Thompson Provided Legal Counsel For Pan Am 103 Bombers

Comments (34)

Wes wrote on September 10, 2007 11:58 AM:

I heard he was being replaced on Law and Order by Foghorn Leghorn. You guys hear anything?

busdrivermike wrote on September 10, 2007 12:03 PM:

I am sure that good ol Fred will get a free pass and be the candidate of the party of family values and intolerance.

After all, he has only been divorced twice, and he has a red pickup.

real deal wrote on September 10, 2007 12:07 PM:

does fred's trophy wife wear blinder s to bed?

Karl Fogel wrote on September 10, 2007 12:11 PM:

Please, don't put lobbying work and legal work in the same bucket.

If Fred Thompson had lobbied on behalf of terrorists, that would be worth a headline and more. But legal counsel (even a mere 3.3 billable hours on jurisdictional matters) is a whole different category of activity. One of our major complaints about this Administration is its trashing of the legal rights of the accused. If that's our complaint, then we can't turn around and excoriate those who actually provide such advice.

If one of the lawyers for a Guantanamo prisoner -- even a guilty prisoner, a nasty terrorist who truly deserves the punishemnt -- were running for President, would a consistent civil liberties advocate use that fact against the candidate? (Or, say, should John Adams not have provided legal defense for the British soldiers being tried for murder in the Boston Massacre of 1770?)

In fact, I seem to recall that some members of the Bush Administration were recently (and deservedly) flamed by the legal community, for suggesting that law firms that provided pro bono legal counsel for accused terrorists should be boycotted by their paying clients.

Let's take a higher road, shall we?

wes2 wrote on September 10, 2007 12:11 PM:

When is the man a lawyer and when is he a lobbyist? Is it a determination made on a case-by-case basis?

I ask because the conservative noise machine was bloviating about lawyers not selecting their clients (nonsense) and everyone's right to counsel (deliciously ironic from the Repubs) when his work for Planned Parenthood was revealed -- though in that case it seemed that he was just lobbying. Here though, he's giving advice on "jurisdictional issues" (which I assume means: arguments for dismissing any lawsuits brought by victims). Certainly more lawyer-ly, though hardly a ringing example of legal aid in action.

It would be useful to know how the line between lawyering/lobbying gets drawn so that we can refute the CNM "just a lawyer"-line. Greg? Eric? Anyone?

james wrote on September 10, 2007 12:13 PM:

Well he definitely can't argue that he'll be able to switch NY to R in the general - Pan Am 103 was carrying many students from the Syracuse University Foreign Exchange program. It's a major thing in Syracuse.

gqmartinez wrote on September 10, 2007 12:13 PM:

This doesn't bother me because I think Thompson is weak enough already, but this is, like Giuliani's abandonment of the ISG, something that would sink a Democratic candidate's chances in a heartbeat.

Eric Stepp wrote on September 10, 2007 12:20 PM:

I have to agree with Karl Fogel on this one. Since when has it been a negative for the advocating of judicial rights?

The only two ways this could be really tied negatively against him is:

1. The GOP hammer him, using their own twisted sense of judicial non-rights for accused. In this case, why would a liberal site like TPMEC help with that?

2. If Thompson recently came out and condemned lawyers and legislators working on behalf of those held at Gitmo, etc. In which case, his hypocrisy would be fair game.

za wrote on September 10, 2007 12:21 PM:

um, he provided legal "advice" to another lawyer, not legal "counsel" to terrorists. Furthermore, what's wrong with aiding in the defense of a defendant, no matter what the crime?

Nothing.

I don't think it's necessary to nit-pick the poor schlum to death. He's going to fall flatter than the plains of Iowa, based SOLELY on his ridiculous policies and statements. Like Ron Paul, Thompson's simply not ready for prime-time. But unlike Paul, he makes absolutely NO SENSE. He's a joke. And a bad one at that.

Besides that, the turnover in his pre-campaign-campaign leadership has been abysmal. What is it now, three managers even before he announced? The man is an afterthought. Let's stop wasting time on him, and make sure the truth is told about the current frontrunners, Rudy and Mitt.

js wrote on September 10, 2007 12:23 PM:

Well, the lib media does not care one bit. If Dems are paying attention, Rommney and Rudi are getting kid glove treament while Hillary, Obama and Edwards would get hammered for small slipups. Romney is flip-flopping like crazy but he has not been called a flip-flopper YET by any lib media that I am aware of. Rudi is using 3000 dead bodies for his prez platform. If a Dem wins the WH in 2008, it will be a big surprise to me.

wes2 wrote on September 10, 2007 12:26 PM:

Ah, I see ... jurisdictional issues here were indeed related to the criminal charges.

That said, I'm a bit hard-pressed to see how Thompson's work amounts to legal counsel, since his previous experience in international law seems to have fit comfortably in a thimble. Certainly, it's hard to see how he was consulted for his legal expertise, rather than his political connections (the NYTimes piece says as much).

