Impeaching Charles D. Stimson -- Out of Court, Inconsistent Statements

Stimson's Public Statement of Contrition Is Rejected

Details: [ Draft Disbarment Investigation; Visit; h/t ]

Charles D. "Cully" Stimson has issued a statement that appears to have been provided under duress.

We judge his voluntary initial statements contradicting the Geneva requirements are official policy; and that he failed to exercise judgment as required of an attorney.

We recommend the public statement be entered into evidence showing an intent to mislead investigators, and leave an incorrect impression about his lack of apparent seriousness about the Geneva Conventions.

For purposes of a war crimes indictment, Stimson's inconsistent statements appear fatal to his defenes in re allegedly failing to ensure defense counsel were fully supported in asserting their Article 82 Geneva Requrieemnts.

* * *

Stimson’s' Editorial, With Questions added Ref

During a radio interview last week, I brought up the topic of pro bono work and habeas corpus representation of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

___ Why did you raise an issue that brought discredit upon others?

___ Are you saying you freely chose to raise an issue you want us to believe you regret?

___ Why did you voluntarily say something; but then ask us to believe that this was not what you were thinking?

Regrettably, my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo.

___ The problem is not the error in the perception; but the error in the judgment of your saying something that was not appropriate. This is not acceptable.

I do not. I believe firmly that a foundational principle of our legal system is that the system works best when both sides are represented by competent legal counsel.

___ Your open statement contradicts what you want us to believe. We judge this apology is not your real belief; but your voluntary initial statements are what most accurately reflect your real views. The apology was forced; the original statement was freely. This apology appears to be under duress.

I support pro bono work, as I said in the interview.

___ This is not the same as supporting Geneva, which you apparently rejected with the original statement.

I was a criminal defense attorney in two of my three tours in the Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps.

___ This is only relevant to considering whether you should have exercised better judgment before speaking. You did not.

I zealously represented unpopular clients -- people charged with crimes that did not make them, or their attorneys, popular in the military.

___ It appears your public statements show you did not like your job; and raises questions whether you did zealously do something.

I believe that our justice system requires vigorous representation.

___ This says nothing about the retaliation proposed against defense counsel for doing what you appear to have not zealously done.

___ Belief is meaningless. The records reflects your original, present sense opinions which are not consistent with this later statement. We judge you are not a credible leader for the detainee rights program and should be disbarred.

___ I could believe the Moon is Made of Cheese. "Mighty Mouse, have you been to the mmon lately?"

I apologize for what I said and to those lawyers and law firms who are representing clients at Guantanamo.

___ Your apology is not accepted, nor credible. It defies belief.

I hope that my record of public service makes clear that those comments do not reflect my core beliefs.

___ Your core beliefs appear to be what you initial said, not what you are now saying. Hope all you want.

CULLY STIMSON

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs

Defense Department

Washington

* * *

Original

Opinion
Gitmo Defense Counsel Stand Accused
Last week found a Pentagon lawyer attacking the motives, integrity and patriotism of Guantanamo Bay detainee defense attorneys and the law firms that support them.

An Apology to Detainees' Attorneys
Wednesday, January 17, 2007; Page A18

During a radio interview last week, I brought up the topic of pro bono work and habeas corpus representation of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Regrettably, my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo. I do not.

I believe firmly that a foundational principle of our legal system is that the system works best when both sides are represented by competent legal counsel. I support pro bono work, as I said in the interview. I was a criminal defense attorney in two of my three tours in the Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps. I zealously represented unpopular clients -- people charged with crimes that did not make them, or their attorneys, popular in the military. I believe that our justice system requires vigorous representation.

I apologize for what I said and to those lawyers and law firms who are representing clients at Guantanamo. I hope that my record of public service makes clear that those comments do not reflect my core beliefs.

CULLY STIMSON

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs

Defense Department

Washington