dangerous ideas is in such a position. I am not personally one for calling for heads, but the US officialdom rather must deliver up this one's head, the demarche was at best revealing of stunning unfitness for the position in sheer PR terms alone. Sadly, one rather suspects the current American administration will remain utterly oblivious to its inflicting damage on itself. Posted by: The Lounsbury at January 13, 2007 07:41 PM | Permalink to this comment
It is worth adding that this is the sort of statement I hear all the time out here in Middle East, made by the lackeys of the various authoritarian governments. Perhaps said official would feel more at home in Cairo? Posted by: The Lounsbury at January 13, 2007 07:44 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Sadly, one rather suspects the current American administration will remain utterly oblivious to its inflicting damage on itself." ya think? Posted by: greg djerejian at January 13, 2007 07:50 PM | Permalink to this comment
I think the Gonzalez quote Ugh is referrring to is in the article
Yeah, that was what I was referring to. Of course, the craven hypocrisy of that statement is astonishing. Posted by: Ugh at January 13, 2007 08:10 PM | Permalink to this comment
Was it? My impression is that swing voters were fed up with incompetence and corruption. If they were similarly trouble by the administration's use of terrorism as a pretext for abuse of power and eroding civil liberties, I don't recall seeing any evidence of it.
It may be worth noting that this was not actually a crime. Posted by: David Tomlin at January 13, 2007 08:15 PM | Permalink to this comment
"If so, even more important we get higher-ups in the Administration to explicitly renounce. Meantime, Pat Leahy and others need to raise a shit-storm over this. This is the kind of stuff the election was about." Pat Leahy has zero credibility. Is there any citizen, who upon hearing the (rather indistingushed) fellow, would say, "Oh, well, Pat's mad so the (fill-in-the-blank) actions must be wrong"? Not a chance. Ditto with just about any Senator's pontifications. More to the point. The election had squat to do with "this stuff." The blood colored red, white and blue in Baghdad's streets is what the election was about. Period. Obviously the Deaniacs, the NYTimes intelligentsia and, yep, the Emanuel blue-dogs rabidly eschew the Orwellian spectre, as do a handful on the right. And kudos to them. But make no mistake. If Baghdad was earlier holding schoolboard meetings rather than recreating the methodologies of Tamerlane, the GOP would still be minding the store. A few law firms getting McCarthyized does not have the gravitas you suspect in the EYES OF THE PUBLIC. Not when their (the firms') cri de coeur, anyway, has them equally enriching themselves over the defense of assorted scalawags bent on our ruin. When the defense is pro bono, give us a wake up call. BTW, great lede, great commentary, great site.
Edit to add: By pro bono, I mean purely so. Not pro bono when said firm also has a billion dollar legal contract with defendant's friends, family or supporters. Posted by: resh at January 13, 2007 08:26 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg: "Sadly, one rather suspects the current American administration will remain utterly oblivious to its inflicting damage on itself." ya think? Well, I am by nature an optimist, and so have to retain some shred of belief that this curiously incompetent band of cretins might eventually tire of pounding away at their own heads with hammers. Posted by: The Lounsbury at January 13, 2007 08:50 PM | Permalink to this comment
"this is exactly the kind of stuff the election was about." i simply meant getting guys like webb and casey to replace ideologue crazies (Santorum) or frat-type mediocrities (Allen) would give (at least some) hope of real Congressional oversight for a change, whether on Iraq policy, reconstruction contracts, Patriot Act type issues, detainee/torture issues, etc. etc. I don't necessarily see massive movement, alas, but hopefully at least some bloody oversight, for a change. meantime the gonzalez quote is very weak. i repeat, very weak. we need to see some disciplinary action re: Stimson, a more forceful statement directly repudiating his idiotic comments at least at the Gonzalez level, etc. p.s. Lounsbury "Well, I am by nature an optimist, and so have to retain some shred of belief that this curiously incompetent band of cretins might eventually tire of pounding away at their own heads with hammers." I hear you, but we seem Panglossian at times, no? Posted by: greg djerejian at January 13, 2007 08:51 PM | Permalink to this comment
I work in private equity in emerging markets, MENA. That probably makes me pangloassian by definition at some level. Or merely a glutton for punishement. Posted by: The Lounsbury at January 13, 2007 09:38 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg, Wait until Rush, Hannity, Beck and there ilk start taking to the airwaves talking about one business to boycott because they use one of the "AQ loving" law firms. A friend of mine(who works @ Baker) told me over new years that he was defending a detainee. I said to him "great" but I thought "wow that is brave", because I just assumed that Stimson types were all over the place and I did not need the NYT to alert me. None of this surprises me. I am trader, and in the run up to 04 elections me and number guys in my shop got political for the first time, giving heavily to dems. It was not 6mo later the SEC was sniffing around our firm. We were very proactive(and had done nothing wrong) but still felt lucky to be left alone. I llike to think of what happen to us as the inverse of the Mack incdent so well chroneicled in the NYT. Hence, I am cautious about how and where I post. Just because I am paranoid does not mean at least one person is not out to get me! Greg you are brave for running this blog, being honest and not fearing any potential consequences to your career. I check your site almost daily for insight. Posted by: centrist at January 13, 2007 11:16 PM | Permalink to this comment
A senior U.S. official I spoke to speculates that this information might cause something of scandal, since so much of the pro bono work being done to tilt the playing field in favor of al Qaeda appears to be subsidized by legal fees from the Fortune 500. "Corporate CEOs seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists" who deliberately target the U.S. economy, he opined."
