William B. Mange

Criminal Defense Lawyer in Austin, Texas

Criminal Law Blog

Your Email:

Your Name:

To:

Subject:

Message:
<a href="http://www.billmangelaw.com/index.php/136/">http://www.billmangelaw.com/index.php/136/</a> Be Careful Mr. Stimson, There’s Another John Henry Faulk Out There Somewhere. The January 13, 2007 Austin American Statesman ran a New York Times story about comments by Mr. Charles Stimson, the Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for detainee affairs. According to the New York Times story, Mr. Stimson said that he was dismayed that lawyers at many of the nation’s top firms were representing prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, and that the firms’ corporate clients should consider ending their business ties. Mr. Stimson made his remarks in an interview Thursday with Federal News Radio, a station aimed at an audience of government employees. Mr. Stimson said, “I think, quite honestly, 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, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out [italics added].” When asked who was paying for the legal representation, Mr. Stimson said: “It’s not clear, is it? Some will maintain that they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart, that they’re doing it pro bono, and I suspect that are. Others are receiving moneys from who knows where, and I’d be curious to have them explain that [italics added].” Now let’s turn the clock back a little more than 50 years. A trial lawyer who was famous back in the 1950s, Louis Nizer, recounted the misdeeds of Aware Inc., “an organization which had repeatedly accused certain actors and actresses of having ‘pink’ or ‘Communist Front’ records, resulting in their being blacklisted and rendered unemployable.” I cannot give more eloquent commentary about Mr. Stimson’s comments than Mr. Nizer did about Aware Inc. So I’ll just quote Mr. Nizer from his book The Jury Returns. He wrote: “Vincent Hartnett was the director of Aware Inc. He had previously written Red Channels, “a book listing the ‘political activities’ of performers. This book was reputed to have been the ‘bible’ used by advertising agencies and networks to ‘check’ the records of actors and actresses and in many instances barred the accused from work, without confrontation or the opportunity to deny or explain. … The entire television and radio industry seemed to be in the grip of blacklisting practices. No one had yet proven or disproven these charges. Ultimately a trial before a judge and jury provided the opportunity, in true American fashion, to unravel the mystery. “The principles involved in the debate were crucial. … What abuses of our constitutional privileges are justified for the purpose of preserving those privileges? The issue is broader than whether the end justifies the means. For the ends are not as beneficial as those who are willing to close their eyes to amoral methods would have it. There are unintended ends: the destruction of the inviolate right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty; to be confronted by one’s accuser and have the right to examine and answer; above all, to prevent the invasion of man’s right to think and speak without fear. “However, life never presents itself in generic concepts. It consists of incidents which are not ordered neatly in categories of precious rights. Rather, they are the day-by-day tragedies of jobs refused, rent unpaid, children taunted about their parents’ patriotism, friendships abandoned to prevent the stigma of association, love strained by adversity, and worst of all, the inner struggle to avoid martyrdom, to surrender self-respect to conformity, to acquiesce in the great protective silence.” Aware Inc. specifically targeted a Texan named John Henry Faulk. “They pulverized him out of the entertainment industry and left him unemployed and unemployable for 6 ½ years. They ruined his reputation and left him and his family in a state of starvation. They made a ghastly lesson of him, so that all others who dared to challenge them in the future would be terrorized by his example. … But they had chosen the wrong man to humiliate and destroy. In the great American tradition, which even they should have admired, Faulk rejected the role of a defeated martyr, refused to acknowledge his comatose enfeeblement, and actually attacked his tormentors. He demanded their condemnation. Scorning compromise, he insisted on complete judicial vindication.” You might consider your own personal fortune, Mr. Stimson, because if your intimidation tactics succeed, those law firms might sue you both in your capacity as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and in your personal capacity. If there’s one thing those detainees’ lawyers know, it’s how to sue somebody. You’d better put up or shut up, Mr. Stimson. Because if you think that you and your innuendo about “others are receiving moneys from who knows where,” are going to frighten every single lawyer engaged in representing detainees and ensuring that legal process is honored, you’re wrong. John Henry Faulk has passed on, God bless him, but his spirit lives on.