[TolleyBoymn]

this guy should be removed from his position immediately. the government is attempting to intimidate those representing detainees at guantanamo. according to the report, the pentagon has stated that:

Stimson's comments "do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the thinking of its leadership," thats it! after everything the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs said, the harshest rebuke he gets is this. what a joke. this was no accident. the DoD did this on purpose as a blatant form of manipulation. i suppose many people will not have a problem with the governement official in charge of the detainees is basically saying they're all guilty terrorists before they've been charged, tried, or convicted of any crime. in a regular trial i'm certain the prosecuting attorney or presiding judge would be removed from the case immediately for misconduct or something similar. but i guess this is another twist in bush's world where up is down and left is right. here are some quotes:

The Pentagon on Saturday disavowed a senior official's remarks suggesting companies boycott law firms that represent detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Charles "Cully" Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, said in a radio interview last week that companies might want to consider taking their business to firms that do not represent suspected terrorists. Stimson on Thursday told Federal News Radio, a local commercial station that covers the government, that he found it "shocking" that lawyers at many of the nation's top law firms represent detainees.

Stimson listed the names of more than a dozen major firms he suggested should be boycotted.

"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," Stimson said.

Asked who might be paying the law firms to represent Guantanamo detainees, Stimson hinted at wrongdoing.

"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," he said. "Others are receiving monies from who knows where and I'd be curious to have them explain that." so here he's basically accusing the lawfirms of recieving illicit funds. what a fuckwad.

Pentagon won't back official who blasted*Gitmo lawyers - CNN.com

[qQVXpYM6]

As much of a smelly turd as this guy is, as a private citizen, doesn't he have the right to publically suggest a boycott against a company that he dislikes?

[TolleyBoymn]

truthfully i don't know. at the very least it seems to be a case of intimidation by a government official. i mean, when the government was battling microsoft for example, were officials in charge at the justice dept. allowed to say they think people should boycott microsoft's products because they know they're guilty anyway? i'll have to read more into it.

[infollafago]

As much of a smelly turd as this guy is, as a private citizen, doesn't he have the right to publically suggest a boycott against a company that he dislikes?

Then let him do it as a private citizen and strip him of his post.

[qQVXpYM6]

Then let him do it as a private citizen and strip him of his post.

Well, he kind of did do it as a private citizen.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon on Saturday disavowed a senior official's remarks suggesting companies boycott law firms that represent detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. So I really don't know what to make of it. He said it in a radio interview, so I ask myself: would he have been able to attend the same radio interview if he did not hold the position that he holds?

[infollafago]

Well, he kind of did do it as a private citizen.

There is a certain level you reach in the government, or in a corporation, where what you say is automatically linked with your job. It is one thing to say something over a few beers with friends. Its another to go on the air, as a deputy undersecretary of defense, and to start making comments. He was there in his official capacity, and he is more then responsible for what he said, as a government official.

If the DoD wishes to separate themselves then they should simply demote, fire, or dock him of wages.

[qQVXpYM6]

There is a certain level you reach in the government, or in a corporation, where what you say is automatically linked with your job. It is one thing to say something over a few beers with friends. Its another to go on the air, as a deputy undersecretary of defense, and to start making comments. He was there in his official capacity, and he is more then responsible for what he said, as a government official.

If the DoD wishes to separate themselves then they should simply demote, fire, or dock him of wages.

If he was on the radio station making an official statement like that, then I'd say he probably should be punished.

[ahagotyou]

this guy should be removed from his position immediately. the government is attempting to intimidate those representing detainees at guantanamo.

Do you have any evidence that the government is intimidating them? Or are you just talking bullshit?

according to the report, the pentagon has stated that:

Stimson's comments "do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the thinking of its leadership,"

Notice that the pinkopressco report took the quote out of context. It doesn't even quote the question that the Pentagon spokesman was responding to. And on top of that, AP decided to only quote the predicate of the answer, and left out the subject.

What is AP trying to hide? Why not quote the question or the complete answer?

THINK!!!

thats it! after everything the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs said, the harshest rebuke he gets is this. what a joke. this was no accident.

Most likely, Maka was rebuking the AP reporter's statement, not Stimson.

the DoD did this on purpose as a blatant form of manipulation. i suppose many people will not have a problem with the governement official in charge of the detainees is basically saying they're all guilty terrorists before they've been charged, tried, or convicted of any crime. in a regular trial i'm certain the prosecuting attorney or presiding judge would be removed from the case immediately for misconduct or something similar. but i guess this is another twist in bush's world where up is down and left is right.

The detainees are outside of the USA and have no right to a trial. I'd say you are the one who's got it ass-backwards.

so here he's basically accusing the lawfirms of recieving illicit funds. what a fuckwad.

Bullhit, he didn't accuse them of recieving illicit funds.

Pentagon won't back official who blasted Gitmo lawyers - CNN.com[/QUOTE]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon on Saturday disavowed a senior official's remarks suggesting companies boycott law firms that represent detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

It true AP style, they tell a big fat one right in the first paragraph. Then in an fallacious attempt to try to back it up they say...