“Lawyers represent people in criminal cases to fulfill a core American value: the treatment of all people equally before the law. To impugn those who are doing this critical work — and doing it on a volunteer basis — is deeply offensive to members of the legal profession, and we hope to all Americans.”"
or... why should we use our legal system to protect those whose stated intent is to destroy that legal system? Posted by: neill at January 13, 2007 11:56 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Should one distinguish between "the treatment of all people equally before the law" and the treatment of prisoners of war bent on the actual destruction of our republic and those same attendant laws and rights?" Good question. Here's another. Would these same law firms kindly list the names of those US inner-city kids (detainees of a more degenerative war) for whom they do pro bono work? Surely their egalitarian spirit and noblesse oblige are not limited to dark-skinned fellows named Muhammed.
It's hard to read this comment clearly: Good question. Here's another. Would these same law firms kindly list the names of those US inner-city kids (detainees of a more degenerative war) for whom they do pro bono work? Surely their egalitarian spirit and noblesse oblige are not limited to dark-skinned fellows named Muhammed. Of course the same law firms do in fact do pro bono work on US inner-city issues. I recall long ago assisting a lawyer on just such a thing. What would be the point of listing such names? But with respect to the question why should we use our legal system to protect those whose stated intent is to destroy that legal system? certainly yes, you should. The rule of law being just that. It is rather obvious - of course this taking for argument sake that the detainees are in fact 'trying to destroy' anything at all. Posted by: The Lounsbury at January 14, 2007 12:39 AM | Permalink to this comment
Good question. Here's another. Would these same law firms kindly list the names of those US inner-city kids (detainees of a more degenerative war) for whom they do pro bono work? Surely their egalitarian spirit and noblesse oblige are not limited to dark-skinned fellows named Muhammed. You are correct ....all lawyers at large firm are strongly encouraged to pro bono work and most of the time it is "those US inner-city kids (detainees of a more degenerative war) "whom they are representing. Posted by: centrist at January 14, 2007 12:46 AM | Permalink to this comment
you didn't answer the question. WHY should we use our legal system to protect those whose stated intent is to destroy our legal system -- and the republic for which it stands?
The stated goal of the 'flag' under which they fight is to impose their rule of law, sharia, on everyone else's. Posted by: neill at January 14, 2007 12:58 AM | Permalink to this comment
It's good to hear law firms are cooperating to represent the detainees, a la the way they did during the McCarthy era. Maybe that will protect them once the Limbaugh-Hannity chorus gets going, as it assuredly will. "Why defend people dedicated to destroying our way of life?" is a very tedious meme, factually inaccurate as well as morally and legally obtuse. Do you make the same argument against defending accused mobsters and drag dealers? How about against accused rapists and murderers? All of these can be said to be 'dedicated to destroying our way of life' - with, I might add, more objective accuracy. Organized crime, particularly, has done more to destroy the American way of life than all the AQ attacks combined. Take the argument to its logical conclusion and no lawyer defends anyone accused of any crime. While I wouldn't be at all surprised if the local trolls thought that, indeed, no person accused of a crime deserved legal representation, it's certainly not a point of view anyone but a troll would have. Posted by: CaseyL at January 14, 2007 01:13 AM | Permalink to this comment
What distinguishes mobsters and drug dealers from the likes of al quaeda? Uh.......9-11......? Try to think outside of your legal box. AQ plays our media and our legal system like a stradivarius. Posted by: neill at January 14, 2007 01:31 AM | Permalink to this comment
Mobsters and drug dealers are responsible for far more death and misery in the United States than Al Qaeda ever has been and is likely to be. Neill--to paraphrase--appears to believe that we should commit suicide in order to avoid being murdered. Posted by: Tom S at January 14, 2007 01:43 AM | Permalink to this comment
And with the arrival of neill and resh, the curtain closes on an interesting and informed conversation. Anyway, thanks GD, Lounsbury, centrist. CaseyL -- consider yourself warned. You're in for a serious wankfest. Posted by: sglover at January 14, 2007 01:44 AM | Permalink to this comment
you know when sg starts in with the insults, there is some issue that is being avoided. please, somebody: WHY should we use our legal system to protect those whose stated intent is to destroy our legal system -- and the republic for which it stands? Posted by: neill at January 14, 2007 02:09 AM | Permalink to this comment
