>
> Yes, but a politically motivated lawyer should
> choose his cases
> because they signal something about his judgment and
> principles. And
> this choice says that Clark is a reckless slut.
>
> How would you have felt if Clark had volunteered to
> defend Pinochet?
> Similar principles would be at stake - the validity
> of the
> international jurisdiction, etc. Regardless, it
> would stink to high
> heaven. This stinks more and higher.
>
> Doug
Michael Tigar defended Terry Nichols. Lynne Stewart defended Shaikh Whatsisname, the first WTC bomber.
It would be nice if one could strive to make good law by defending noble clients falsely accused by wicked officials, like in the movies. But the reality of the situation is that those circumstances are quite rare, at least in a way that intersects with legal practice. Maybe it is true in Mumia's case as it was in Hurricane Carter's. But Lou is right. In the old days when one might hope to make good law in such cases, the more typical defendants were in fact criminal lowlifes, sometimes petty crooks, sometimes a lot worse. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, establishing the strong free-speech rights we like to hold on to today, the defendant was a Klansman who called for "revengement" on the colored hordes. Even more recently liberal and radical lawyers who have defended leftists, like Kunstler in Johnson (the flagburburning case) had the RCP for a client, people who'd shoot hima nd almost everyone on thsi list if they got to power. So there you have it, Doug. Your picture of how the law works in this matteris unrealistic.
jks (one of whose current clients is a convicted murderer, I won't say whether I think he's guilty because it's not an issue in the case)
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/