While I agree with Karl that his legal work in and of itself should not be grounds for attack, I do think it's important not to let ALL his LOBBYING work get swept under the "legal" portmanteau. The fact that he worked for a "law firm" while lobbying is being taken advantage of here.

Eric Kleefeld wrote on September 10, 2007 12:29 PM:

Eric Stepp:

1. The GOP hammer him, using their own twisted sense of judicial non-rights for accused. In this case, why would a liberal site like TPMEC help with that?

Because it's fun.

I am a firm believer in due process. But here's the thing: Republicans aren't, so I'm more than happy to throw some fuel on that fire when one of their candidates has violated the party orthodoxy.

I'm also pro-choice, but I've certainly enjoyed the news about him doing pro-choice lobbying in the early 90's. This is no different.

And yes, I have no shame.

Eric Stepp wrote on September 10, 2007 12:52 PM:

Eric Kleefeld:

Because it's fun.

I am a firm believer in due process. But here's the thing: Republicans aren't, so I'm more than happy to throw some fuel on that fire when one of their candidates has violated the party orthodoxy.

It seems to me that you're perfectly fine validating the attack methodologies of the Right.

I always thought the purpose of the Democrats were to affect social change for the betterment of the whole. In this instance, wouldn't it be the Democratic value to praise Thompson for providing legal aid to the counsel of suspected terrorists? Doesn't this help uphold due process and habeus corpus?

Rather, we sit here and snipe at Thompson for doing what we praise others for doing, and proving the GOP attack methodology valid. I guess it matters more WHO's "supporting terrorists" rather than WHY. Are we really that easily rolled over from our morals and values just to score cheap political points against a Republican candidate?

mark wrote on September 10, 2007 1:02 PM:

Hey,

thats what makes us Americans, everyone is entitled to a vigourous defense under the law.
I totally approve of that one aspect of Frad's actvities. It seems quite courageous.

matt wrote on September 10, 2007 1:15 PM:

Billing records from the early 1990's show that Thompson gave advice to a colleague who was working on behalf of two Libyan intelligence officials implicated in the infamous Pan Am Flight 103 bombing in 1988, which killed 270 people.

Em... for all we know he was advising his colleauge to get them to plead guilty.... Sort of silly to make Drudgelike leaps of logic here. And even if he advised a strategy of defense.. so what? He was an attorney representing a client and in the US system of justice... oh never mind.

Eric Stepp wrote on September 10, 2007 1:25 PM:

Another point I'd like to make: What is EC really trying to accomplish with pieces like these?

If it's a schadenfreude type of commentary, then fine. I don't really have much else to say on that, other than my second comment at 12:52 PM.

If it's to help with Thompson from getting the GOP nomination, then I think EC is going about it wrong.

By attacking a GOP favorite, doesn't that just reinforce in the GOP mindset that Thompson is the best candidate to rile up the Democrats? Wouldn't it be more effective if we embraced Thompson's more liberal stands (lobbying for abortion rights, providing legal counsel to terrorist counselors, etc)?

If the GOP faithful see the Dems supporting various views that Thompson takes (or, rather, showing that Thompson supports various views that Democrats take), then that would automatically turn off the party faithful from Thompson.

Brain Hertz wrote on September 10, 2007 1:35 PM:

I have to agree with Karl Fogel above. There's nothing wrong with providing legal counsel to the accused, and those who stand by the rule of law should make their voices heard in saying so.

Along with many other people around here, I was outraged by the attempts earlier to smear attorneys who had provided counsel to Guantanamo inmates, and the reasoning applied then applies now.

There's plenty of reason not to be impressed by Fred, but this isn't one of them.

I await with interest the reaction from his fellow republicans, though. That should be interesting...

Sam Smith wrote on September 10, 2007 1:37 PM:

Fred the "Big Bloated Head" is just a silly worthless sidenote.

Anonymouse wrote on September 10, 2007 1:56 PM:

This incident says a little about Thompson, but it speaks wondewrs about the two parties and we voters. Most of the candidates now runniing for office have had serious ethical, legal, and moral conflicts. They have been caught lying just during the past few months. those who have been in office ffor a few y8ears have shown their true nature in the past... and what happens?

Both parties continue to support "their man/woman" as better than the other party's candidate(s) with both time and effort.

This tells me that both parties could care less for our nations well being... they ould care less about our democratic principles... they could care less about our security here and abroad.

The ONLY thing they care about is remaining in power.

Note that, once again, it was both a Democrat AND Republican elected officials working for the terrorists. Note that both Democrat and Republican former officials are working for Dubai.

What is pretty evident is that "WE the People" are being led by Both parties to put the scum of our society into the highest offices in our nation... so the Democrat and Republican mobsters can continue to rule us... IMHO

Greg wrote on September 10, 2007 1:56 PM:

Actually, the sole Libyan "terrorist" convicted of the bombing is about to be set free in the UK because evidence tampering by the government and perjury by expert witnesses has been brought to light. Specifically, the bomb timer that was supposedly manufactured by a Swiss firm and sold to Libya and was the big smoking gun in the case, turns out to have been a fabrication. Read about it in the UK Guardian because you won't see it in the American press.