It's just that trolls are so stupid. "The difference between organized crime and AQ is 9/11," my god; how can anyone with any self-respect say something so utterly witless? Posted by: CaseyL at January 14, 2007 02:12 AM | Permalink to this comment
Neil Because if we do not use our legl aystem to protect those whose stated intent is to destroy our legal system, then they have suceeded in destroying our legal system. It is that simple. Posted by: Tregen at January 14, 2007 02:28 AM | Permalink to this comment
Because that is what the United States--and the rule of law--is. During the Cold War, in which the Soviet Union was actually capable of destroying the United States and everything it stood for, we somehow managed not to do what people like Neill wished, and survived. We didn't seek to deprive the Rosenbergs of their legal rights, for example (much good it did them). Is it necessary to point out that if people like Neill have their way, the United States as we know it will be destroyed, and far more effectively than Al Qaeda ever could have done through direct action? Posted by: Tom S at January 14, 2007 02:30 AM | Permalink to this comment
these are not US citizens, these are enemy combatants entitled to no legal protections under the geneva conventions that you're talking about. Posted by: neill at January 14, 2007 02:49 AM | Permalink to this comment
Jose Padilla is a US citizen. Do you support how he has been treated? Posted by: Tom S at January 14, 2007 02:55 AM | Permalink to this comment
I'm talking enemy combatants who are not US citizens. Posted by: neill at January 14, 2007 02:59 AM | Permalink to this comment
Under the deeply flawed rules for military tribunals for those detained at Guantanamo (assuming that there is ever enough evidence to try them), the defendants are entitled to legal representation; and under certain circumstances, they may appeal to US courts. Does Neill have any objection to this, and does he have problem with lawyers from top law firms representing them? Posted by: Tom S at January 14, 2007 03:12 AM | Permalink to this comment
"Wow. What depths won't this Administration stoop too? Will the President renounce these comments? Will this dirty whiff of McCarthyism be condemned at the highest levels? Repugnant. P.S. The notion that CEOs will steer business away from storied firms like Cleary Gottlieb and Shearman & Sterling is absurd, of course, In that case aren't you just talking out of both sides of your mouth here? If the notion is so "absurd" that why would you be pretend to be so outraged by it? o_O Posted by: Towering Barbarian at January 14, 2007 03:54 AM | Permalink to this comment
Feh. For "that why" in the previous post please read "then why". *^_^* That said, the question still stands. I doubt that anyone who posted against the notion would truly be bothering were it not that they themselves felt this to be a reasonable possibility. No one ever wastes much time protesting that which they truly believe impossible. :P Posted by: Towering Barbarian at January 14, 2007 04:32 AM | Permalink to this comment
"Of course the same law firms do in fact do pro bono work on US inner-city issues. I recall long ago assisting a lawyer on just such a thing. What would be the point of listing such names?" To demonstrate the purity of their efforts absent some fiduciary agenda driving the matter. Then I'll take them seriously. I don't recall one high-priced lawyer ever, ever showing up in any Philly courtroom on a p/b basis to defend any of the brothers. Not once. Or sisters. Are you serious? Hell, those poor bastards were lucky if the damn public defender had the decency to get out of bed.... I'd wager any amount of money that if we went to any criminal proceeding next week, in any city, you wouldn't be able to find a high priced lawyer taking on a serious, though quotidian case involving inner-city kids (pro bono) if your life depended on it. And dont count the OJ Simpson case. You know it and I know it. That you once saw it happen proves the exception-barely. The point is, this rhetoric of p/b work being done for AQ to ensure that our jurisprudence remains golden and inviolate is total horseshit. This ain't about the scales of justice. C'mon, man. It's about Saudi and mideast oil money...about quids pro quo...about making sure that high-priced firms kiss the ass of anybody with an oil nexus who''ll fuel their yachts and stock options, even AQ ass. If those Gitmo detainees were from the streets of Baltimore, the only fancy lawyer you'd find in the area would be the one wanting his dope money. Sell the legal-ethics ruse to the in-house dupes. You neednt look far.
"Neill--to paraphrase--appears to believe that we should commit suicide in order to avoid being murdered." Omg. Non sequitur meet Chicken Little. How in the flock is exposing dubious legal representations tantamount to our civil death? How about you give me one high-priced firm who's suffered a permanent black-eye as a result of their complicity in this mess before you have democracy crashing.
