- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
It seems your saying that attorneys are the only beings on earth that needn't take any responsibility for their actions.
Your child molester example is silly. Child molesters should be defended for the simple fact that many lawyers would not take on such clients on moral grounds. It wouldn't matter if they were rich or not. This is the basis of the ethical position that you seek to shelter Holder with.
However, a company with a powerful lobbying arm that has literally deposed foreign governments that were not amenable to it, is not friendless nor is it a pariah. Your attempt to conflate the two shows lack of rigor or any desire to look objectively at your own profession. Taking on such a defense by choice, for seemingly no other reason but the profit motive is not the same as defending a child molester shunned by the majority of other attorneys.
Defend a rich company abusing the rights of workers? Or search out defendants who do not have money or access to defense. These are not equally valid moral decisions simply because everyone deserves equal representation to counsel.
