Stimson wasn’t telling corporations anything they didn’t already know (or couldn’t easily find out if they cared). Every law firm that’s part of the Guantanamo Bay Bar Association, of which I know, not only hasn’t hid but has actively publicized its pro bono work. It’s sold as one of the fundamental values of lawyering: everyone has a right to due process.

As another commenter has said, what Stimson was doing was putting government pressure on the law firms and their corporate clients. I wouldn’t object to this if he were a private person (there are some who think Wal-Mart’s devotion to diversity in its law firms is due to pressure from people like Jesse Jackson), but this is so inappropriate for a government official that “chilling effect” doesn’t come close.

Large law firms don’t pick causes that their major clients are likely to find horribly objectionable. (That’s why you don’t see such firms taking up Erin Brockovich-style class actions on behalf of the downtrodden against corporations.) It would be like Domino’s funding a campaign to promote veganism.

…detainees should be given trials, but implying that the non-Afghan detainees are innocents caught up in indiscriminate cross fire is ridiculous.

I must point out that: a) Nobody on this thread has so far has implied that non-Afghan detainees are innocents caught in the crossfire. Tash is merely pointing out that non-brown detainees also exist; and b) If one appeals to logic alone, one sees no reason why someone hanging out with the Taliban must be up to no good just because he is non-Afghan.

An illustration of (b) is provided by the travails of a good friend of our family (a non-Sikh) who was briefly incarcerated in the ’80s simply because he was a student at a Canadian university who hung out with members of a Sikh “village-defence committee” in Punjab: ergo he must’ve been up to no good! Fact: this person was tracking the progress of a public-funded immunization project.

I am somewhat discomfitted by your rhetorical “ridiculous”. It is not this blog’s readership, but the U.S. justice system, that is supposed to presume that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. While logic is not a fashionable thing, it is only a cold application of logic that ensures that this admirable system is preserved. Even if one grants that there is some sort of logic-of-expectations behind your certitude that non-Afghans detainees “must be” guilty as hell, that “ridiculous” betrays a decision not of the head, but of the heart. Perhaps you want to be mindful of what you call ridiculous, lest the power of such words cloud those faculties that ensure that the justice system stays fair ?

The Australian guy, David Hicks, is actually a Muslim (he converted and then went to Pakistan/Afghanistan).

I don’t think there any non-muslims in Guantanamo (?)

After 9/11 most of the PR activity from groups like CAIR was around communicating that they were “People of the Book”. Implicit was that this was an aberration as they are not godless commies or pagans.

Tash- I agree that Stimson is an idiot and that the detainees should be given trials, but implying that the non-Afghan detainees are innocents caught up in indiscriminate cross fire is ridiculous. At the end of the day Hicks (the Aussie you are probably referring to) and the Brit-Pakistanis were probably not engaged in international terrorism. They were just enthralled with the Taliban’s disgusting vision of utopia. If the Left chooses to defend liberty and the court trials that it demands, it will find itself with many new allies and wider scope. If it chooses to elicit sympathy for these detainees, this will just have to remain a cause for rants in Counterpunch

Well put. I too am bothered when people defend themselves with lines like “I am not a Muslim, I am a Sikh” or “I am persian not arab” because it really doesn’t matter who you are, it shouldn’t be happening to you even if you were one.

I fully agree with Neal with no e on this. As a lawyer, I find that many people do not fully understand due process, civil procedure and what it is that lawyers exactly do. For example, a friend of mine is a federal public defender who routinely goes to court on behalf of rapists, murderers, and drug dealers. So often she isn’t actually defending the allegations against her clients; rather, she is arguing against technical inconsistencies and errors which have resulted in her clients receiving unfair trials. I find that what Mr. Raut is doing is similar. A lawyer’s work (especially in the pro bono field) so often revolves around ensuring that their clients receive fair and equal representation. The bigger goal isn’t necessarily to argue that suspected terrorists and rapists are morally righteous; rather, it is to ensure that they are secured their right to a fair trial. The whole point is to refine, bolster and strengthen the American legal system so that both sides involved in litigation are fairly represented. If this is ensured to the highest degree possible, then you have a better chance of a fair and just judgment.

Also, law firms routinely take “controversial” pro bono cases which may garner the firm more recognition and publicity. Having a lawyer win a pro bono case like Raut’s isn’t a small deal.