I couldn't disagree more. If one truly believes in our system of justice, this would be a case one would take. I don't care how "evil" the client is. The law is supposed to be blind to this.

"Have they no consideration?"

They would have gotten away with it too, were it not for the ferkin photographer. That photo just killed the whole operation.

Who were the worthless attorneys who represented Nazi war criminals at the close or WWII?

And should we pass judgement on whoever attempted to defend Sadam Hussein in court?

OK, I'll give it a shot. Any lawyer who defends such a client brings credit to his or her profession, upholds the highest standards of the law, and brings validity to the entire process of justice if they do the job to their best ability.

If I am not mistaken, the US works closely with certain "war lords" in Afghanistan who not only pay lip service to fighting the Tally-ban (when they're not colluding with them), but also make a ton of money in the Opium trade.

So I don't want to wrongly associate bad and illegal behavior solely with the poor banana. There are any number of other produce items--leafy greens like coca, or cut flowers like poppies, that may be involved.

And so, when the US government charges Chiquita with consorting with (paying off) terrorists, while at the same time paying off Sunni tribesmen in Iraq and drug-dealing former taliban war-lords in Afghanistan, I think it is fitting and proper that lawyers get involved.

Seems like there should be some good banana jokes in this appointment, or rumored appointment, or alleged rumored appointment...

But I absolutely agree with Greenwald's point. Those accused of terrorism, and/or aiding and abetting terrorism deserve legal defense and a prompt day in court. Whether they're banana growers or not.

Frankly sed...

Yes. The only thing that really surprises me is that there hasn't been a message from the Pope saying how pissed off he is.

I think they have to translate his stuff from german, so his posts take a bit longer.

It is truly ugly over there.

Democratic leader says party won’t turn left

By Mike Soraghan

Posted: 11/18/08 12:04 AM [ET]

As the House prepares to elect its leaders, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is challenging the idea that the expanded Democratic majority and its leaders will make a hard left turn.

“For the first time in decades, we are a true national majority party—and if we want to stay that way, we must govern like one,” Hoyer (D-Md.) is to say in a speech today at the National Press Club, according to excerpts of his remarks obtained by The Hill.

...

“The 33 new Members of Congress coming to Washington to swell our side of the aisle are pragmatic, not dogmatic,” Hoyer is to say. “They were elected on promises of bipartisanship and fiscal discipline. They were elected, quite simply, to solve problems, not further politicize Washington.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/party-wont-turn-left-dem-leader-says-2008-11-18.html

Greenwald: "contempt for, and an insatiable desire to demonize, the so-called "Left."

Democratic Senate staffer:

Asked what it would mean if Lieberman kept his chairmanship, one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: "The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes. Their influence would be in question."

I don't think the left is being demonized so much as being used. We're not powerful enough to demonize, at least among Democrats. I think we're more like doormats. In that we help them get in the door, but are left outside. Where we then 'rant and rage', howl at the moon, etc., etc.

Since these geniuses are going to allow Lieberscum to keep his important Chairmanship with only a minor slap on the wrists, that suggests to me that many of them will use the same impeccable logic to campaign for him against Lamont in 2012.

Maybe so, but I'm wondering if one thought in their August Gray Heads was that Lieberman has no chance in Conn. in 2012 anyway, so let's let the election wipe him out then. This is the same logic used for the GOP congress and WH, no? The ultimate punishment, according to the Party, is losing an election.

Whatever their motives, the Party will endure the foamy hissing from its base for a short time, and after a brief period of not-even-minor-discomfort, they'll all enjoy a good laugh over a nice glass of single malt.

That's when things are really good, because I'm just a fringe nothing and nobody agrees with me and therefore politicians should express contempt for me in order to become more powerful.

And they'll keep on doing it until there's a painful political consequence.

Democrats who reject the emotional and ideological extremists in their own party can claim to be pragmatic.

The appointment of Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff. He’s been called a partisan attack dog, but he was defended against those who called him that by our own Sen. Lindsey Graham, John McCain’s close friend and ally. Yes, he ran the Democrats’ successful effort to take over Congress in 2006, but he did it by recruiting candidates who appealed to the political center — something his party’s more extreme elements haven’t forgiven him for. In an interview just before he was offered the job, Rep. Emanuel said, “The American people are unbelievably pragmatic. Have confidence in their pragmatism. It’s the operating philosophy of our country.”

http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/2008/11/hoping-audaciou.html

You were right, though, I offered no citation to my statement about Brennan being anti-torture. I won't get into my sources and methods, but I stand by my reporting.

So, in other words you're reporting out of a black box. Could be you have a source. Could be you're consulting Nancy Reagan's occultist. Maybe you took a trip to the Oracle of Delphi. No way of knowing. Good work. Keep it up.