There are some limits on the activities of defense lawyers. Lawyer who assisted terrorist client faces up to 30 year sentence. Read more:
Can we expect a movie?
I won't be going to see it if there is a movie. When will they learn????
Sounds more like Lifetime channel movie with an emphasis on the victory over cancer and a de-emphasis on aiding terrorists.
From a Reuters story:
"Her case is an example of the way in which the government is equating individuals who represent terrorists with terrorists themselves--that language of 'if you're not with us you're against us,' " said Rachel Meeropol of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
From the Wall-Street Journal:
And who is Rachel Meeropol? Someone with an interesting family history: a granddaughter of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed for espionage against the U.S.
There is a disturbing disparity between the 30 years sought by the prosecution and the sentence assessed. Did she get special treatment? Does her past service atone for her criminal conduct?
How is her past service any different than any other defense atty's "service"? Sure, her clients were far more notorious than most defense attys clients, but does that make her work as a criminal defense atty. more valuable?
I do believe that someone who has shown extraordinary courage in defense of this country, or others, or in an effort to save human life, should be given some credit--but just being a loud-mouthed defense atty. for noxious people who's only common denominator seems to be they hate America? That is way beyond the Pale.
Any opinions on how these lawyers are being treated?
I am truly curious about what other legal professionals think about this issue. I know it differs significantly from the matter posted at the beginning of this thread.
|Powered by Social Strata|
© TDCAA, 2001. All Rights Reserved.