"Under the deeply flawed rules for military tribunals for those detained at Guantanamo (assuming that there is ever enough evidence to try them), the defendants are entitled to legal representation; and under certain circumstances, they may appeal to US courts. Does Neill have any objection to this, and does he have problem with lawyers from top law firms representing them?" Yes, actually, I do. I would much prefer the tribunal appoint a green jag to defend them. I fail to understand why a top law firm would choose to defend an adherent of the folks tht brought us 9-11. Surely not every firm does. Why do some firms take these cases, and others don't? Once it is clearly established that these folks are willing combatants for AQ, let em rot, I say.
"Because if we do not use our legl aystem to protect those(aliens)whose stated intent is to destroy our legal system, then they have suceeded in destroying our legal system." fucktarditry at its most opaque. Posted by: neill at January 14, 2007 08:08 AM | Permalink to this comment
Well, at the risk of injecting some actual information for the profoundly stupid (that would be neill and his compatriot)), in my experience - as a corporate client of the large firms, the large firms have ongoing pro bono programs often structured as participation in NGOs such as Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. Some firms have more dedication to pro bono - and specifically to taking unpopular engagements out of a dedication to such quaint concepts as rule of law and general human rights. Indeed, I happen to know, having interacted for several years, that the very, very right and Republican Sr. partners at places like White & Case were rather dedicated to liberalism - that would be in its proper sense and not in the queer distortion of the word among Americans - or free markets and liberty if you will. Rather obviously, some persons are not of the intellectual capacity and moral fiber to actually value liberty, and thus are unable to grasp such engagements. Posted by: The Lounsbury at January 14, 2007 12:06 PM | Permalink to this comment
Rather obviously, some persons are not of the intellectual capacity and moral fiber to actually recognize when liberty is being intentionally manipulated by those who would destroy liberty Posted by: neill at January 14, 2007 02:52 PM | Permalink to this comment
Once it is clearly established that these folks are willing combatants for AQ, let em rot, I say. Once it's clearly established by an unbiased law court giving them every reasonable chance to make their case, then let them suffer their legal punishment. Deciding they're willing AQ combatants without due process is only OK if you trust your government. And if you trust your government you don't need a democracy. This is stuff that americans ought to have clear before they get out of high school. What's wrong with US education that people can be so confused about such basic issues?
They're not citizens, they're enemy combatants for an ideology dedicated to wiping out any law but sharia. As such they are not entitled to legal protections we take for granted. I trust my government only BECAUSE it is democratically-elected. Posted by: neill at January 14, 2007 03:58 PM | Permalink to this comment
I seem to hear the frightened shrieking of the Chicken Little Panicked. Liberty is under no existential threat in the West from a small number of marginal - but yes episodically murderous - bearded fanatics. Military and police tactics within the structure of rule of law have proven effective (of course not infallible, but nothing is) in Europe - the UK, France - in handling such threats before with respect to IRA, Red Army and even Islamists (e.g. France). Certainly, of course in both the UK and France some civil liberties were attenuated (and I think sometimes unnecessarily so), but never judicial oversight nor proper legal oversight. For that way lies authoritarianism. It is under threat from the panicked fools who presume ipso facto that all drawn into a security net are in fact the "ideological" opponents - a dubious proposition to start with in relation to the Afghan sourced prisoners who clearly now seem to have often kidnapped for money - and the exagerated threat - a real danger to be sure, terrorism, but not existential and thus quite manageable in the framework of rule of law. But of course the mentally challenged pants-wetters will shriek on regardless. Posted by: The Lounsbury at January 14, 2007 04:45 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Military and police tactics within the structure of rule of law have proven effective in handling such threats", uttered by a complacent fool on 9-10-01. Posted by: neill at January 14, 2007 05:22 PM | Permalink to this comment
Complacent fool? No, not a whinging pants-wetter. You do note I am not an American resident, mate. Your frightened blundering about after 11 Sep merely highilights that panic in response to incompetence solves nothing. Posted by: The Lounsbury at January 14, 2007 07:07 PM | Permalink to this comment
where you reside matters not a whit to me, mate. "....a small number of marginal - but yes episodically murderous - bearded fanatics." clearly you don't take seriously the global revolutionary war now being fought against the West and its Arab allies by jihadists of various stripes -- the power and morale of which is magnified many times to Western publics by a compliant Western media. and what deleterious impact an American retreat/surrender will have on that struggle. AQ's media strategy will have been the key if they ultimately prevail. Posted by: neill at January 14, 2007 07:48 PM | Permalink to this comment
The War On Terror is an unfortunate misnomer. This is the War for the Western Mind. And liberals are unwitting allies of the jihadists in that war. Posted by: neill at January 14, 2007 07:57 PM | Permalink to this comment
Liberty is under no existential threat in the West from a small number of marginal - but yes episodically murderous - bearded fanatics. Military and police tactics within the structure of rule of law have proven effective (of course not infallible, but nothing is) in Europe - the UK, France - in handling such threats before with respect to IRA, Red Army and even Islamists (e.g. France). Certainly, of course in both the UK and France some civil liberties were attenuated (and I think sometimes unnecessarily so), but never judicial oversight nor proper legal oversight. For that way lies authoritarianism. Nice try, Lounsbury. Proportionality and any sense of history seem to be really alien concepts to neill. Serious questions for neill: Have you ever traveled? Where do you live, a large city, a provincial backwater, Midwest, East Coast, where? Do you know any immigrants? I already know that you couldn't make the cut for military service, so now I'm trying to get a sense of why you're so willfully obtuse.
nice try, sg. ferret out personal information so you can attack that, thereby side-stepping the debate at hand. I've been making a consistent argument regarding proportionality hereabouts and have had no takers, including your learned self. Posted by: neill at January 14, 2007 08:22 PM | Permalink to this comment
Why don't you answer the questions? They're not very specific. I think what you've been making is consistent verbiage, a different thing from an informed argument. I want to know why. I really don't care about attacking you, because I think you're an idiot, and nowadays I simply scroll past almost all of your posts. So why not give me a clue about the source of your "insight"? Posted by: sglover at January 14, 2007 08:32 PM | Permalink to this comment
In a way, people like neill helps us all brush up why the rule of law, civil rights and democracy are good things because we answer his high school questions with those reasons. On the other hand, if interesting discussion is to return to Belgravia Dispatch I suggest banning some ip's, Greg. Posted by: Klaus at January 14, 2007 11:09 PM | Permalink to this comment
Amusing whanking. clearly you don't take seriously the global revolutionary war now being fought against the West and its Arab allies by jihadists of various stripes -- the power and morale of which is magnified many times to Western publics by a compliant Western media. No, I don't as it doesn't exist. What does exist is the marginal threat of bombings and the like by groups that differ not much from the same threat one saw in Europe from the equally deluded hard "revolutionary" Left of the 1970s. Dangerous, certainly, but those groups were not a threat to the very existance of the French, UK or other states. The Soviets were, but that was another matter. As such, I am not in a panic, nor a bed-wetting cry baby about the situation. The only threat in the West to its liberal values - libertarian to you I would suppose - is from over-reaction out of shrieking cowardice that would make marginal scraggly bearded guerrilas into Hollywoodesque James Bond threats. Delusional and stupid. and what deleterious impact an American retreat/surrender will have on that struggle. The American engagement is having a negative impact; support for American values, and policies has plummeted globally as well as in the Islamic world, and you have conservative papers such as the Financial Times pondering the dangerousness of American policy - it goes to illustrate the sheer inanity of people such as yourself, blustering ignorant cowards really hand waving on about al Qaeda media strategies when the poor organisation's work is being done for it by your own government in its sheer and grotesque incompetence.
"Liberty is under no existential threat in the West from a small number of marginal - but yes episodically murderous - bearded fanatics." Evidence please. You can babble on ad nauseam about the marginality of the AQ threat, but all you're doing, in addition to making a fool of yourself, is whistling past the graveyard. Seems you somehow misunderstood the message from AQ's last go-around of, cough, "marginality"-from the UK (London) bombings to the Madrid bombings to the Bali bombings to the USA bombings, and beyond. Were those mirages of bedwetters, too, or the non-marginal death-porn lust of mindless Muslim zealots, for whose sympathizers you now wax sentimental and beg due process? (Perspective alert: just one! AQ bombing in the UK and the death total therein surpasses any single incident of the hundreds unleashed by the provisional IRA on the British government. Need we discuss Bali or Madrid?) But really, Your Honor, civility still demands that we extend an impartial moment with counsel to the hour's Grim Reaper, lest we ingest his soul and become the monster. Ah, yea. And bring him a glazed donut. Let me emphasize their sobering point for you. (Do let us know, before you're ten feet under, preferrably, how it fits into your quixotic dreamstate of reasoned justice.) AQ's raison d'etre is to see you dead. Your kids dead, too. And your dog. But don't take my word for it. Go ask the thousands of grieving relatives, as you whistle past their graveyards, if AQ's threat is marginal.
