It's the Law, Baby
I've not done nearly my proper share of lawyer-bashing, but I've done some. But then I commuted to Texas for a decade or so back in the '80's, and consequently was exposed to the truly crude, mean underbelly of 'Murican humor - so maybe my standards are a bit distorted.
The "counsel" I have encountered in the workplace have run the gammut from ideological and totally egomaniacal to loosy-goosy Deadheads, with a couple sensible, reality-connected sorts in between. In general, probably not unlike the general populace, I tend to distain lawyers more than I favor 'em. But I do have a piece of paper with "ACLU" on it sitting on the shelf here. And I have at least a couple close friends with law degrees (though majority are not practicing).
But it is a fascinating thing this business of laws and lawyers in the US of A these days. No doubt there are occasions when high-percentage legal fees on some sort of settlement are wholly out of line, as well as instances of lawyer-shylocks who are only in it for themselves. And don't get me started on the prevalence of law degrees in the incestuous political culture, never mind that sick sycophantic corporation-before-people world of the lobbyists. Let's just say that is a train wreck when it comes to our civil liberties and the democracy we pretend to be.
In a nutshell, I'm conflicted when it comes to lawyers. Reiterating for the record, I on rare occasions make jokes about them but know it is right more than ever to support the ACLU.
But we seem to be at some sort of unusual planetary conjunction right now for the legal profession. If you're reading this you are likely in the elite in terms of attending to news rather than lazily hoping it will come to you (during commercials on Survivor, CSI, the SuperBowl, or some sitcom??). I would hope you are at least at times surfing the web - not only will you learn things earlier there (e.g. I learned of Ehren Watada's mistrial on-line hours before most newspapers and networks had it), but you can also find commentary pro and con.
At the very least, as a starter, I encourage you to bookmark these sites, fonts of great insight:
Latest Breaking News at Democratic Underground (lots more at that site is worthy of attention, including in particular the editorials and opinion category)
Truthout
Common Dreams
A few snippets to back up my assertion above regarding odd planetary lawyerly conjunction. I was reminded today, courtesy of the fantastic live blogposting being done at the Firedoglake site - the best single source of info on this critical trial available, including all mainstream media - that Tim Russert, of all people, has a law degree, though he's never practiced. He does encapsulate in his currently-crutched form a curmudgeonly style that I can't help despising as his present media role should involve a strong pro-citizen bias but instead reeks of insider and gaming the system. He is the key to the likely Libby conviction, yet it is increasingly hard to admire or even tolerate him. Hell, I have to work at not despising him - but that's just for the moment, my natural sentiments will be unleashed once trial is over. I couldn't help but cherish the scathing cross-exam. He's gotten it from two barrels in this trial, given the shaming he ought to have felt (if capable) last week when he was more or less characterized by White House press folks as the most easily shilled of all the news talk shows.
Down with Tyranny has a fine update on the executive branch's attempts to cherry-pick attorneys, firing even some they appointed due to an unfortunate habit of applying the law to the administration's cronies. Lawyers with principles. Sheesh. What next?
I hope you've been following the stories about how the rogue Bush Regime has been firing U.S. Attorneys-- each one a Republican appointed by Bush himself-- under dubious circumstances and for dubious reasons (like successfully prosecuting Bush cronies for bribery). Today the Senate Judiciary Committee, with wide-- though certainly not complete-- bipartisan support moved a bill forward to curb the Justice Department's assumed power to replace federal prosecutors. So far Gonzales has knocked off seven. The vote, on a bill sponsored by Dianne Feinstein, was 13-6 with Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) joining the Democrats and voting the interests of the American people for a change-- instead of rubber-stamping Bush Regime neo-fascism. The neo-fascist side was led by Jon Kyl (R-AZ).
-clip-
And over at Anonymous Liberal, they've been attending to the outrageous behavior of the Defense Dept dipshit (lawyer) who went ballistic recently that American lawyers were defending Gitmo defendants. Pro bono. There must be a crime there! This post is mostly on the hysterical right-wing reaction to the appropriate firestorm the numb-nuts idiot (what matchbook law school was that again?) from the Pentagon set off, leading to his precipitous departure. I think I remember he had some actual "responsibility" related to the illegally detained folks - just the sort of sympatico-fruitcake George might have gotten stoked with in some strip club in Georgia when his "job" actually involved showing up and flying planes in Texas so he could avoid combat. The reaction seems to fit the crime in this case - howling and other primitive behavior when the lawless rightwing thugs are called out. Our marching orders are clear. More Call-outs!
