Cully Stimson

Ex-Deputy Assistant Secretary for Detainee Affairs

Department of Defense

Washington, D.C.

Mr. Stimson,

I recently read the article regarding your comments on Guantanamo Detainees and the lawyers who represent them.

Though not a lawyer, I have done volunteer work as a translator with a lawyer with ACLU who represented one of the detainees in Guantanamo.

The logic and tradition of providing representation to people who have been locked up is centuries old and I would have hoped that someone in your prior position of responsibility would have read and understood that logic somewhere in your schooling. Though one need not have gone to any school to understand the obviousness of this logic.

In either case, I wanted to let you know that there are others; besides lawyers, who are doing what they think is their moral obligation and duty to try to provide a balance to an overzealous and overreaching government. I am providing you my name and address just to help you start with a dossier on me (I am sure you still have chums in the Pentagon and FBI despite your resignation with shame.) I will consider it a mark of honor to have my name associated with those who YOU think are helping the enemy.

I spent 21 years in the US Military and took an oath to defend the constitution of the United States of America against all enemies; foreign and domestic. I still hold that oath sacred and will defend that constitution against domestic enemies like you. I will be honored to wear the badge of your inquiry against me ABOVE ALL other medals I have ever received from the military.

Anjum Shiekh

My thanks to Anant Raut for his excellent response and reminder to Cully Stimson about what our justice system is all about.

Mr. Stimson would probably ask a criminal defense attorney "Why do you defend bank robbers?" Does he not understand that our justice system is founded on everyone being presumed innocent until proved guilty and on having legal representation however nefarious the crime (though we fail mightily in allowing the poor access to such representation.) It is a shame on his office that Mr. Stimson has such a myopic and incorrect view of what law under our Constitution is about. It is also scary.

Now if he can just find a picture of their uniform....

This "debate" is over, sweetie. You get the last word. You have been refuted, and are left with nothing but blah-blah "liberal" epithets. No one cares anymore.

Enjoy.

...wrenched from their placid existence by the evil Republicans? Shouldn't BobbyG and his Liberal Freedom Fighters rescue these poor victims of American oppression?

"the rest of the world to unilaterally"

Do you ever even consider the increasingly hilarious illogic anything you proffer?

That is too funny, beyond the obvious banality of your "Tu Quoque" fallacy.

Right, JackShit, we should act with barbarity simply because renegade others do.

Why should we defer to ANY laws or due process? -- because the Bad Guys obviously don't. (ignoring for the moment that little problem that MOST of Bush's "terrist" collars have been false positives)

Honey, you are too easy.

if you get the benefits and privileges without having to abide by the regulations?

Terrorists have made up their own rules. For the rest of the world to unilaterally play by the old rules is stupid and suicidal.

Washington Post

Friday, June 30, 2006; Page A01

The Supreme Court yesterday struck down the military commissions President Bush established to try suspected members of al-Qaeda, emphatically rejecting a signature Bush anti-terrorism measure and the broad assertion of executive power upon which the president had based it.

Brushing aside administration pleas not to second-guess the commander in chief during wartime, a five-justice majority ruled that the commissions, which were outlined by Bush in a military order on Nov. 13, 2001, were neither authorized by federal law nor required by military necessity, and ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions. (emphasis mine)

____

Fact. What part of 'the Geneva Conventions DO in fact apply' don't you understand?

Moreover, in the subsequent Military Commissions Act passed by Congress (S. 3930), the ostensible authority according the President to 'interprete the meaning and applicability of the Geneva Conventions' clearly -- CLEARLY, sweetie -- runs afoul of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority...(again, emphasis mine)

So, [1] the Gitmo collars are subject to Geneva, and [2] the courts ultimately have final purview with respect to Geneva.

Now, why don't you be a good little boy and trot back off to your decorous little "conservative" circle-jerk boards?

If BobbyG's brand of discourse is the best you've got, it actually gives me hope for the future.

I suggest some of you folks read the Geneva Conventions rather than basing your opinions on pure hatred of Republicans and reading only those things which support your intense bigotry.

>I'm somewhat new to Salon, normally posting on what are considered 'conservative' sites, where personal attacks are discouraged and intelligent debate are the rule.<

Translation--over on "Redstate" and "Little Green Footballs," "debate" actually means a bunch of right-wingers spouting the winger party line. There are no "personal attacks," i.e. dissension, because the minute someone doesn't follow the party line, they are banned. Why can't SALON be civil and ban folks so everyone over here can think just alike?

Ooooohh!!!!

Bad words. My my. Dude, you got no game, so all you can do now is cry about get me tossed.

You stand refuted. The rest is just window dressing through which to accentuate your banality.

I'm somewhat new to Salon, normally posting on what are considered 'conservative' sites, where personal attacks are discouraged and intelligent debate are the rule. A post is generally required to have something that adds to the discussion or at least be clever or entertaining. BobbyG's posts satisfy none of these conditions and would be yanked anywhere else.

Still waiting for a picture of one of those terrorist uniforms which might make them eligible for Geneva Convention privileges....