Wow - I'm probably behind on the news a bit, but I had no idea our incoming Attorney General Eric Holder led the defense of Chiquita. Yes, that Chiquita:
"As a partner at Covington & Burling, Holder represents Chiquita International Brands in lawsuits brought by relatives of people killed by Colombian terrorists. Last year, the company paid $25 million to settle claims that it paid Colombian paramilitary groups to protect employees at one of its banana-growing plants."
Many believe that phrase "protect employees" is, ahem, euphemistic, to say the least. Many, including those bringing civil suits against the company, allege that the company deliberately "hired [the] Colombian paramilitaries to kill or intimidate union members and officials," as Time magazine reports. Indeed, Portfolio notes that the paramilitaries whole goal was to "destroy unions."
In other words, there are some really truly awful companies to defend - and then there's Chiquita. And once you watch this 60 Minutes piece, I'm guessing you'll join me in saying "wow." |
| I mean, I believe that for the most part, a lawyer can't be held responsible for the clients they defend, and everyone deserves a good defense. But that doesn't explain away an individual lawyer's personal choices. Sure, who a lawyer defends shouldn't disqualify them for almost anything...but perhaps one of the very few things it might affect is, ya know, whether they should head the entire U.S. government's legal apparatus.*
In my opinion, who a defense attorney DECIDES to defend (and it is their choice) should have an impact on almost nothing - except on whether that defense attorney should head the chief law enforcement agency of the United States government. I'm not saying it should be a fully disqualifying (or qualifying) factor, but it should be a consideration - and I'm guessing those who think it shouldn't are primarily lawyers who don't want to be judged on their decisions about who to defend. As a rule, lawyers - big shocker - want to be able to make money defending whoever they want, without being judged on who they CHOOSE to defend, and some of them attempt to justify their decisions to make millions defending awful corporations by sententiously claiming they were really motivated by the principle that everyone deserves a defense.
But that's the thing lawyers can't lawyer their way out of: While every defendant is entitled to a defense, an individual attorney makes a personal choice about whether to defend specific clients, and those choices most often (ie. when making millions on legal fees) involve values beyond the B.S. claim that they are doing it for the Sixth Amendment, whether the lawyer is big enough to admit that or not. Yes, Chiquita deserves a worthy defense. Yes, Eric Holder's corporate law firm has every right to defend that company and others. But do we want an Attorney General who made the personal choice - a choice involving values - to defend that company? That's the real question - and the idea that you can't even ask that question because of the Sixth Amendment is straight-up silly.
When applying for government service, everyone is judged on all the choices they make. Trying to exempt one profession from their individual choices about who to defend on the grounds that "everyone is entitled to a defense" is a pathetic attempt to use a constitutional principle to avoid any culpability in a personal decision. It's not like Eric Holder was a public defender forced to defend Chiquita. He made a personal decision to make lots of money defending one of the most brutal corporations in the world - a company that has long been one of the most brutal corporations in the world. That value judgment should be up for question not in evaluating whether Holder should be able to continue practicing law or continue making lots of money. That's his right. But being Attorney General isn't - it's a privilege.
Let's say it were journalism, and a reporter spent their time, say, only covering Paris Hilton or salacious scandals about Democrats and ignoring substantive issues, and then when criticized for it, that reporter said hey, it's the First Amendment! You'd laugh (or cry) because a constitutional principle doesn't explain away the immorality of personal decisions. The reporter - like the lawyer in chois making a choice, and we question that choice all the time, like we should be able to question lawyers' choices when they are up for top government positions (And I would also add that if Holder had been defending, say, a drug cartel from similar charges, there's no way he'd be allowed within 50 feet of a Justice Department building. But because he's defending corporate executives whose money helped kill workers (and - gasp! - union workers), almost nobody bats an eye.
As much as I know "the more things change the more they stay the same," in this case, I really can't believe it. A Justice Department headed by someone who defended Chiquita against the Justice Department.
Just...wow.
* In the comments section, please spare us the tired hackneyed crap claiming that this post (or anyone questioning Holder on these grounds) somehow opposes the right of defendants to legal counsel - everyone has the right to counsel, but that doesn't mean that who someone counsels shouldn't disqualify them from running the entire government's legal apparatus. If you are going to make the case for Holder, please make the case as to why we shouldn't consider who he defended when considering him for Attorney General. Should we, as a hypothetical, consider Osama bin Laden's defense lawyer for Attorney General? Would that be a disqualifying factor? I'm curious what you think. But do not make the case that all defendants are entitled to counsel. NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT LATTER PRINCIPLE AT ALL. |
