--- Lance Murdoch <lancemurdoch at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:24:16 -0500, Nathan Newman
> <nathanne at nathannewman.org> wrote:
> > And the whole line that Stewart just broke a minor
> rule is completely
> > batshit. Her client is possibly the most
> notorious prisoner in this
> > country-- a bomber of the World Trade Center who
> is still alive
Stop right there, Stop right there. Nathan, you are coming prety close to reading yourself out of the left. You will end up with Sidney Hook and the HUAC liberals.
The wickedness of a client is totally fucking irrelevant. My First Amendment teacher, David Goldberger, who, btw, would never describe himself asa
leftist, made his legal bones defending the Nazis in Skokie. The basic First Amemendment right to advocate illegality was made ina case defending the Klan's right to call for "revengance" against Blacks. And the excuse that the victim is very bad and part of an evil conspiracy is the rationale behind the upholding of the Smith Act convictions of the Communist leaders.
Real liberals don't care how bad are the views of those to whom they provide legal defense. My own pro bono work at this point consists in defending guilty murderers. Moreover, bad judgment does not disqualify a victim of oppression or miscarriager of jusrice from being worthy of support from the left.
You KNOW that violating gag orders is small change legally. You KNOW the trivial or nonexistent legal penalties that attach in normal cases, sometimes involving murderous scumbugs, Mafia leaders, etc. What is your excuse for supporting traeting this as seditiosu conspiracy and defrauding the government? What the hell is a liberal, much less a leftist, doing supporting the idea that ANYONE should be convicted of seditious conspiracy? What is happening to you, Nathan?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com