"Well, at the risk of injecting some actual information...yadda, yadda, yadda...in my experience..." What makes you think the "experience" of someone writing under a pseudonym counts as *information*? o_O I suspect that in this case "unsubstantiated claims" would be a more accurate phrase than "information". With that in mind, let us continue. :D "- as a corporate client of the large firms, the large firms have ongoing pro bono programs often structured as participation in NGOs such as Lawyers Committee for Human Rights." So in other words you claim that the lawyers who we are speaking of engage in political activism under the guise of charity work and then call it "pro bono" work in order to get a tax writeoff for riding their political hobbyhorses? O_o Duly noted. :P And if that *isn't* what you are claiming then let's see you come up with a few verifiable examples of pro bono legal work by these large firms that are genuinely apolitical. ^O^ "Some firms have more dedication to pro bono - and specifically to taking unpopular engagements out of a dedication to such quaint concepts as rule of law and general human rights." In that case it is only fair that these large firms that are dedicated to such quaint concepts as the rule of sharia over secular law and general terrorist rights should be pointed out for their dedication to the firms who employ *them* so that their employers may reward them for their dedication to the rule of sharia in the manner that they truly deserve, ne? ^_~ Or does the irony of your opposition to a Freedom of Information Act request in the name of "human rights" truly elude you? o_O Posted by: Towering Barbarian at January 15, 2007 07:24 AM | Permalink to this comment
So in other words you claim that the lawyers who we are speaking of engage in political activism under the guise of charity work and then call it "pro bono" work in order to get a tax writeoff for riding their political hobbyhorses? Wow, for a guy who objects to people sharing anecdotes under pseudonyms, you sure do glean some amazing "facts" from thin air. You "know" that some lawyers perform pro bono work for tax write-offs and ideological gratification, eh? It's sure news to me that corporate lawyers are devoted Islamists. It's possible that they feel a professional obligation to uphold the standards of our legal system, is it not? Y'know, it's really frustrating arguing with you clowns on a lot of levels, but I think the main one is this: You don't know that the defendants in these proceedings are guilty, any more than I know that they're innocent. To paraphrase Peter Sellers in "Dr. Strangelove", That's what a TRIAL is for, you twit! We adhere to certain procedures and precautions to provide for a just outcome -- but also to arrive at the truth. And an essential part of that truth-finding process is that BOTH sides are effectively represented, even if they're not American citizens. Sorry, I guess you don't like it, but that's how our system works. I guess you prefer the infallible Soviet legal doctrine of "since we have you in a cell, you must be guilty". Posted by: sglover at January 15, 2007 08:25 AM | Permalink to this comment
sglover, But if you don't like the fact that this one was framed in a deliberately cynical manner then perhaps you and The Lounsbury might wish to go a little easier on the gratuitous flames so that I'm not provoked to further displays of cynicism at your expense? Just a thought! The fact that "NGOs such as Lawyers Committee for Human Rights." are indeed political groups is hardly disputable so for the moment I will merely note with interest that nobody so far has been able to provide an example of pro bono work that *wasn't* political. :P Now let us turn to what you claim is the "central question". "You don't know that the defendants in these proceedings are guilty, any more than I know that they're innocent. To paraphrase Peter Sellers in "Dr. Strangelove", That's what a TRIAL is for, you twit!" How many trials did German POWs get in WWII while being detained as POWs? How many trials did North Korean POWs get during the Korean War? How many trials do you think Sioux or Kiowas or Choctaw got during the Indian wars? Like it or not the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay are also POWs. Their non-uniformed activities in the service of a stateless patron has served to throw them into a legal limbo in which they deserve nothing from either civilian law or the Geneva Convention but that is pretty much their own fault. As POWs they get released when we feel like it and not a moment before - Trials not needed as far as *I* am concerned. I am not blind to the fact that we are involved with some legal ambiguities here that illustrate nicely the old saying "Hard cases make bad law" but I doubt that the political grandstanding on the part of Cleary Gottlieb and Shearman & Sterling is going to be of much help in that regard. The fact that our enemy is a stateless enemy does mean that we are probably going to have to dust off some old lawbooks in order to find precedents from the days of piracy, slavers, and other stateless enemies of nations from the past and even then create some new precedents for the days to come but - and this is important - neither useful applications of past precedents nor useful precedents for the future are going to be forthcoming if *you* guys insist on closing your eyes to the fact that these prisoners really are our enemies of war rather than mere domestic criminals. Sharia is as much rule of law as Common Law is. The question is not rule of law but rather *whose* rule of law will prevail. If Cleary Gottlieb and Shearman & Sterling choose to venture into grey areas of criminal and military law in order to support those who would overthrow Common Law to the point that one day terrorists succeed in imposing Sharia in place of Common Law do you really think Cleary Gottlieb and Shearman & Sterling will find it to their longterm benefit or the benefit of the Constitution that this took place? o_O For my own part I will continue to agree with the judge who once wrote that "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." ^_~ Posted by: Towering Barbarian at January 15, 2007 10:10 AM | Permalink to this comment
