Posted on 01/02/2002 8:58:43 AM PST by vannrox
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Michael ShafferLawyers may soon have to deal with another crushing blow to their industry’s reputation, as an army is assembling for the chance to defend the alleged terrorists of the Al Qaeda and Taliban networks.
Monday, Dec. 31, 2001
The New York Times states that even as Pentagon officials wrap up the rules governing the tribunals and forward them to Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld for approval, defense lawyers are anxious to take advantage of this controversial opportunity.
The chance of a lifetime
Three lawyers, including former United States attorney general Ramsey Clark, defended Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric convicted in the 1995 terrorist plot to blow up New York City landmarks. Now, these same lawyers are eager to represent Rahman’s son Ahmed, who may have been captured in Afghanistan.
Virginia defense lawyer Charles W. Gittins, who defended Army Sergeant Major Gene C. McKinney, convicted in 1998 on one count of obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case, but acquitted of 18 other related charges, is eager to lend his services to the terrorists.
"My wife thinks I would be incorrectly viewed as being in league with the terrorists and that if I did too good a job, people might take action against me," he says. "These are the cases where the law expects you to jump in and do the job."
Qualified lawyers in short supply
"There are people who see it as an opportunity for very high-profile activity," says Stephen Gillers, professor of legal ethics at New York University Law School. "And there are people who firmly believe in the importance of a vigorous defense, even for the person accused of the most awful offenses. There will be more than enough lawyers in that category to go around."
The tribunal’s rules allow each defendant to hire a civilian lawyer, in addition to the military lawyer that they’re assigned. Vice President Dick Cheney believes that as the amount of prisoners in Afghanistan grows, with many candidates for military tribunals, these rules are more important than ever.
However, the defendants may have to rely on just a military lawyer, as these cases are very complex, involve the death penalty and may require a security clearance, and as such, the pool of civilian lawyers capable of handling the cases is small.
Footing the bill of fear
It’s unclear who will have to pay the legal bills, especially if the tribunal’s defendants decide to have both a civilian and military lawyer. According to retired Army lawyer Lt. Col. H. Wayne Elliott, the author of a dissertation on military tribunals, in Nuremberg after World War II, members of the Nazi high command chose their own lawyers, and all were German.
But in many of the hundreds of lower-level cases tried by the United States in tribunals, "almost every one had an American military lawyer, taken from the JAG (judge advocate general) corps, or a lawyer who was infantry."
While the American government paid for all of the World War II cases, they may also pay for the Al Qaeda terrorist cases, as they have frozen the terrorists’ assets. According to Gillers, defense lawyers were appointed in the Oklahoma City bombing cases, and "the court had to promise them compensation beyond the usual meager rates because they were committing years of their lives to these endeavors."
While it’s unknown how long the tribunals may last, it’s believed that they may be completed in a matter of days.
The first line of defense
Colonel Elliott expects the Pentagon to appoint the military lawyers in any terrorist tribunals. "We have to be practical. These are dangerous people and involved with a dangerous cabal of murderers and conspirators, and everyone at the trial will be at some risk.
It won't be easy for them to find counsel of their own choice," says Elliott. "You will find people willing to defend these people just for the book rights. I have no doubt that if we ever get one of these guys, there will be plenty of people who are willing to come in and defend them."
Michael Tiger, the lead lawyer for Terry L. Nichols, who was convicted of conspiracy in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, believes that the stakes in these cases are very high. But, he adds, "there always have been lawyers who have been willing to accept these challenges, even at great personal cost to themselves."
Upholding a reputation
Nevertheless, legal analysts fear that when defense lawyers participate in tribunals, they may promote the idea that all tribunals are fair, even if they are not. Tiger believes that when defending an alleged terrorist, the first step is to try to move the trial into a civilian court.
And what does defending terrorists mean for a lawyer's reputation? "If you do a good job defending your client, it doesn't matter," says Gittins. "But if you're seen as someone who rolled over for the government, or if you're too closely identified with your client, that's not good."
It may also be a good idea to tread cautiously. "If a defense attorney has any career aspirations, and he's too aggressive or too defiant, it's sayonara," says Donald Rehkopf, co-chairman of the military law committee for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. A product that might interest you:
Celebrate His Legacy - Get "Reagan`s Greatest Speeches"
She Will Run! Hillary Clinton`s Plans for the Presidency
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Al-Qaeda
War on Terrorism
The second step is to move for a dismissal on the grounds that it is impossible to get a fair civilian trial in the US because of all the prejudical pre-trial publicity.
But, he adds, "there always have been lawyers who have been willing to accept these challenges, even at great personal cost to themselves."
Amazing!
Unbelievable!
Obscene!
Don't be foolish.
No less authority than the United States Constitution makes clear (via the Sixth Amendment) that in all US trials, the accused shall have "the right [...] to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense".
It would, in fact, be traitorous (i.e., blatantly unconstitutional and Unamerican) to *deny* them Counsel, or even to refuse to step up and be their lawyer if no one else will.
On the other hand, I *am* greatly disturbed by the statement that some lawyers are "eager" to defend these "scum", as you so aptly describe them.
I have nothing against any lawyer who defends scum (terrorist scum, or any garden-variety scum) as a constitutional duty -- in fact, they have my respect, for doing a dirty job in the service of our American ideals. I *am* bothered by those who do it enthusiastically and "eagerly", however.
No. An ethical lawyer (and there *are* some out there) wants a defendant to get a fair trial -- no more, no less. A defense lawyer's job is not to "see them get off and not pay for their crimes". It's to ensure that the defendant gets to effectively argue his side of the case, to ensure that justice and due process is done, instead of a kangaroo court.
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.