Replies

Let me 'xplain:

When I worked in a NYC boutique law firm, the 2nd biggest client was a Jewish Mafia don. His wife's brother was executed in a restaurant, and there was lots of publicity. Our partner went to the funeral. His picture (and the Mafia don client's picture) was in the papers.

The other partners freaked out. Our #1 biggest client was a very quiet society venture capitalist who hated publicity.

A partners' meeting was called. The Mafia don was removed from our client list. That was 10 in the morning. By 4 p.m., the managing partner convinced the older, conservative partners that even Mafiosos were afforded the privilege of legal representation, and that it was unAmerican to deny someone who had previously paid his bills and given us so much business.

The client list was printed again, with the Mafia don's name included.

The moral of the story is that it takes guts to defend someone who is obviously wrong, but somebody has to do it, because if no one does it, our legal system would be lacking due process.

that it was unAmerican to deny someone who had previously paid his bills and given us so much business. The client list was printed again, with the Mafia don's name included. The moral of the story is that it takes guts to defend someone who is obviously wrong, but somebody has to do it, because if no one does it, our legal system would be lacking due process.

Pleeeassssse, the moral of your story is that it was unAmerican to deny someone who had previously paid his bills and given us so much business.

Maybe "someone has to do it" - but that someone does not have to "do it" in the interest of self glorification and mask it as a patriotic act.

Scratch Dershowitz and all those like minded, high minded, defenders of the legal faith and what you will find underneath is a self absorbed fee junkie.

The moral of the story is that it takes guts to defend someone who is obviously wrong, but somebody has to do it, because if no one does it, our legal system would be lacking due process.

It is true that our legal system is often a legitimate embarrassment in a number of ways, but public cases, even of Mafia Dons have positive values. For one, it becomes a public forum for the presentation of a lot of dirty laundry, and often that laundry has been soiled by both sides. This will always benefit the public. Just as Mafia Dons can't exist without friends in the system, neither could Bin Laden. If nothing else, an exposition of the drug relationships around Bin Laden wouldn't hurt John Q Public one bit. Neither would a public exposition of the role played in this by the Carter and Reagan administrations. Sweeping these things may well be the real motives behind Bush's secret tribunal games, and the key to promoting more of such things in the future. Given the billions blown in Afghanistan and the blowback from it, it is inexcusable not to publicly air the dirty linen.

The moral of the story is that it takes guts to defend someone who is obviously wrong, but somebody has to do it, because if no one does it, our legal system would be lacking due process.

Dershowitz is not displaying his guts and he is not standing up for "patriotism" or any other high-falutin' thing. He is an egotistic fool who is displaying his greed and twisted logic for all to see.

If bin Laden is brought to a military court for trial, he will get representation of an American lawyer - even if it is not the esteemed (in his opinion) Mr. D. In addition, there is little doubt (at least in my mind) the patriotic Mr. D. would refuse to represent bin Laden if he couldn't get camera face-time 24/7 and make his usual $500/hour fee along with his lucrative spots on the nightly cable shows.

No, what Mr. D. is looking for is fame and fortune at the expense of the American system, not justice for all, and he is willing to use bin Laden and all the rest of us to do it. Imagine that! He probably thinks all the rubes out here are buying his b&llsh1t! There is a difference, and you as a smart lawyer surely know that. Perhaps we can excuse Diane Sawyer for not knowing that. After all, she is a clueless Talking Head. You aren't - or at least your many previous postings haven't indicated anything of the sort.