How Dare They Represent the Innocent?
Rowan Scarborough in Human Events has a predictably crude piece—a “tedious brief scene,” as the Bard would have it, somehow plodding despite being gruel-thin—arguing that the lawyers who represent Guantanamo detainees deserve our scorn. It’s notable really only for the massive slapstick own-goal the author scores against his own repulsive thesis, apparently without noticing it, when he finally gets around to laying out facts:
There were once over 800 detainees in Cuba, compared with just over 200 today. Intelligence sources tell Human Events there is evidence that more than 100 released suspects have gone back to terrorism.
Now, nobody ought to find this sort of estimate, drawn on unspecified “evidence” from unnamed “intelligence sources,” particularly credible. And even if it were, the “gone back” is pure speculation: Snatch up a bunch of people and imprison them without charges in an environment packed with Islamist radicals for a few years, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a few erstwhile goat-herders emerge with violently anti-American feelings.
But bracket all that and pretend these numbers should be taken seriously. The implication is that of the 600 ex-detainees, we’ve got at least 500 who could not plausibly be shown to be any kind of serious threat, and upon release have demonstrated that they’re not, in fact, any kind of threat, despite the ordeal they suffered. The premise of the article is that these 500 apparently harmless people should be rotting in prison without legal representation, and that we should shun the attorneys who did volunteer to represent them. Can we shun the ethically-lobotomized reptiles who are capable of writing tripe like this instead?
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Nutpicking insane articles from Human Events is a little too easy, no? It’s like linking to a Chuck Norris editorial and saying “Hey, this guy is crazy!” Yeah, we know.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time the habeas corpus attorneys at Gitmo have come under attack, and not just in “nutpicking insane articles.” In 2007, a Pentagon official, Cully Stimson, urged corporate clients to make their law firms choose between “representing terrorists and representing reputable firms.” I do not want to denigrate the work of constitutional lawyers and law professors, but partners and attorneys from corporate law firms primarily drove the habeas corpus movement forward to ensure representation for the Gitmo detainees. Many of whom, as Julian points out, appear to be innocent, winding up there thanks to $5,000 bounty rewards handed out by the U.S. military.
In response to another comment. See in context »Why weren’t they shot on the battle field?
Whenever somebody accused of a crime–whether a murder in Chicago or treason during a so-called war on terror–top-notch, ethical legal representation on both sides is vital. When lawyers for the government or the defendant are hamstrung by lack of resources, lack of access to information, or lack of a moral core, miscarriages of justice occur over and over. That’s what I write about on my T/S blog. Anybody who thinks otherwise just isn’t paying attention–or is paying attention, but has chosen the path of intellectual dishonesty.