Let us now praise Monsanto's lawyers

Glenn Greenwald offers this apologia for Eric Holder's defense of admitted murderer-financier Chiquita:

Attempts to criticize a lawyer for representing unsavory or even evil clients are inherently illegitimate and wrong -- period.   Anybody who believes in core liberties should want even the most culpable parties to have zealous representation before the Government can impose punishments or other sanctions.  Lawyers who defend even the worst parties are performing a vital service for our justice system.  Holder is no more tainted by his defense of Chiquita than lawyers who defend accused terrorists at Guantanamo are tainted by that.

This seems like a reasonable argument until you take a minute to think about it and realize it's an absurd argument with a reasonable facade.  First of all, note that Greenwald enjoins us from merely criticizing any person who defends any party, for any motivation, at any rate of pay, for any crime; after all, their role in society is so crucial that they're above even the slightest condemnation.  By his logic, then, well-paid mafia lawyers who get a cut of the money they help their clients make from murder, extortion, and prostitution are no more deserving of even the mildest criticism than (say) public defenders representing people who've had confessions beaten out of them by the police.

And I can't put enough emphasis on well-paid.  I respect the lawyers who defend accused terrorists at Guantanamo for many reasons, but one of them is that they're doing what they do for no financial reward.  To equate them to well-heeled corporate lawyers—whose only risk in refusing to defend an odious, filthy rich corporation is that they might have to move to another high-paying law firm or temporarily forgo a second Ferrari—is ridiculous.

Lawyers who defend accused terrorists at Guantanamo (or anywhere else) deserve praise precisely because they're putting principle above personal gain, often at great personal risk.  In choosing to defend Chiquita, though, Eric Holder did the exact opposite—and he most certainly deserves to be criticized for making that choice.  As does Barack Obama, for failing to take it properly into account in retaining Holder as a top legal adviser or considering him for Attorney General.

[ Thanks to SteveB for the pointer to Greenwald's article. ]

AND ALSO: Here's more background on Holder's selfless service to Chiquita:

The day after the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, Eric Holder Jr. is working from Covington & Burling's elegant new Manhattan offices inside the year-old New York Times Building. He's there to prep Fernando Aguirre, the CEO of Chiquita Brands International Inc., for an interview with "60 Minutes," which will be broadcasting a segment on the company's past involvement with Colombian right-wing paramilitary forces. Last March, Holder helped Chiquita secure a slap-on-the-wrist plea deal to charges that it had paid off the terrorists.

Some of Covington and Burling's other corporate clients include arms merchant General Electric, monopolist Microsoft, drug-peddling price-fixer Merck...and yes, Satan's personal favorite corporation, Monsanto.

FURTHERMORE: Ralph Nader chimes in (indirectly):

[Nader] said that corporate lawyers begin to develop what he called "retainer astigmatism," where lawyers justify anything their client wants them to do on the grounds that everybody deserves zealous representation.

"I beg to differ," said Nader. "Corporations shouldn’t be afforded the same rights as human beings."

Comments

[MFB]

Indeed. The point which Greenwald is making, unfortunately, is that the essential freedom of a healthy society -- the right everyone should have to a fair trial -- can be used against it to justify the appointment of reactionary corporate lawyers to oversee that system.

But this is only possible provided, as you said in your earlier post, that people are prepared to accept the form and ignore the substance. The sad fact seems to be that most are.

The "Rude Pundit" recently rather pathetically declared that Democrats would not allow themselves to be pushed around by their leaders as Republicans had allowed themselves to be pushed around.

Poor, dear chap, he has already been chained to the vaulting-horse, the giant iron dildo has been greased, and yet he is insisting that he is doing this entirely consensually, and that if he wanted to he could just say the magic words and everything would be all right again.

After all, Barack promised that it would be so.

[John Caruso]

How distressingly vivid.

I'm more sanguine about Greenwald, based on his willingness over the past few years to tear into the Democrats on a regular basis in terms that would make most liberal bloggers wilt. He labors under the unfortunate belief that America has an inherent greatness that was tarnished by George Bush and to which it could be restored, but he does have an underlying integrity and honesty that I respect. So who knows—maybe four years of Obama executing essentially the same policies as Bush, though with a far more sophisticated and nuanced veneer, will push him over the edge.

I don't give it a very high probability, but compared to the Digbys of the world the guy is practically a bomb-throwing anarchist, so I'm willing to give him a chance. Maybe he'll get some Chomsky in his Christmas stocking and see the light.

