Slanderous Stimson

Last week, a member of the Bush administration said something stupid. Although that happens a lot, this instance was particularly notable.\nCharles "Cully" Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs at the Pentagon, used a radio interview to condemn the lawyers who represent inmates at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Stimson suggested boycotts of firms that represent such defendants. The Pentagon has since stated that Stimson does not speak for the administration.\nThere are many problems with the statements made by Mr. Stimson.\nFirst of all, Stimson doesn't seem to understand how the American legal system is supposed to work. However, as a fan of television shows about lawyers (remember Ed?), I know quite a bit about the legal process. According to the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, all persons accused of a criminal offense (in this case, terrorism) are allowed the assistance of legal counsel in preparing a defense.\nThe last time I checked, the Constitution is a fairly important legal document. Not only are such lawyers allowed, they are necessary as a check on the judicial system -- to make sure that the power of the system isn't abused.\nIn addition, Stimson did something that could actually be illegal. In the course of the interview, he was asked how he thinks the defendants are paying for their representation. Stimson responded, "It's not clear, is it? Some (of the firms) will maintain that they're doing it out of the goodness of their heart ... and I suspect they are. Others are receiving monies from who knows where and I'd be curious to have them explain that."\nIt would appear that Stimson is accusing these firms -- which he mentioned by name in the interview -- of possibly receiving payment from terrorist cells, completely without evidence. If that is in fact what he meant to do, then he has committed an act of slander.\nThe worst thing Stimson did, however, was to emphasize the economic impact of the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks over the human impact. \n"And I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001," he said, "those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms."\nThe main problem here is not ignorance of the law. It is not slander, nor is it insensitivity to the victims of Sept. 11. The problem lies in how the war on terrorism is being fought. America claims to be the land of the free, a shining beacon of hope and democracy, an example to be followed by the rest of the world. But we have people being held with no charges in Guantanamo Bay who are now being told they should not be allowed legal representation or fair trials.\nThe United States claims to be fighting for freedom, but it is betraying its principles to try to win this war. We have to ask ourselves a question: Are we really protecting freedom -- or are we destroying it?