On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:40:50 -0500 Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
writes:
> Jim Farmelant wrote:
>
> >OK Doug, explain what would be wrong with Clark choosing
> >to defend Pinochet, if he so decided? In fact, I know of
> >a number of people, who were by no means sympathetic
> >towards Pinochet, who found the circumstances of his
> >arrest in the UK to be very troubling. After all, presumably,
> >somebody like Fidel Castro could be arrested on grounds
> >similar to the ones that were invoked against Pinochet.
>
> Yeah, I've heard that argument too. There are also innocent people
> who get convicted of crimes and get sent to prison. Does that mean
> there shouldn't be any prosecutors or jails?
What's that have to do with whether or not a lawyer chooses to act as a defense attorney for someone who is accused by one of your prosecutors? As Justin has explained, anyone who chooses to make a career out of being a defense attorney is going to wind up defending all manner of thugs and lowlifes. Furthermore, as Justin also explained, many of the groundbreaking advances in legal rights have come out of lawyers defending people who were less than appetizing. Miranda of the famous 1960s Supreme Court decision, was not a very appealing character as I recall.
>
> And if Clark did take Pinochet's case, I'd think he was scum for
> doing so, regardless of any Higher Principle involved.
You are simply repeating your previous assertion here concerning Clark. What would have been wrong with Clark taking Pinochet's case? You have yet to give a convincing answer to my argument, that people like Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez could find themselves being put under arrest on grounds similar to the ones invoked against Pinochet.
Jim F.
>
> Doug
>
________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com