An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
First Thing We Do, Threaten All The Lawyers
A top administration official wonders aloud if lawyers defending detainees are taking money from the other side. Oh, and suggests that corporations should boycott them for daring to defend pro bono those who would otherwise have no lawyer at all.
21 Responses to “First Thing We Do, Threaten All The Lawyers”
It never ceases to amaze me just how low and sleazy this administration will go. And they still don’t have a clue that the people want them out.
Well I never expected the Gitmo warden to be a reasonable individual. I was right.
’08 can’t come too soon. Hasta la vista!
I read your blog post three times and was unable to find any “threat” being made against anyone.
That sounds like a threat to me.
For the record, I’m a different “Jason” than the gentlemen who posted comment #4.
Stimson’s comments will define this administration in the same way that Ari Fleischer did when he said that “People need to watch what they say…” and the same way that Dick Cheney did when he told Senator Leahy to “Go f*** himself.” It’s more than a fundamental lack of respect for views that do not conform to administration rhetoric. These comments (and others) represent an absolute imperiousness with echoes of the divine right of kings or papal infallibility that underscore how the views of this administration are fundamentally anathema to the concept of democracy. These people may wear expensive suits but the pants cuffs cannot completely hide the jack boots underneath.
Sorry JS, mistoke commenter #4 with yourself. Stimson’s arrogance fits in with the mindset that ignores science (creationists books sold at Grand Canyon Park service) for cynical pandering for continuation of power.
“A threat is a declaration of intent to inflict harm upon another”
Speculation that someone ELSE might inflict harm is not a “declaration of intent” to do it yourself. There is nothing in the article that indicates that the government has or is about to take any form of action against the firms representing detainees. Hence, by definition, there is no “threat” coming from the government.
And before darkly speculating about yet another instance of the Evil Bush Administration ™, perhaps it might be worth considering what the highest legal officer in the administration says first:
Oh, and even the DoD as well as everyone else in the administration is backing away and disavowing any “threat”:
Seems that Jason uses the sames Thesarus and Doublespeak as W and his administration. W promised to bring integrity back to the WH after BC – LOL.
Well, I guess it is possible that “W and his administration” also uses Dictionary.com to look up the basic meaning of words.
Then again, I understand where you are coming from, Rudi. The actual meaning of the word “threat” isn’t important. The fact that no less than the Attorney General specifically disavowed the statement isn’t important. The fact that even the DoD disavowed the statement isn’t important. All that is important is to bash Bush, right?
Jason: I read your blog post three times and was unable to find any “threat� being made against anyone.
Why, then, do you suppose the WH and DoD quickly distanced themselves from Stimson’s comments?
They distanced themselves because the comment was stupid, ignorant, and contrary to administration policy. None of that makes it a “threat” and it actually contradicts the claims of the original poster and the first commenter on this thread.
I am not bashing Bush, it’s one of his cronies who made this statement. I’m waiting to hear – “Stimsy your doing a hell of a job(NOLA)”.
So, jsut so we’re clear — Bush is responsible for everything his “cronies” say, even if every single one of his other “cronies” specifically contradicts it?
I’m certainly glad to hear that the Bush administration is distancing itself from these comments. But that doesn’t change the threatening nature (albeit not physical) of the comments. They came close to accusing the attorneys of commiting treason (by being on the payroll of al-Qaeda), and not-so-subtlely advocated economic retaliation via boycott. As one of my commenters noted, McCarthyism showed us the damage that such insinuations can wreak.
Yes. McCarthyism is still a present threat. It is not only present in the way that a minor official speculates about what CEOs might do. It is also present in the way that anyone suspected of harboring sympathies for the Bush administration gets treated.
Bush may not be personally to blame, but he is the symbol os and shorthang for his entire administration.
When a team loses a game, the coach gets the blame, deserved or not.
It’s part of the job description of being President.
Then, too, it’s the leader who sets the tone for the whole crew. So, what tone has Bush set for his spokespeople? Blame the press, blame the Democrats, blame the UN, blame, blame.
Now the nation is talking his language.
But in this particular case, the “entire administration” is saying that the status quo of having defense attorneys from the big, high-profile firms is fine except for ONE PERSON. And from that ONE OUTLIER we have people on this thread blaming “the Bush administration”.
Well, I guess it is possible that “W and his administration� also uses Dictionary.com to look up the basic meaning of words.
Doubtful, Jason. Otherwise why would they have come up with “augmentation” to describe the surge? Oh, wait that was DoS, not DoD!
Just wanted to go on record with my liberal cohorts, in stating that I thought Stimson’s statement sounded like an attempt at coercion. And yes, Bush is responsible for what those in his administration say in the performance of their official duties.