- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
This is why discourse is good and why I come here, because it makes me have to hone my thinking.
The first argument is that the profit motive creates an ethical problem for lawyers. On one level, is a lawyer who carries out his/her ethical duty of defending someoen no matter who they are or what they've done, really being ethical if they only take on clients who can pay them millions? Legal professionals seem to have an ethical blind spot when it comes to the profit motive that prevents most poor people from receiving adequate defense. How can you argue that there is an ethical mandate to defend anybody, when daily thousands of people go to jail because they cannot afford counsel? The judicial system de facto prevents them from getting the legal defense we are arguing about.
The second point I am arguing is that a corporation (or even an individual) who has long standing ties with government actors and a nearly feudal relationship with its laborers in another country shouldn't necessarily be put in to the same box with alleged child molesters, nazis, terrorists etc. There is reason to believe that the latter grouping is in great danger of being shunned by attorneys if there isn't a greater ethical mechanism involved. But given the history of Chiqita banana, there is very little to suggest it is in the same position.
A last note on that, Chiqita's hiring of Holder would make one wonder if they were not after just legal representation, but if they hoped that the man's relationships and work experience would sway the case beyond the confines of the judicial system.
