by Jesselyn Radack
Feb 19, 2007
My name is Jesselyn Radack and I am the former Justice Department ethics attorney and whistleblower in the case of "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh. In today's issue of The National Law Journal (Feb. 19, 2007), I have an Op-Ed entitled "Targeting Lawyers" on what it really looks like when the government tries to control attorneys acting on behalf of terrorism suspects and, if it cannot control them, punish them. I speak from personal experience in being blacklisted by this Administration.
When the Pentagon's former deputy assistant secretary, Charles D. Stimson, attacked law firms for representing Guantánamo Bay detainees a few weeks ago, it was nothing less than modern-day McCarthyism. Although Stimson resigned, his lingering stench cannot be so easily removed. His ominous words will hover in the general atmosphere of fear that has pervaded our country since 9/11.
For years, the government has been trying to control attorneys acting on behalf of terrorism suspects and, if it cannot control them, then to punish them. I speak from experience, which you can read about in my diary from yesterdayhttp://www.dailykos.com/...
I am the very real face of what the Pentagon's admonition looks like in practice, and I did not even represent an alleged terrorist-I just gave the Justice Department advice seen as favorable to one.
When I blew the whistle after my advice urging restraint was disregarded and then destroyed, the Justice Department leaned heavily on my private law firm--Hawkins Delafield & Woo--to fire me. Hawkins, being a bunch of invertebrates, placed me on a "leave of absence sine die" because of "the need of the clients of Hawkins." (Really, they were afraid of firing me because they knew they'd have a wrongful termination suit on their hands. By putting me on an indefinite, unpaid, involuntary leave of absence, they thought they could have it both ways--getting the government off their back without me suing them.)
After "leave of absence" dragged into a constructive discharge, DOJ then assisted Hawkins in contesting my award of unemployment compensation that barely paid for groceries each week. Since when does the government orchestrate the firing of a private person and assist a private employer in contesting the employee's receipt of unemployment benefits? Here is an excerpt from the article:
Anonymous government officials branded me a "turncoat" in newspapers, placed me under criminal investigation, put me on the "no-fly" list and referred me to the state bars in which I am licensed. I got the "Guantánamo treatment lite": I was never told for what I was being criminally investigated, the bar complaint was based on a secret report to which I did not have access, and the government will neither confirm that I'm on the "no-fly" list, nor tell me how to be removed from it. The criminal case was dropped with no charges ever being brought. One of the bar complaints was dismissed, and the other is still pending after three years.
The very real consequence of this is that no law firm would hire me because a mere bar referral (even without a finding of misconduct) would increase its malpractice liability insurance rates. One prospective employer, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis of Washington, told me: "You're obviously a very capable lawyer . . . .[But] accusations about you, however unfounded, could complicate [your representation of our client] . . . .[T]he very public nature . . . would lead to media scrutiny . . . .The risks here are too great."
The Pentagon's words, even if belatedly and breathlessly disavowed, are not an empty threat. I was blacklisted for years. Navy judge advocate general lawyer Charles Swift won a favorable ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of a Guantánamo detainee he was appointed to represent, then was denied a promotion that ended his military career. The government threatened to investigate civilian attorney Clive Stafford Smith, making the wild accusation that he suggested that his Guantánamo client commit suicide. And DOJ is forcing out several U.S. attorneys from their jobs for political reasons.
Basically, my Op-Ed illustrates what can happen when the government paints the 500 volunteer Guantánamo lawyers, and the firms that employ them, as somehow supporting terrorism. I volunteer as a warning.
No comments:
Post a Comment