One of the more troubling aspects of the war on terror is how to treat the prisoners of that war. Whether the prisoners are foreigners captured on the battle field, or Americans citizens captured in Chicago, the Administration has often been reluctant to allow enenmy combatants to meet with lawyers.
One reason for the reluctance is that the administration is concerned that the lawyers might become conduits for information from the prisoners to be passed along to others.
What is needed to find highly competent counsel for the enemy combatants who the administration trusts implicitly with the most sensitive information.
The solution is for the high powered Washington law firm of Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering to be appointed to represent all enemy combatants.
Now, Wilmer, Cutler may at first seem an odd choice for the job. After all, Wilmer Cutler represents Prince Mohammed al Faisal in the suit by the 9/11 families. The families contend that al Faisal has legal responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. The Prince allegedly had a part in the finances of Al Qaeda.
Despite that representation, it is clear that the administration trusts Wilmer Cutler with the most sensitive of information. Wilmer Cutler partner, Jamie Gorelick is a commissioner on the 9/11 commission. In addition to being a commissioner, Gorelick is also a witness before her own commission.
According to UPI, Gorelick is one of “the two officials to whom the White House has granted the greatest access to the most secret and sensitive national security documents, the presidential daily briefings.” Thus, the White House does not worry about providing information to the law firm of a Saudi Prince accused of being the financier of Al Qaeda when the firm in question is Wilmer Cutler.
Today, President Bush appointed the allegedly independent commission to investigate pre-war intelligence failures. Among those appointed to the commission was former Clinton White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler. Yes, Lloyd Cutler is the Cutler of Wilmer Cutler.
That commission will have to have access to the most sentitive information about our intelligence gathering. Once again, the White House in unconcered about the law firm for person accused of being Al Qaeda's banker having access to the most sentitive intelliegnce information.
So Wilmer Cutler represents a Saudi against the 9/11 victims’ families. Wilmer Cutler is on the 9/11 commission. Wilmer Cutler is on the prewar intelligence commission. It seems only fitting that Wilmer Cutler also represent the enemy combatants. It is hard to believe that the White House would worry that Wilmer Cutler would pass sentitive information from Gitmo prisoners to Al Qaeda.
Perhaps Wilmer Cutler could also represent Scooter Libby with regard the Valerie Plame matter while it also represents Bob Novak before the grand jury. It could then represent Valerie Plame in a civil suit against Scooter Libby.
It appears that I must have missed the day of law school when they explained the Wilmer Cutler exception to the conflict rules.
Posted by Dwight Meredith at February 6, 2004 06:57 PM | TrackBackAny way the links could be assigned a darker color? The light purple is awfully difficult to read (and I'm only 37, so no "old" jokes for you whippersnappers!).
Posted by: Ricky at February 6, 2004 09:58 PMSure seems like an odd mix that WC is being entrusted with. Sure would like to be a fly on the wall wherever WC is involved.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden at February 7, 2004 06:12 PMOh, come on Dwight: the "Chinese wall" Wilmer Cutler is ethically obliged to use to insulate one partner's confidences and secrets from another while their respective files are stored next to each other in the same unlocked room is doubtless a complete protection and vindication of your national security concerns; of course, in WC & P's case, the "Chinese Wall" is probably also where they keep the files regarding their representation of the People's Army. (Its also good to see that WC & P's whoredom is "bipartisan", Gorelick, Cutler and others are, of course, loyal Democrats).
Anyway, the Bush-Saudi connection is going to (or at least, had better) become a critical area in the upcoming election: i.e., can a President who is so in bed with the Sauds as to virtually be one of them actually lead this country in a fight against... Saudi sponsored terrorism against us? This is a far more serious question than for just the tin-foil hat set. The connections are there, and the policy compromises are there (and not just the humanitarian flight of bin Laden family members to the safety of outside the USA within 24 hours of 9-11-- the ONLY civilian flight permitted in American air space, btw-- but oh, so much more).
One thing I DO like about Kerry: he's an ornery enough SOB to come out swinging about this.
Posted by: the talking dog at February 7, 2004 09:35 PM
I agree TD. I have worked in big firms with Chinese walls. I once even knew a paralegal who gossiped at lunch, if you can imagine that.
I cannot understand why the Saudi connection is not a big issue. Maybe you are right and that is what Kerry means by "Bring it on." I hope so.
Posted by: dwight meredith at February 7, 2004 10:31 PMIt appears that I must have missed the day of law school when they explained the Wilmer Cutler exception to the conflict rules.
That was the same day they explained why it was fine for Supreme Court justices to go on hunting trips as guests of litigants appearing before them -- so I can see why you're confused about both of those subjects.
Posted by: Frederick at February 10, 2004 01:35 PM