Towering Barbarian, you are stupid and say stupid things. Here's why: In Afghanistan, the US is fighting people without uniforms, making determining who is enemy and who is civilian difficult. The non-uniformed prisoners can be either. That's what a trial is supposed to determine. But you, Stalinist as ever, assume that everyone in Guantanamo is guilty because they are in Guantanamo. Like it or not the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay are also POWs. Their non-uniformed activities in the service of a stateless patron has served to throw them into a legal limbo in which they deserve nothing from either civilian law or the Geneva Convention but that is pretty much their own fault. They are not POWs. Rice says so. US administration says so. And you don't know beforehand that they engaged in 'non-uniformed activities', you simply assume they did because they are in prison. You could be right, you could be wrong. But you don't know. To determine that, that's what a trial is for, you twit. And that due process is what separates USA from a police state dictatorship. Did Sullivan send all these idiots here? Where do they come from? Posted by: Klaus at January 15, 2007 01:26 PM | Permalink to this comment
Well, as pointless as it may be, a response to resh: Evidence [of the marginality of al Qaeda threat] please. Rather self-evident, mate. A non-state actor with limited resources, which leaving aside ideology structurally resembles similar threats from organisations such as the Red Army Faction, IRA etc. They can, at the outside, kill thousands in rare spectacular terror attacks, as in on 11 Sep. That is not an existential threat to any country nor to the West. This is not the Soviet Red Army with a theoretical capacity to roll over Europe - a real existential threat, it is a bunch of marginals that have not even been able to overthrow weak regimes such as the Syrian or Yemani regimes. And you're scared of their threat to the West? Bollocks, pants-wetting bollocks. As in the case of IRA, ETA etc. al Qaeda is dangerous to citizens and can be disruptive, imposing costs on any given state in terms of security, but even on their home turf they are unable to achieve - as of yet - their goals. It is ridiculous idiocy to exagerate the threat. You can babble on ad nauseam about the marginality of the AQ threat, but all you're doing, in addition to making a fool of yourself, is whistling past the graveyard. I have a very tiny voilin to accompany your pants wetting. Seems you somehow misunderstood the message from AQ's last go-around of, cough, "marginality"-from the UK (London) bombings to the Madrid bombings to the Bali bombings to the USA bombings, and beyond. Quite the contrary, the terror acts confirm their marginality. If you read for comprehension rather than flailing about, wetting your pants in fear of straw men, you would note supra I cited the case of IRA, etc. They can kill. They can cause damage and impose costs. But in the end, the problem, as in the case of Red Terrorism, is managable and ultimately marginal. This in contrast to real threats, such as the past (although also in the end manageable) threat of Soviet invasion, etc. Were those mirages of bedwetters, too, or the non-marginal death-porn lust of mindless Muslim zealots, for whose sympathizers you now wax sentimental and beg due process? Your shrieking does not become more impressive in attempting to recycle my words, mate. Those events are similar to the wave of terror that Europe in the past mastered, and mastered using the tools already cited, police, intelligence and occasional para-military - and always in the cadre of rule of law like any civilised society. Shrieking panic to run to the tools of Dictatorship speaks ill of your courage and confidence in your system. Pity you lack perspective. I would add that due process is to prove that you have the right people in your net, rather than taking the route of the Red Dictators with blood on their hands, like Stalin, and ship off all in your net to the Gulag. The Gulag was rightly condemned by Right thinking people as a horror, and now in bed wetting fright, you want to replicate it. Bravo. Meanwhile, recent history shows that al-Qaeda type threats are masterable with the tools of civilised society, no need to recourse to the police state, its kangeroo procedures and the Gulag system of suspicion = guilt. But then I took to naming your types Right Bolsheviks for a reason, you have the Red Bolshevik mentality. Posted by: The Lounsbury at January 15, 2007 04:35 PM | Permalink to this comment
How many trials did German POWs get in WWII while being detained as POWs? How many trials did North Korean POWs get during the Korean War? How many trials do you think Sioux or Kiowas or Choctaw got during the Indian wars? Like it or not the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay are also POWs. I never ends with you people. First, assuming you even care about ethics and the appearance of ethical behavior, I'm not sure you want to cite the treatment of American Indians as a model for World War III or IV or V or whatever it is now. Of course, if you DO think that's an appropriate model, then I'm not sure what we have to discuss. However, if that's so, I'm not sure why you're objecting to some pro bono lawyering. Instead, you should be getting angry at the army, for even bothering to capture the detainees, when they should be torching whole provinces and generally sterilizing the landscape. So look, if you think the tactics of Lidice and Katyn Forest are appropriate, why don't you at least come clean and admit it? Citing Second World War POW's is also wildly off the mark. Those people were overwhelmingly uniformed members of state militaries, captured in battle. But among our current detainees there have already been documented instances of guys who were picked up simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or who were denounced because they were on the wrong side of some factional grudge. Without the truth-finding mechanism of a proper trial, we can't say who deserves imprisonment, and who does not. It does us no good to detain people who intended us no harm, and it's a betrayal of what, once upon a time, we called "the American Way". Posted by: sglover at January 15, 2007 06:34 PM | Permalink to this comment
"In that case it is only fair that these large firms that are dedicated to such quaint concepts as the rule of sharia over secular law and general terrorist rights should be pointed out for their dedication to the firms who employ *them* so that their employers may reward them for their dedication to the rule of sharia in the manner that they truly deserve, ne? ^_~" At the risk of ruining the symmetry of a perfectly wrathful discussion, we must pause on the odd occasion to admire an exquisite rejoinder. Cmon, ladies. Admit it. TB can take a bow for THAT one.