Over the last two days, the regulars over at the National Review's blog, The Corner, have been leaping to the defense of Cully Stimson, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, who suggested in an interview a few weeks ago that businesses should refuse to hire law firms that do legal work on behalf of Guantanamo detainees. He also suggested, somewhat cryptically, that these firms were getting paid to do this work by shady foreign entities. These comments were sharply criticized by people from across the political spectrum. The Washington Post issued a stinging editorial:
[I]t's offensive -- shocking, to use his word -- that Mr. Stimson, a lawyer, would argue that law firms are doing anything other than upholding the highest ethical traditions of the bar by taking on the most unpopular of defendants. It's shocking that he would seemingly encourage the firms' corporate clients to pressure them to drop this work. And it's shocking -- though perhaps not surprising -- that this is the person the administration has chosen to oversee detainee policy at Guantanamo.Not surprisingly, Stimson was forced to apologize and later resigned. But his resignation seems to have touched a nerve among the writers at the National Review, and their reaction provides a window into the authoritarian mindset that has gripped the GOP in the post-9/11 era.
-clip-
And No Quarter gives us a hint on one possible bit of lawyerly news tomorrow - the long-delayed IG report on pre-war "intelligence work." I'm betting there's nada in this that will help any in the administration with their pending MENSA applications. But I also doubt, given the parties involved, that Fox A will be telling us a lot of news about Fox B. This isn't the way actual useful information on our government's limitations is uncovered. That would be for one thing that sorry old, to-some outmoded system of checks and balances, where Congress actually shows up for more than 20 hours a week and growls occasionally. Not to mention the concept of an actual aggressive, unintimidated band of unruly irrascible journalists. But we'll see.
U.S. Attorneys, and a CIA Honcho, On The Way Down
By SusanUnPC ... It is a heavy news day, even if CNNMSNBCFOX are wall-to-wall Anna Nicole (thank god for BBC World Service radio). There are titillating details from the Libby trial (Russert's testimony went on and on and on, with even the jury members questioning him, and Mary Matalin got hit with hard questions from, uh, Don Imus) ... and, by the way, the prosecution has rested ... plus the news that the eagerly awaited Pentagon's Inspector General's report will say that the Pentagon's pre-war intelligence work (Doug Feith) "was inappropriate but not illegal." The Senate will hear from the IG on Friday. I bet Sen. Carl Levin is NOT a happy camper about the IG's wishy-washy report. And the word "inappropriate" sounds like adolescent pyschology babble.
-clip-
The "counsel" I have encountered in the workplace have run the gammut from ideological and totally egomaniacal to loosy-goosy Deadheads, with a couple sensible, reality-connected sorts in between. In general, probably not unlike the general populace, I tend to distain lawyers more than I favor 'em. But I do have a piece of paper with "ACLU" on it sitting on the shelf here. And I have at least a couple close friends with law degrees (though majority are not practicing).
But it is a fascinating thing this business of laws and lawyers in the US of A these days. No doubt there are occasions when high-percentage legal fees on some sort of settlement are wholly out of line, as well as instances of lawyer-shylocks who are only in it for themselves. And don't get me started on the prevalence of law degrees in the incestuous political culture, never mind that sick sycophantic corporation-before-people world of the lobbyists. Let's just say that is a train wreck when it comes to our civil liberties and the democracy we pretend to be.
In a nutshell, I'm conflicted when it comes to lawyers. Reiterating for the record, I on rare occasions make jokes about them but know it is right more than ever to support the ACLU.
But we seem to be at some sort of unusual planetary conjunction right now for the legal profession. If you're reading this you are likely in the elite in terms of attending to news rather than lazily hoping it will come to you (during commercials on Survivor, CSI, the SuperBowl, or some sitcom??). I would hope you are at least at times surfing the web - not only will you learn things earlier there (e.g. I learned of Ehren Watada's mistrial on-line hours before most newspapers and networks had it), but you can also find commentary pro and con.
At the very least, as a starter, I encourage you to bookmark these sites, fonts of great insight:
Latest Breaking News at Democratic Underground (lots more at that site is worthy of attention, including in particular the editorials and opinion category)
Truthout
Common Dreams
A few snippets to back up my assertion above regarding odd planetary lawyerly conjunction. I was reminded today, courtesy of the fantastic live blogposting being done at the Firedoglake site - the best single source of info on this critical trial available, including all mainstream media - that Tim Russert, of all people, has a law degree, though he's never practiced. He does encapsulate in his currently-crutched form a curmudgeonly style that I can't help despising as his present media role should involve a strong pro-citizen bias but instead reeks of insider and gaming the system. He is the key to the likely Libby conviction, yet it is increasingly hard to admire or even tolerate him. Hell, I have to work at not despising him - but that's just for the moment, my natural sentiments will be unleashed once trial is over. I couldn't help but cherish the scathing cross-exam. He's gotten it from two barrels in this trial, given the shaming he ought to have felt (if capable) last week when he was more or less characterized by White House press folks as the most easily shilled of all the news talk shows.
Down with Tyranny has a fine update on the executive branch's attempts to cherry-pick attorneys, firing even some they appointed due to an unfortunate habit of applying the law to the administration's cronies. Lawyers with principles. Sheesh. What next?
I hope you've been following the stories about how the rogue Bush Regime has been firing U.S. Attorneys-- each one a Republican appointed by Bush himself-- under dubious circumstances and for dubious reasons (like successfully prosecuting Bush cronies for bribery). Today the Senate Judiciary Committee, with wide-- though certainly not complete-- bipartisan support moved a bill forward to curb the Justice Department's assumed power to replace federal prosecutors. So far Gonzales has knocked off seven. The vote, on a bill sponsored by Dianne Feinstein, was 13-6 with Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) joining the Democrats and voting the interests of the American people for a change-- instead of rubber-stamping Bush Regime neo-fascism. The neo-fascist side was led by Jon Kyl (R-AZ).
-clip-
And over at Anonymous Liberal, they've been attending to the outrageous behavior of the Defense Dept dipshit (lawyer) who went ballistic recently that American lawyers were defending Gitmo defendants. Pro bono. There must be a crime there! This post is mostly on the hysterical right-wing reaction to the appropriate firestorm the numb-nuts idiot (what matchbook law school was that again?) from the Pentagon set off, leading to his precipitous departure. I think I remember he had some actual "responsibility" related to the illegally detained folks - just the sort of sympatico-fruitcake George might have gotten stoked with in some strip club in Georgia when his "job" actually involved showing up and flying planes in Texas so he could avoid combat. The reaction seems to fit the crime in this case - howling and other primitive behavior when the lawless rightwing thugs are called out. Our marching orders are clear. More Call-outs!
Over the last two days, the regulars over at the National Review's blog, The Corner, have been leaping to the defense of Cully Stimson, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, who suggested in an interview a few weeks ago that businesses should refuse to hire law firms that do legal work on behalf of Guantanamo detainees. He also suggested, somewhat cryptically, that these firms were getting paid to do this work by shady foreign entities. These comments were sharply criticized by people from across the political spectrum. The Washington Post issued a stinging editorial:
[I]t's offensive -- shocking, to use his word -- that Mr. Stimson, a lawyer, would argue that law firms are doing anything other than upholding the highest ethical traditions of the bar by taking on the most unpopular of defendants. It's shocking that he would seemingly encourage the firms' corporate clients to pressure them to drop this work. And it's shocking -- though perhaps not surprising -- that this is the person the administration has chosen to oversee detainee policy at Guantanamo.Not surprisingly, Stimson was forced to apologize and later resigned. But his resignation seems to have touched a nerve among the writers at the National Review, and their reaction provides a window into the authoritarian mindset that has gripped the GOP in the post-9/11 era.
-clip-
And No Quarter gives us a hint on one possible bit of lawyerly news tomorrow - the long-delayed IG report on pre-war "intelligence work." I'm betting there's nada in this that will help any in the administration with their pending MENSA applications. But I also doubt, given the parties involved, that Fox A will be telling us a lot of news about Fox B. This isn't the way actual useful information on our government's limitations is uncovered. That would be for one thing that sorry old, to-some outmoded system of checks and balances, where Congress actually shows up for more than 20 hours a week and growls occasionally. Not to mention the concept of an actual aggressive, unintimidated band of unruly irrascible journalists. But we'll see.
U.S. Attorneys, and a CIA Honcho, On The Way Down
By SusanUnPC ... It is a heavy news day, even if CNNMSNBCFOX are wall-to-wall Anna Nicole (thank god for BBC World Service radio). There are titillating details from the Libby trial (Russert's testimony went on and on and on, with even the jury members questioning him, and Mary Matalin got hit with hard questions from, uh, Don Imus) ... and, by the way, the prosecution has rested ... plus the news that the eagerly awaited Pentagon's Inspector General's report will say that the Pentagon's pre-war intelligence work (Doug Feith) "was inappropriate but not illegal." The Senate will hear from the IG on Friday. I bet Sen. Carl Levin is NOT a happy camper about the IG's wishy-washy report. And the word "inappropriate" sounds like adolescent pyschology babble.
-clip-
posted by Sir Gumbo at 10:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home