(Or maybe Obama really will govern counter to his every word and action thus far, in which case I'll gladly eat my words.)

[Donald Johnson]

I was critical of Greenwald in an email around July 2007 over a piece he wrote that seemed to imply that Bush was far, far out of the mainstream. He was pretty snotty in reply and misunderstood my point.

But since then he's either changed for the better or else I didn't fully understand him either. He's already written plenty in the past year that shows he knows the Democrats are very bad on foreign policy and civil liberties and that the Washington establishment is basically corrupt. He interviewed Noam Chomsky recently and they seemed to be on the same page.

But yeah, his defense of Holder rubbed me the wrong way. A friend of mine once made the same point--in that case he was talking about the tobacco firms and he said corporations deserve a defense like anyone else. Fine--let them have a court-appointed attorney willing to work pro-bono, or better yet, let them charge exorbitant fees and then donate them all to charity. On a more serious level, you guys already made the points I would have made.

[cemmcs]

Holder is no more tainted by his defense of Chiquita than lawyers who defend accused terrorists at Guantanamo are tainted by that.

In reality, he is less tainted than lawyers who defend accused terrorists at Guantanamo. There is no way a lawyer who defends terrorists at Guantanamo is going to be Attorney General.

If you want to make the big bucks AND have a shot at being Attorney General, representing corporations is definitely the way to go but once you're Attorney General, then you're in a position to really do some good for society and I'm sure that's how Holder sees it. He's just being pragmatic.

[KDelphi]

I agree. And those who ranted at Bill Clinton for "defiling the WH" should have another look at Greg Craig...Obama's new WH Counsel.

I am no fan of Clintons but, the "impeachment" (didnt succeed--everyone acts like it did) of Clinton was over such personal "charges", was ridiculous. And that is how the uS looked.

All of Obama's promised sppointments look terrible to me. I had little faith in his having any liberal qualiteis, but this is worse than expected!

[KDelphi]

Greenwald seems to really piss off teh neo-liberals, though...

[Donald Johnson]

Greenwald is great, 95 percent of the time--I'm glad someone as far left as he is has a fairly prominent platform (by blogging standards, anyway).

[KDelphi]

So Verizon has been "spying on Obama"? Bummer---misery loves company..

[John Caruso]

Donald: I'm impressed that Greenwald interviewed Chomsky (though they lost the audio, which is a bummer...I'd like to listen to it or read it). And that he talked to Dennis Perrin as well. He's at least willing to engage respectfully and thoughtfully with people who are ostensibly on his left, whereas the standard liberal reaction is condescension, arrogance, derision, etc, etc. I give him a lot of credit for that.

KDelphi: Agreed, the appointments are awful so far, and especially so when you take a few minutes to consider all the extraordinarily smart, talented, qualified progressives he could be choosing instead. If he'd appoint Phyllis Bennis as Secretary of State, say, even I'd jump on his bandwagon. There's not a single positive surprise among the people he's nominated.

cemmcs: ...then you're in a position to really do some good for society and I'm sure that's how Holder sees it.

You're really sure, or was this intended ironically? I imagine the guy will do what he thinks is best for society, but it'll be coming from a background of someone who tacitly accepts that what's best for Chiquita (and GE, and Microsoft, and Merck, and Monsanto) is what's best for society. There might be some hand-that-feeds-him-biting in his new job, but I wouldn't expect anything that strongly contradicts his mainstream corporate resume.

[cemmcs]

John Caruso,

It was intended ironically.

[John Caruso]

Boy, is my face red.

[cemmcs]

Better red than dead.

But seriously, it can be hard to tell sometimes if someone is saying something seriously or not.

[cemmcs]

Oops! That should have read"

"...seriously or not."

[Catherine]

Like your work, Mr. Caruso.

Slightly, but not entirely off topic, do people remember the "Planet in Peril" series on CNN awhile back? Well, an update is coming, in early December. The sponsor, oh, it's Dow, but don't let that put you off. And the "man behind the curtain" of Dow is, yes, let's all give a hand to Union Carbide!!! (And I think they don't call themselves Dow Chemical anymore, just Dow. Sort of like Nike and other one-name creations.)

I wonder if Eric Holder has defended either Dow or Union Carbide.

And KDelphi, I so agree. I had no expectations of Obama, but even within those parameters, his choices are appalling. He could do so much better and not even give the appearance of flirting with progressive policy. Judas!