[lbo-talk] Re: Lawyers Should be Indicted

[andie nachgeborenen]

I don't understand why Nathan is obsessing about the
issue of lawyers aiding terrorists. Shane is right
that they (we) are much more likely to be aiding
repressive government officials. And while it mayu not
be, technically, a crime, it is unlawful and unethical
to advise your clients on how to destroy the
Constitition and violate international law. While a
lawyer who advises or conspires with a terrorist
client to commit crimes of violence probably should be
indicted, it doesn't happen. It's the fanatic obession
with the irrelevant hypothetical when there are much
more pressing issues that makes people worry about
your drift, Nathan. jks

--- Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
> >Nathan Newman wrote:
> >>...the original issue...is...how to handle lawyers
> who are involved in
> >>ongoing advice to clients who are still involved
> in the alleged illegal
> >>activity....
> 
> The protype of such lawyerly criminality is a
> certain Alberto Gonzalez,
> consigliore to the Ubu Family.  On Jan. 25, 2002,
> this future luminary
> of the US judiciary advised his co-conspirators: 
> the "new paradigm"
> created by the gang-war on 'terrorism' "renders
> obsolete Geneva's
> [the Geneva conventions against torture and
> mistreatment of
> war prisoners] strict limitations on questioning of
> enemy prisoners
> and renders quaint some of its provisions."  How can
> any lawyer
> legitimately be indicted for anything by Ubu's
> [in]Justice Department
> while this aider and abettor of war crimes and
> crimes against
> humanity remains at large?
> 
> Shane Mage
> 
>   "Mortals immortals, immortals mortals,
>   living their deaths, dying their lives"
> 
> Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 62
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

	

		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/