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.

I appreciate the principles that you two espouse. Everyone has a right to a presumption of innocence. (though I question whether a corporation falls within this, or whether they should even exist) But Chiquita admitted its guilt. The history of the rape of South and Central America by that corporation is well documented. What Holder did was use his power and connections to ensure that no one paid a price for these latest atrocities.

Everyone has a right to representation. Yes. So perhaps Holder did nothing wrong in using whatever he had at his disposal to get this corporation, and its officers that ordered these actions, off without any serious consequences. It just seems that the system is broken when someone can order mass murder, rape, and torture and not serve a day in prison. It seems to me that someone that acts as you argue he should in such a corrupt system acts unethically.

Now I am not some rabid authoritarian here, as some would have it. I can be persuaded by reason. It is not as if I am defending torture here. But it is in fact you all that seem to be defending the defenders of torture. Perhaps Gonzalez and Yoo are right and they were merely serving the best interest of their client by finding legal grounds for torture. But maybe this comparison is incorrect because Holder acted with the highest moral standing in his representation. Perhaps he only made sound legal arguments in his representation and did not in fact use extra-legal means (connections, good ol boys club, etc) to secure a favorable judgment. Surely it is speculation, but is it really hard to see how one could be troubled?

There's a potential argument he's failing to make, and PDA has picked up that thread already. A history of bad judgment may become relevant when someone is headed for public office.

So, if an attorney has a history of associating with/taking money from/working for sleazy, homicidal corporate clients, then that's a problem, because that's really bad judgment.

And insofar as a history of defending such clients in a criminal court can suggest that just such a history of association may exist, then the existence of the one may be a reason to suspect the existence of the other, and reason enough to look for it.

And if an attorney has a history of sleazy actions in defending sleazy corporate clients, than that is also clearly fair game for criticism, because that's really bad judgment.

But we've had zero evidence of that here. Holder was not on the payroll of a banana republic, nor even of a banana company. He did not take kickbacks or intimidate witnesses. He merely defended a client that needed defending. You can't call it bad judgment unless he chose rich sleazy clients over and over again for years, to the exclusion of all other types of cases. Then you can hate him all you want, but it's going to be an uphill battle to convince the world without some of the above elements being present.

(Another argument could conceivably be made that corporations don't deserve the same legal rights as individuals. But I have no idea how that would play out here. Corporations pay fines for tax problems all the time, and so they should. And if the fine is big enough to make it worthwhile, they should be able to argue against it. Duh.)

Illegal Seazure of Elian Gonzalez

Note: This is not an argument for or against Elian being placed in the custody of his father. The Clinton administration defied the rule of law. Eric Holder was at the center of it.

Elian Gonzalez was taken at gunpoint from the home of his relatives, without a court order to do so. Before they took Elian, the MP5 wielding jackboots smashed in the door to the home, tear-gassed people outside the home, and attempted to prevent the press from covering the event...by forcing them to the ground, at gun point.

"Although a federal court had ordered that Elian not be removed from the country pending a determination of his asylum petition, and although a court had ruled that the Immigration and Naturalization Service could exercise custody and control of Elian for the time being, no judge or neutral magistrate had issued the type of warrant or other authority needed for the executive branch to break into the home to seize the child." - LAURENCE H. TRIBE, professor of constitutional law at Harvard

Source: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE4D81530F936A15757C0A9669C8B63

Alan Dershowitz, and many others, made these same points.

How can you ignore this? The Marc Rich pardon (as sleazy as it was) doesn't hold a candle to this lawlessness.

but consider representation of a rich corporation like Chiquita to be morally suspect.

Persons have, I am told "inalienable" rights. Rights which arise from their condition as human beings. These were, to the signers self evident. Corporations are not people, and I don't see how their legal defense under a system which privileges them as if they were is an obligation.

In a system like, say, apartheid, or a system which gives special rights or immunities to party members (like in a Commie state) does a lawyer have an obligation to defend people in a system which privileges them? At that point, is he defending the person, or the system?

I think a good case might be made for not defending a corporation in a system which, before the case even starts, privileges the corporation in a way which should be reserved exclusively for individuals.

And certainly, inferences can be drawn from a lawyer's willingness to do that. Before he defends the corporation, he must accept that the system which privileges the corporation as a person, instead of a business entity which has a primary responsibility to the community is a good one.

In a system which gives corporations rights similar to those given individuals, yet does not impose corresponding obligations on the corporations, yes, defending the corporation is questionable. By doing so you contend that the system under which you defend the corporation is a fair one to begin with.