Administrative & Professional
Tucson Urban League
CEO/President Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps Mechanical
Komatsu Equipment Co
Resident Field Mechanic Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor

Not quite 240 years ago, John Adams, at the time a young lawyer, was asked to defend the British soldiers who had fired on a mob of demonstrators and mortally wounded five of them.

The event, which came to be known as the Boston Massacre, was as divisive as today's question of what to do about suspected terrorists.

A lawyer with political aspirations — Adams would go on to be elected the nation's second president — Adams could have refused to represent the unpopular British soldiers. But he knew that would have violated a fundamental principle — namely, that every person accused of a crime deserves a defense.

Adams took the case, at great personal peril, and in summation offered the jury some advice that remains especially relevant today in the cases against detainees at Guantanamo.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. . . . To your candor and justice I submit the prisoners and their cause," he said.

We were reminded of Adams' dilemma, and his choice, when we read recently the shocking remarks of Charles Stimson, a lawyer who serves as deputy assistant secretary of defense.

Stimson, speaking last week on Federal News Radio, a station in Washington, D.C., indirectly suggested that lawyers and firms that represent the Guantanamo detainees should be boycotted.

He said it is public knowledge that some major law firms in the United States have assisted the detainees, a fact he characterized as "shocking."

"And I think, quite honestly," Stimson said on the air, "when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms."

The radio host then asked Stimson who might be paying lawyers for the detainees.

"It's not clear, is it?" Stimson responded. "Some will maintain that they're doing it out of the goodness of their heart, that they're doing it pro bono, and I suspect they are. Others are receiving monies from who knows where, and I'd be curious to have them explain it."

These are outlandish comments from a lawyer in the upper echelons of the Pentagon.

As Pima County chief deputy public defender Bob Hirsch put it, "It's disgusting to try and blackmail those firms into not doing what their professional responsibility calls for them to do."

Referring to the Guantanamo detainees, he said, "These are the most vilified people in our society, and they have no one to speak for them other than those volunteer lawyers — God bless them."

After a period of silence, the government decided to put some distance between itself and Stimson's remarks. The Pentagon issued a statement saying Stimson's views "do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the thinking of its leadership."

But it is still a matter of concern that a lawyer with such a fundamentally flawed understanding of the American justice system could rise so high in the Pentagon's hierarchy.

The United States has already cleared some of the detainees of any involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and released them. Even so, Stimson appears unconvinced that these men deserved representation.

Stimson should apologize to the lawyers he maligned, and the Pentagon should then require that he take a refresher course in basic constitutional law.