So what was done that made the woman at the heart of this story deserve prison?

Is the author sure that false charges were not brought against her?

I'm always curious about how many reader responses Salon stories garner. A few weeks ago Cary Tennis's response to whether a reader should shave/wax her pubes received about 150 replies by 9:30 a.m. EST, the time when I am writing this. (in all, that column received 347 replies. At 9:15 a.m. today, the Greene interview has received 1, plus my entry).

Not passing judgment (OK, maybe a little), but I think these responses are a barometer of even the lefty Salon readership's priorities.

FWIW

... probably due to shock. I mean, I'm just speechless that there is that sort of massive number of orphans.

The situation of these orphans is not any different than ten minutes ago when I started the article. The facts are the same. The only difference is - now you know.

I applaud Mrs. Greene for taking a concrete step, doing what she can do to alleviate someone's pain, and publicizing the crisis of these orphaned kids. If it moves any readers to send another $5 or $10 or $50 to someone who can help these children, then it's worth it.

Just because people aren't posting jackass comments like crazy doesn't mean they aren't thinking about the article or the ramifications of it.

I am relieved to see someone address the imperialist implications of international adoption - especially in such an intelligent, thoughtful way. It is something I have wondered about constantly as I absorbed pop-culture news about Angelina Jolie - most of all, I wondered why neither she nor anyone else seemed to be talking publicly about such concerns. I think this woman's children - all of them - are extraordinariliy lucky to have such a thoughtful and articulate woman as a mother.

Melissa Fay Greene's commitment to children is extraordinary. But, living in Atlanta, I cannot see the story of her family without contemplating the fact that her husband is an attention-seeking, celebrity defense attorney who uses any trick in the book to get off some of the most henious assailants of women and children. And how do you reconcile the one with the other? Is his family's safety more important than the safety of the rest of us, those of us whose families have been torn apart by the grotesque, violent men he defends?

Ordinarily, these sorts of questions wouldn't seem appropriate to pose about a book, but Ms. Greene is presenting herself and her husband, and the choices they make, as both heroic and the very subject of her work. So it is appropriate to contemplate the choices her husband makes: he advocates to silence rape victims; he used flimsy and questionable tactics to protect a man who fled after having his wife brutally murdered in her own home; he fights to release brutal killers on technicalities; he argues against victims having the right to testify to the harm done to them, and he works to minimize the sentences served by society's most violent offenders. How does this square with benefiting humanity? Isn't choosing to live this way -- applying one value to your own family's safety and life, and a lesser standard to other people's safety -- a grotesque expression of the very thing Greene purports to despise in her book?

--Crime Victim in Atlanta

There was an article showing how AIDS in Africa are overestimated (http://www.natap.org/2006/newsUpdates/041106_07.htm). Most people or news agency probably don't realize that most AIDS statistics about Africa are just estimate and not actual count.

I first confess that I know absolutely nothing about the author's husband or the cases you cite.

Reading your comment, my first reaction is to agree with you. Sometime I almost feel like quoting, in spirit, W.'s remarks about states that harbor terrorists being equal to the actual terrorists -- defense attorneys who represent the worst in society aren't much better themselves. That's the reactionary angry lesbian in me, I guess.

But I know many defense attorneys, men and women who represent insurance companies (who aren't very popular in Florida, to say the least) and other entities and individuals that make my stomach turn. The thing is, quite often the attorneys themselves are disgusted by their clients. But it's not the client that they fight for, as much as a fair criminal justice system. They hate, sometimes, when their client "wins," but those victories serve as a mirror turned on the government, highlighting the holes in the system. Of the attorneys I know, the one whose clients I find most reprehensible is also the most moral, fair-minded, feminist man I've ever met.

Again, I can't speak to the character of the author's husband (nor can anyone who doesn't know him personally). But I think it's a rush the judgement to assume that his profession is incompatible with his home life. Indeed, knowing how committed to personal freedoms and civil liberties the vast majority of defense attorneys are, I think it's quite possible that he has a lot of wonderful things to teach his adopted children about their new country.

Makes me want to run out and adopt some children myself - seriously. I've always considered adopting from an African or Caribbean country. But, keep in mind that there are hundreds of African American orphans right here who also need good homes. This is why I will always be for contraceptions and if necessary abortion. There are simply too many unwanted children in this world. Why add to that number? Who really is taking care of all of these poor souls? As the author correctly pointed out there simply aren't enough homes in developed countries to take in all of these children.

I hesitate to use this space to talk about the role of a criminal defense attorney in our society -- I don't think it is at all relevant to Melissa's book (or, for that matter, to our family's commitment to help a few extremely wonderful children escape intolerable circumstances). But I do want to invite "Crime Victim" to call me anytime she wants to discuss some of the issues she raises in her letter and to visit me in my office. Referring to legal advocacy as "tricks in the book" is often a short-hand way of questioning the wisdom of the Bill of Rights, which guarantees to everybody charged with a crime the right to an attorney. Not just innocent people; not just first-offenders; not just people who made an error in judgment. The constitution guarantees that right to everybody charged with a crime, even the person charged with the most heinous offense. I have never advocated crime. I have never tried to benefit from a victim's misery. Like you and every other humane person, I detest crime, and I sympathize with crime victims. Like you, I am appalled at what some people seem capable of doing to other people. But our amazing criminal justice system (a system in which both John Adams and Abraham Lincoln practiced as defense attorneys, both of whom represented some of the most reprehensible people in their day) ensures that there is a proper balance in the investigation of crimes, the procedures that ensure accuracy in the trial, and in sentencing. Regarding your statement that I use flimsy and questionable tactics, I can only invite you to call the prosecutors and judges before whom I appear and try to find someone who agrees with you; I think you will find it very hard to find someone. I hope you are not basing your judgment on sensationalized newspaper articles, or Nancy Grace vignettes. You should also know that with regard to many of the cases that I handle -- death penalty cases, terrorism cases, torture cases -- the court has appointed me to handle the case. The court appoints me, I asssume, because the judge knows that I will not use questionable or flimsy tactics. Again, I urge you to call me if you want to discuss this with me. In the meantime, I hope you will find the time to read Melissa's book and try to see that what I do professionally is not necessarily inconsistent with the way we live our lives.