-I don't understand why Nathan is obsessing about the -issue of lawyers aiding terrorists.
I'm not obsessed with the issue of lawyers aiding terrorists-- remember, I think Stewart is most likely innocent and I'm not throwing out anyone else who should be prosecuted.
What I objected to initially was the idea that lawyers should be protected when they participate in aiding illegal activity, whether at Enron or anywhere else. Other people threw out Lynne Stewart as someone supporting the idea that lawyers should be immune from prosecution.
Nathan
--- 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/ ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk