by
Narr 1: During the radio interview, Charles Stimson named more than twenty American firms representing Guantanamo detainees. Stimson chastised these firms for spending time and money on men accused of being a threat to national security. Especially, he said, when the federal government offers the prisoners, what he calls very good, military legal representation. The scolding continued when radio host Jane Norris asked who was paying for the detainees' corporate law firm representation.
Act 1: "It's not clear, is it? 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 that."
Narr 2: Joshua Colangelo-Bryan's law firm has been representing detainees for three years. He says his New York firm uses three percent of the annual revenue for pro-bono cases, including the defense of six Baharaini detainees. He estimates that most law firms spend between $40 to $50,000 a year to cover the costs of representation. The figure may seem like a lot of money, but Colangelo-Bryan says that the bill is dwarfed by the overall budgets of corporate law firms. Pro Bono work is an essential part of the legal practice in America, he says, and firms, not clients, determine which cases are granted counsel without charge.
Act 2: It's certainly not the case of significant client funds of any particular client going to this or any other pro bono representation in particular.
Narr 3: Like Colangelo-Bryan, lawyer Neha Singh Gohil disputes Stimson's suggestion that American law firms should stop defending detainees. She says that without pro bono services, the inmates would be floundering. Gohil has helped defend 11 Yemeni detainees since 2004. None of her clients have formally charged in a court of law. On the rare occasion that she has reviewed the military's case against her clients, this Yale Law School graduate has found the evidence unconvincing and inadequate.
Act 3: There's very thin evidence here and I think whatever evidence has there is has pretty much been shot by the fact that we are now five years out and that all of it is pretty much tainted by the lack of process that they got, you know being handed over by one military rep to another.
Narr 4: Stimson maintains that free military counsel is adequate representation and in line with due process. Mary-Kelly Persai (Purr-sigh) edits the Columbia Human Rights Law Review. She considers there to be a conflict of interest in the military representation of detainees. But Persai is not surprised by Stimson's position.
Act 4: His charge, according to the administration, is certainly not to protect the rights of detainees--that's not the stance of the Bush administration and that's for the Executive to determine. But the whole point is that the law is separate from the Executive. We are a government of laws, not men.
Narr 5: Lawyers like Colangelo-Bryan and Gohil witness America's frail government of laws every time they visit Guantanamo Bay. Colangelo-Bryan has helped six clients get released and return to their families. It's the four hundred and fifty men that remain that keep him on the case, regardless of what Stimson says. For Columbia Radio News, I'm Tania Haas.