First, I have to correct something from my prior post, here. In that post I said I agreed with Prof. Vladeck over at Balkinization, here. In what I can only say was an oversight on my part, I missed this portion of Prof. Vladeck’s post:
I had hoped (perhaps naively) that the dust-up earlier this year over the “al Qaeda 7” (and the emphatic response thereto) had finally put to bed the repeated attacks on lawyers that have arisen since Cully Stimson’s spurious critique of the role of D.C. law firms in Guantánamo litigation in January 2007. But so long as Congress is seriously considering language like this, it seems that such lawyers will continue to have to defend themselves as much as they (and in order to) defend the rights of their clients.
The reason I mention this passage is the reference to Cully Stimson and the “al Qaeda 7” in the same sentence without mentioning that Mr. Stimson has (a) apologized for his comments about Gitmo lawyers in 2007, see here, and (b) called attacks on the “al Qaeda 7” and even use of the term “shameful,” see CAAFLog coverage here. I am not sure what Prof. V. meant by spurious, but I don;t think it encompasses Mr. Stimson’s later expressed beliefs.
Second, here is some new commentary for and against Sec. 1037 and its attempt to give the DoD IG investigatory responsibility over defense lawyers in Gitmo detainee cases:
[Disclosure: I am a member of the NIMJ Bd. of Advisors]