First off, the background on this story is that Charles Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, speaking in an interview on Federal News Radio suggested that large corporations boycott lawfirms that defend Guantanamo detainees.
Part of what he said includes,
And 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.
Just amazing skills that he has there, knowing who's guilty even before a trial! Trials, how quaint.
Yahoo has some of it here.
Well now he's apologizing . . . sort of.
And we jump!
BBC has the story of the "apology."
Regrettably, my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defence of detainees in Guantanamo. I do not," he said.
No, Mr. Facist, your comments did not leave that impression.
They essentially threatened lawfirms with ruin because they believe that people should have access to a proper defense. It's kind of one of the pillars of our system.
Anyway, what gets me about this "apology" story is that I just hate those, "I'm sorry if my remarks left an impression. . . " pseudo-apologies. They essentially tell someone that they if they only understood what you said, you wouldn't need to apologize.
Well, we did understand your remarks and you don't need to apologize. You need to lose your job.
By the way, as historical background Alternet has an interesting story regarding John Adams and his defense of British soldiers. Check it out.
Updated: drsmith131 was kind enough to point out Stimson's quote where he does indeed do a better job of apologizing.
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.
But I guess I question how his core beliefs would allow him to make such remarks in the first place. In other words, I am calling Mr. Stimson a liar. There is simply no way that anyone could go on and on in an interview, threatening the livelihood of law firms that step up to defend detainees, if that was not your core belief.
We're not talking a slip of the tongue here. This guy is philosophically unfit to do his job.