Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Saturday, October 09, 2004

Lawyers: Part of the problem

First it was Enron with the special entities offshore.

Now it is the Patriot Act and Guantanamo.

In both cases, the lawyers were nowhere.

Questions in re Lawyers

Each time prior to war, there are protests, arrests, and infringement of civil liberties. It is not a new thing that "civil rights are violated" regardless the constitution -- so why are we sitting here wondering why the ABA has yet to "put their plan together" on what will be done to preserve the constitution?

There have been plenty of wars, so why is "this war" suddenly so surprising that the ABA still has no timely plan available to implement and guarantee the constitutional protections are preserved?

It has been three years, and suddenly the ABA wakes up and decides to say something. Where have you been?

The idea behind state-level regulation was to ensure that Federal government did not interfere with state=level entities. Yet, what good is it when the Federal government can intimidate state-regulated lawyers to remain silent?

Why are there no credible alternatives to the American Bar Association that will speak out when there is a public wrong?

Why has it taken three years for the ABA to speak out against the abuses in Guantanamo?

What benefit did state-level regulated attorneys hope to get by being siletna bout Federal abuses?

How many within the leadership of the nation's legal profession chose to remain silent about the abuses in Guantanamo because they hoped to be rewarded with appointments to the Federal Bench or to the US Attorney's offices?

Why are state-level-regulated judicial officers ["attorneys"] inadequately checking Federal-level abuses?