Stimson listed the names of more than a dozen major firms he suggested should be boycotted.

"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," Stimson said.

He didn't suggest they should be boycotted, he just made an astute deduction that the lawfirms may have to choose between clients. CEO's have to answer to their stockholders. If they use a lawfirm that represents those from an organization that attacked the company it could reasonably be construed that the lawfirm has a conflict of interests. Of course this would get the stockholders in an uproar.

He didn't say they should be boycotted.

This is a typical example of the way the anti-USA activists at AP serve up the grape kool-aid to the ignorant masses.

[Imalaycle]

this guy should be removed from his position immediately. the government is attempting to intimidate those representing detainees at guantanamo. according to the report, the pentagon has stated that:

Big proponent of free speech, are we?

Matt

[Gedominew]

Actually Matt TD has a point, especially since this guy was from DoD and was talking about Gitmo. Now had he been from the EPA or CDC or some Department that had virtually nothing to do with Gitmo you would be absolutely correct. If he was speaking as a private individual that should have been clearly highlighted and from what I can tell that did not happen until after the fact when the DoD issued a statement.

[Imalaycle]

So because he works for the DoD he is no longer entitled to hold an opinion of his own?

Maybe all the EPA scientists who support global warming should be fired because they hold views inconsistent with official policy?

Don't misconstrue what I am saying, though - I think his comments were idiotic. I am just supporting his right to be an idiot.

Matt

[Gedominew]

So because he works for the DoD he is no longer entitled to hold an opinion of his own?

Maybe all the EPA scientists who support global warming should be fired because they hold views inconsistent with official policy?

Don't misconstrue what I am saying, though - I think his comments were idiotic. I am just supporting his right to be an idiot.

Matt

Matt the point here is I saw nowhere in the linked items, nor anything I have looked up myself where he clearly indicated these were his own personal ideas and opiniions and did not reflect the policy of the DoD. Now surely you can't be so blind a Bush supporter that you can't see how this simple omission makes it look bad. Hell Matt even the DoD felt that there was something in the apperance that pushed them to making the claim he did not represent official policy. This isn't a free speech issue. He has the right as a citizen to say whatever the hell he wants to. But given his position it is incumbent upon him to clearly indicate that the opinion he is about to express is in fact his own. This isn't rocket science Matt it is a fairly easy concept.

[Imalaycle]

I understand where you are coming from, and if he did not disclaim his comments as being his own and not the DoD position, then he was completely wrong.

However, I have personally witnessed someone telling a reporter that their comments did not reflect the position of the department and then seen the article neglect to mention that. So I tend to look at this as an equal chance that it was the reporter who screwed it up.

Matt

[Gedominew]

Matt all we have is the public record nothing else to go bz. I do not disagree that in some cases reporters convenientlz forget to add some items, however if you go to the web site for the Federal News Radio you will find the following.

Federal News Radio covers both the Federal Government and those who do business with the government concentrating on management, procurement, technology, security, policy and pay & benefits. Federal News Radio is also the only place to read and hear federal icon Mike Causey everyday.
FederalNewsRadio - WFED: About Federal News Radio It seems to me given this that anz government official giving his or her personal opinions on this station need to be very careful in making sure the listener is aware that they are hearing personal opinions.

Edit Hmmmm for some reason mz computer has tronsposed the z and y kezs and when I try to use a colon I get this instead Ö. I mean I think it looks cool and all but what the hell do I do with it.

[Imalaycle]

That works for me. If he didn't disclaim his position as his own, then doom on him.

Matt

[infollafago]

So because he works for the DoD he is no longer entitled to hold an opinion of his own?

He went to the show as a department of defense official. There is a distinction. If he had voiced his opinion in a different setting then it would be fine. But he should understand that in certain settings when he is that high up he should be very careful with his words.

[Heliosprime]

or better yet Olympia Snow and Rockefeller should be removed from office for intimidating and threatening oil companies that are not proponents of global warming..to stop their adds against such …..guess many of the folks here missed that letter from her and her brother senator ....

[annouhMus]

As much of a smelly turd as this guy is, as a private citizen, doesn't he have the right to publically suggest a boycott against a company that he dislikes?

Not when he is in a position to manipulate matters because of his governmental position. Only the President gets away with that.

[annouhMus]

hairballxavier;890772]Do you have any evidence that the government is intimidating them? Or are you just talking bullshit?



Notice that the pinkopressco report took the quote out of context. It doesn't even quote the question that the Pentagon spokesman was responding to. And on top of that, AP decided to only quote the predicate of the answer, and left out the subject.

What is AP trying to hide? Why not quote the question or the complete answer?

THINK!!!

RESPONSE Or maybe this is just a dose of common sense THINKing by people who think Governement should stay out of Private affairs without trying to manipulate their actions. "course I don't think you can, or would want to understand that.

[Eromereorybig]

I wish we could immediately remove McCarthyites like this asshole from the government. There should be a law!