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:

  • NIMJ here
  • Rep. Jeff Miller, R-FL (the bill’s sponsor) here

[Disclosure: I am a member of the NIMJ Bd. of Advisors]

11 Responses to “More on NDAA Gitmo Defense Counsel Investigation Provision”

  1. Cheap Seats says:

    In the interest of fuller disclosure, “The Foundry” which posted Rep. Miller’s comments cited above, is part of the Heritage Foundation. Of note, Mr. Stimson is a senior legal fellow for the Heritage Foundation. So maybe there is a little more to Prof. Vladek’s associating Mr. Stimson with the attack than you give credit.

    http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/S/Charles-Cully-Stimson

  2. anonymous says:

    The agency relationship between attorney and client often becomes blurred.

  3. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    Cheap Seats–
    That’s a bit like attributing JO’C’s comments to me or our fair leader because we give JO’C a forum for his comments, though I would say it is even more attenuated given no control over the Foundry by Cully. Now, that’s not to say, and I never said, that Cully does or does not support the bill, I have no idea. I just felt the attribution of those comments without noting his later statements was not something I would have done and thus did not “agree” with it.

  4. Cheap Seats says:

    No Man – agreed. Your disclosure was perfectly appropriate. However, for Prof. V to lump them together is not necessary wrong. By disclosing all of this information, people can make their own informed choice. I am by no means saying Mr. Stimson does or does not support the Bill. I think that associations do matter, however. They are just a small part of figuring out the puzzle.

  5. anonymous says:

    Anyone who has been at the OMC Defense shop knows the mentality there.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Anyone who thinks that Mr. Stimson has abondoned his beliefs concerning attorneys who represent GTMO clients is misguided. His public apologies were an unsuccessful attempt to save his job and reputation. And oh by the way, did anybiody catch the piece in the Washington Times last week in which Mr. Stimson praised the selection of VADM MacDonald (Ret.) as the new Convening Authority? Perhaps that is a relationship that warrants exploration?

  7. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    Anon 1448-
    Mr. Stimson’s statements about the Keep America Safe and Liz Cheney comments were this year, long after he left DoD and while at the Heritage Foundation. Thus I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of his comments denouncing attacks on former detainee defense counsel.

  8. John O'Connor says:

    I’m trying to decide whether I should be offended by being used as the quintessential example of someone whose thoughts fairly shouldn’t be attributed to the admins of this blog.

    On reflection, I welcome any statement that distances me from the muddled thoughts of the No Man (wink).

  9. John O'Connor says:

    Oh, on the disclosure issue, congrats to No Man on his appointment. NIMJ just got dumber (wink).

  10. Anonymous says:

    I’d much rather be associated with CAAFlog or NIMJ than with Heritage. Associations matter, but what one says and does matters more.

  11. anonymous says:

    Anon 2230: if the first part of your statement above is true, what’s your name?