Posted on 03/13/2010 2:56:58 PM PST by ricks_place
I'm really surprised that the opposing view the Journal picked to match up against Andy's op-ed was so weak. It's not weak because it's bad, per se. It's just irrelevant to most of the issues. Stephen Jones argues that lawyers should be willing to take on unpopular criminal defendants as clients. Okay, nobody I know disagrees with that, and he makes an entirely adequate case for it.
But that's not what the debate is about. The debate is about, among other things: Whether DOJ should be able to hide the history of appointed lawyers from Congress and the public; Whether Gitmo detainees are criminal defendants at all; whether volunteering pro bono for declared enemy combatants is even analogous to working for other "unpopular clients" or whether that pro bono work was really an effort to use the legal system as a Trojan Horse to change national security policy. And on these and other fronts, Stephen Jones' argument is just deficient or non-responsive.
For starters, most of his essay is dedicated to the hardships he endured representing Tim McVeigh. Just going from his version of events, I'm entirely sympathetic to his case. He didn't deserve any of that. But what does any of it have to do with what we're talking about? He was a "draftee" into the case, by his own admission. That alone makes his experience different. Throw in the fact McVeigh was an American citizen, not a member of a foreign terror organization, and that his whole piece is almost entirely a response to an argument no one is making, and one has to wonder why the Journal even bothered running this piece. It would have been a lot more edifying if they found someone to actually respond to Andy's far more substantial argument.
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
These seven clowns in question took those cases pro-bono as if they believed in the terrorists causes. THAT really is a problem.
I have no problem with any lawyer defending the terrorists.
I have a problem with any company that then employs those lawyers or the law firms they are members of.
Actions have consequences and these firms and lawyer’s names should be public. And people should boycott businesses that employ those firms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.