"Well, as pointless as it may be, a response to resh:" Never pointless, pal. I respect your insight. Really. I'll even agree that AQ is marginal IF the standard is the Rooskies.
Leaving aside ideology? Leaving aside ideology? Isn't that akin to asking: "But Mrs. Lincoln, other than THAT, how did you enjoy the play?" It's the "ideology" which makes AQ more than a marginal threat. I'm sure you're acquainted with the warped mentality of these Salafist jihadists, so I shallnt belabor the point. But trying to reduce them to the 70s C. leftist revolutionary gangs and their later cousins (from say Beider Meinhof to ETA) is to subsume an eschatologically oriented madness into the mosaic of conventional terrorism. Big mistake. "They can, at the outside, kill thousands in rare spectacular terror attacks, as in on 11 Sep." Hence my earlier comment, evidence please. Tell us why it is that a suitcase nuke (like a Russian made RA115) containing say the equal of a kiloton of TNT could not be a) obtained in due course (from a Pakistan?) and B) detonated in the West? What EVIDENCE do you have that this logistical eventuality is unlikely, especially since the ideological determination to pull it off is pronounced and ineluctable? "...that have not even been able to overthrow weak regimes such as the Syrian or Yemani regimes." Meaningless. AQ's strength or threat must be measured by its toxic influence and liminal control of its adherents. If it manages to recruit 100K zealots, today and tomorrow, who are dedicated to recapturing neanderthal man-that is, to making reason vanish-it holds more power than does a dozen regimes named Assad. "It is ridiculous idiocy to exagerate the threat." Said the geniuses on 910.
One more time: You halt the suitcase nuke how, specifically? Or do you deny they'd use it?
Nice effort at poisoning the well. You spend half your posts droning on about AQ bedwetting and, alas, can't wait to trot out the omnipresent Big Brother spectre. Pot meet kettle. Let me break the news to you, Orwell. No one on this site, nor the general audience reading it, has ever been smitten by anything close to a dictatorship. Everbody even still has their library privileges, oh my, despite the PATACT. Even your Gitmo housed loonies, at the end of the day, were given an 11th hour pass by the High Court. Not exactly the Gulag.
Mr. The Loundsbury, Your head is firmly implanted in the 70's. You have no sense of political, cultural and technological advances in the new century. You are a friggin dinosaur, and your profundities will be accepted as coming from such. Posted by: neill at January 16, 2007 04:11 AM | Permalink to this comment
Quite the argument there, neill. Great argument. Posted by: Klaus at January 16, 2007 09:36 AM | Permalink to this comment
Queer that I am involved in venture capital, eh, being stuck in the 1970s. Posted by: The Lounsbury at January 16, 2007 10:24 AM | Permalink to this comment
anyone who equates the jihadist threat globally with that of past threats from the IRA or the Red Brigade is just willfully ignorant. which is why this thread has seen the last of me. out. Posted by: neill at January 16, 2007 03:06 PM | Permalink to this comment
Goodby, Neill. There'll be many a dry eye here when you're gone.
|
|
About Belgravia Dispatch
Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization. More About the Author Email the Author Recent Entries
Gaddis' Kennan Biography: Some Preliminary Musings
The Folly of Afghanistan The Syria Conundrum Brzezinski on Execution of the Asia "Pivot" Donilon's Missing Word Search
The News
Financial Times
New York Times Wall Street Journal The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation Real Clear Politics Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder American Footprints The American Scene Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Washington Monthly James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Marc Lynch Josh Marshall Progressive Realist Obsidian Wings George Packer Gideon Rachman Andrew Sullivan Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy Steve Walt James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog Seeking Alpha The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks
Security
Books
American Scholar
LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily TNR's The Book The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Epicurean Corner
Archives
Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
