A group of leading conservative lawyers -- a phrase never confused with U.S. Marines -- has produced an embarrassingly pompous letter denouncing Liz Cheney for demanding the names of attorneys at the Justice Department who formerly represented Guantanamo detainees.
The letter calls Cheneys demand shameful before unleashing this steaming pile of idiocy:
The American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre.
Yes but even John Adams didnt take a job with the government for another 19 years after defending the British guards -- who in 1770 were the police. He also didnt take a position with the U.S. government that involved processing British murder suspects.
Id be more interested in hearing about the sacred duty of lawyers to defend unpopular clients if we were talking about clients who are unpopular with anyone lawyers know.
Every white shoe law firm in the country has been clamoring to take the cases of Guantanamo detainees while young associates line up to be put on the case. This is even more fun than defending Ted Bundy!
As The Wall Street Journal put it in a 2007 article a list of the law firms representing Guantanamo detainees reads like a whos who of Americas most prestigious law firms -- which conveniently doubles as Santas naughty list.
The terrorists lawyers have included Shearman and Sterling Arnold & Porter; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr; Covington & Burling; Hunton & Williams; Sullivan & Cromwell; Debevoise & Plimpton; King & Spalding; Cleary Gottlieb Morrison & Foerster; Jenner & Block; OMelveny & Myers and Sidley Austin.
At least 34 of the 50 largest firms in the United States have performed pro bono work on behalf of Guantanamo detainees.
Years ago when I nearly died of boredom working for a law firm I heard whispered rumors about a partner Michael Tierney whom none of the female associates wanted to work with because his pro bono work included defending -- gasp! -- pro-life groups. (There was at least one female associate who wanted to work with him!)
I didnt hear a peep about the august American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients back then.
Like Hollywood actresses lawyers need to believe theyre noble and courageous to help them forget that they are corporate drones doing soul-destroying work which mostly consists of making photocopies.
Defending terrorists gives status-conscious attorneys a chance to get standing ovations at the annual ABA convention -- much like promoting global warming makes climatologists feel like theyre saving the world rather than studying water vapor.
It took me exactly one Nexis search for ABA award and Guantanamo to find that the 2006 Outstanding Scholar Award at the ABA annual banquet was given to New York University law professor Anthony G. Amsterdam for his extensive pro bono practice litigating cases that range from civil rights claims to death penalty defense to claims of access to the courts for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
A rule I have is: Youre not defending an unpopular client if youre getting awards from the ABA particularly if the award mentions courage.
Youll never see a pompous letter like the one attacking Liz Cheney on behalf of any lawyer defending clients who are unpopular with lawyers which terrorists are not.
Ken Starr a signatory to the Please God Let This Get Me a Good Obituary in The New York Times letter once totally by mistake had a case unpopular with the establishment: Bill Clintons impeachment.
Hes shown his mettle by saying that if he met Clinton today hed say Im sorry. Because isnt that what Jesus said? Be very concerned with the opinion of the world!
Speaking of which I also never heard any testimonials to the sacred duty of lawyers to defend unpopular causes when every lawyer working on the Clinton impeachment was being smeared as a tobacco lawyer.
Tobacco companies being wildly unpopular are in need of a lot of legal services. Scratch any litigator from a big law firm and youll find someone who if necessary could be slimed as a tobacco lawyer.
You will notice a pattern developing: We only hear paeans to the American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients when its being used to defend causes popular with liberals -- serial killers terrorists and a horny hick who promised to save partial-birth abortion.
Lawyers want to be congratulated for their courage in defending unpopular clients while taking cases that are utterly noncontroversial in their social circles.
Theyd be scared to death to take the case of an anti-abortion activist. Defending the guy who killed George Tiller the Baby Killer wont make them a superstar at the next ABA convention.
Not only do Americans have a right to know the legal backgrounds of lawyers setting detainee policy at the Department of Justice but I personally demand the right not to have to listen to Eddie Haskell lawyers constantly claiming to be Atticus Finch.
Ann Coulter is a columnist and author of Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault On America.
