American Fruit Company, 1960s?
Hearst Publishing, Spanish-American War?
Heh. I meant The American CEO as in American CEOs in general, rather than the Prez.
Most top US firms consider themselves “full service” firms. Consequently, they typically have some white collar criminal defense capacity, which means that they could handle personal cirminal matters if they needed/wanted to. For example, and I believe our Chicago lawyers could speak to this better than I could, the Seventh Circuit (based in Chicago) has a pretty healthy pro bono habeas practice, where they farm out to private attorneys appellate work for unrepresented indigent criminals. So it isn’t a stretch for one of the AmLaw 100 to handle Gitmo work.
Besides, there’s that whole ethical canon about “defenseless and oppressed.” I guess Stimson skipped that semester in school.
I don’t think this guy is ignorant. He’s smart and knows which side his bread is buttered on.
I think there’s a big hairy ass story developing there, but no clue as to what it is…
What really galls my ass is this guy has to know…he just has to!..about the guys we turned loose because they probably didn’t have squat to do with terr. I mean, I’m betting if they let them go, they were pretty damn sure! Course, they’re enemies of America now, hell, who wouldn’t be! So he knows for a fact that at least some of the arrested were* entirely* innocent! What does he figure, they’ve got it all sorted out now? Only the guilty ones remain?
And the second thing is calling the firms out by name! WTF? No, really, WTF?
Sure. It’s not completely and utterly devoid of logic and it suits him to believe it. Why not?
I have always liked the WSJ’s analysis of the business and financial sectors, but I never cease to be amazed at their unwavering support of this administration and its policies, even in the face of rising (and even overwhelming) public disapproval.
Calvin Coolidge said “The business of America is business.” You’d think that business and democracy are not mutually exclusive, but evidently the WSJ disagrees. Clearly they have no problem abandoning the principles of democracy in favor of the bottom line.
I am left baffled as to what Stimson did mean by his comments. Was there some point, or did he, and the WSJ, just suffer a brief psychotic break? Without a further explanation, the man is not deserving of public trust.
Which begs the question: what possible explanation could exist that would render him deserving of such trust?
It raises the question, actually.
Nothing personal, btw; I just wasn’t in the mood to allow the incorrect usage to pass unremarked this time.
Luckily, you live in California, where mood altering substances are freely available. Just sayin, is all.