A group of leading conservative lawyers -- a phrase never confused with U.S. Marines -- has produced an embarrassingly pompous letter denouncing Liz Cheney for demanding the names of attorneys at the Justice Department who formerly represented Guantanamo detainees.
The letter calls Cheneys demand shameful before unleashing this steaming pile of idiocy:
The American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre.
Yes but even John Adams didnt take a job with the government for another 19 years after defending the British guards -- who in 1770 were the police. He also didnt take a position with the U.S. government that involved processing British murder suspects.
Id be more interested in hearing about the sacred duty of lawyers to defend unpopular clients if we were talking about clients who are unpopular with anyone lawyers know.
Every white shoe law firm in the country has been clamoring to take the cases of Guantanamo detainees while young associates line up to be put on the case. This is even more fun than defending Ted Bundy!
As The Wall Street Journal put it in a 2007 article a list of the law firms representing Guantanamo detainees reads like a whos who of Americas most prestigious law firms -- which conveniently doubles as Santas naughty list.
The terrorists lawyers have included Shearman and Sterling Arnold & Porter; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr; Covington & Burling; Hunton & Williams; Sullivan & Cromwell; Debevoise & Plimpton; King & Spalding; Cleary Gottlieb Morrison & Foerster; Jenner & Block; OMelveny & Myers and Sidley Austin.
At least 34 of the 50 largest firms in the United States have performed pro bono work on behalf of Guantanamo detainees.
Years ago when I nearly died of boredom working for a law firm I heard whispered rumors about a partner Michael Tierney whom none of the female associates wanted to work with because his pro bono work included defending -- gasp! -- pro-life groups. (There was at least one female associate who wanted to work with him!)
I didnt hear a peep about the august American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients back then.
Like Hollywood actresses lawyers need to believe theyre noble and courageous to help them forget that they are corporate drones doing soul-destroying work which mostly consists of making photocopies.
Defending terrorists gives status-conscious attorneys a chance to get standing ovations at the annual ABA convention -- much like promoting global warming makes climatologists feel like theyre saving the world rather than studying water vapor.
It took me exactly one Nexis search for ABA award and Guantanamo to find that the 2006 Outstanding Scholar Award at the ABA annual banquet was given to New York University law professor Anthony G. Amsterdam for his extensive pro bono practice litigating cases that range from civil rights claims to death penalty defense to claims of access to the courts for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
A rule I have is: Youre not defending an unpopular client if youre getting awards from the ABA particularly if the award mentions courage.
Youll never see a pompous letter like the one attacking Liz Cheney on behalf of any lawyer defending clients who are unpopular with lawyers which terrorists are not.
Ken Starr a signatory to the Please God Let This Get Me a Good Obituary in The New York Times letter once totally by mistake had a case unpopular with the establishment: Bill Clintons impeachment.
Hes shown his mettle by saying that if he met Clinton today hed say Im sorry. Because isnt that what Jesus said? Be very concerned with the opinion of the world!
Speaking of which I also never heard any testimonials to the sacred duty of lawyers to defend unpopular causes when every lawyer working on the Clinton impeachment was being smeared as a tobacco lawyer.
Tobacco companies being wildly unpopular are in need of a lot of legal services. Scratch any litigator from a big law firm and youll find someone who if necessary could be slimed as a tobacco lawyer.
You will notice a pattern developing: We only hear paeans to the American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients when its being used to defend causes popular with liberals -- serial killers terrorists and a horny hick who promised to save partial-birth abortion.
Lawyers want to be congratulated for their courage in defending unpopular clients while taking cases that are utterly noncontroversial in their social circles.
Theyd be scared to death to take the case of an anti-abortion activist. Defending the guy who killed George Tiller the Baby Killer wont make them a superstar at the next ABA convention.
Not only do Americans have a right to know the legal backgrounds of lawyers setting detainee policy at the Department of Justice but I personally demand the right not to have to listen to Eddie Haskell lawyers constantly claiming to be Atticus Finch.
Ann Coulter is a columnist and author of Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault On America.