Mr Furious wrote on September 10, 2007 2:43 PM:

I'm with several others upthread who don't think this is a big deal... and if one tries to make it a big deal, it's a former Democratic Senator actually defending the terrorists—not exactly a winner for us.

matt wrote on September 10, 2007 2:54 PM:

But a little kudos to us for being level headed and thinking clearly...

Not the sort of response I would have expected from my more conservative bretheren if the roles had been reversed!

Ali wrote on September 10, 2007 3:48 PM:

So? He's a lawyer, it's what they do.

P.S. No court docs? Too bad.

Nell wrote on September 10, 2007 4:16 PM:

Let me add my support to Karl Fogel's comment.

This same effort to smear a candidate on the basis of providing legal counsel was used against Tim Kaine in his race for governor of Virginia in 2005. It's despicable when used by the likes of Scott Horton, and it's equally despicable here -- more so, because it should be beneath TPM Election Central.

And, for what it's worth, the men for whom Thompson provided legal services may indeed both be proved innocent eventually. One was acquitted, and the other's case has just been cleared for appeal, with the ruling that the appeals court may consider alternative theories of the crime.

Seattle Steve wrote on September 10, 2007 4:37 PM:

I also agree with Karl Fogel.

3.3 legal hours on jurisdiction for a co-worker should not turn into a political liability.

It is stooping very low to manufacture dirt.

I also don't think it is necessary. Fred will self destruct on his own given enought rope.

Anonymous wrote on September 10, 2007 4:56 PM:

"Let's take a higher road, shall we"?

No, Karl, that's not such a good idea. If the last few decades have taught us anything, it is the party of rule-or-ruin should never- under any circumstance- be dealt with in honorable fashion. The cult of the GOP must be relentlessly attacked with any and all weapons at hand, by fair means and foul. Henceforth "Thompson aided Libyan terrorists" will roll off my tongue as smoothly as a lullabye from this forward, with nary a pang of conscience. Those people are the domestic enemies of our constitutional republic, and must be suppressed by any means necessary.

Long Tooth wrote on September 10, 2007 5:04 PM:

"Let's take a higher road, shall we"?

No, Karl, that's not such a good idea.

If the last few decades have taught us anything, it is the party of rule-or-ruin should never- under any circumstance- be dealt with in honorable fashion. The cult of the GOP must be relentlessly attacked with any and all weapons at hand, by fair means and foul.

Henceforth "Thompson aided Libyan terrorists" will roll off my tongue as smoothly as a lullabye, with nary a pang of conscience. The apparatchiks of today's republican party are the domestic enemies of our constitutional republic, and must be suppressed by any means necessary. If that entails the spreading of vicious innuendo, so be it.

Jeffrey Fazio wrote on September 10, 2007 10:15 PM:

Republicans complaining about stooping too low to manufacture dirt. When coupled with the raving success of the Half Hour News Hour, this just explodes to smithereens the myth that Republicans have no sense of humor.

:)

coltergeist wrote on September 10, 2007 10:45 PM:

I am with Long Tooth on this.

Republicans specialize in dirty tricks and low blows and become whiny ass titty babies when someone has the temerity to hit back.

As a lawyer I believe everyone has a right to a fair trial and a vigorous defense, but Thompson was no legal eagle. He was not working for some legal aid society, he was working for an expensive lobbying joint and getting paid big bucks to help out terrorists.

To consult about jurisdictional issues is to delay or deprive a court of the right to hear a case. You are generally arguing that the defendant was a) not served properly, b) the court is not entitled to hear the case, or c) the forum is too inconvenient for your client or all three. By in large, it is a delay tactic. This isn't some compelling topic such as the rights of the accused being violated, or a confession being coerced.

Listen, if you represent David Duke, you can pretty much write off the black vote. If you represent a 93 World Trade Center bomber you can write off the New York vote. That is just the way it is. Thompson had a choice to assist that terrorist and he chose the money over principle, a common choice for a Republican. So let him have it.

wingman88x wrote on September 10, 2007 11:45 PM:

Here is my empty headed, non-substantive, take on "Fred the Big Head." Am I the only one to note this ? Doesn't he look like the type that would really smell up a bathroon? You know, make you gag if you walked by it within twenty minutes of his dump. If he hadn't married Boss Hog's daughter, he'd still be in Tenn'see, except he he would have lost all his teeth by now.

Soumen wrote on September 11, 2007 9:02 AM:

Being a liberal has its advantages. I must appreciate the good work by even a conservative like Thompson. As most of must know by now that the two Libyan agents were framed by the CIA and M15; the first was acquitted and the second's up for appeal because the main witness has now recanted - see http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2160655,00.html

Even Nelson Mandela made it a point to let everyone know that this was a travesty of justice.

Justice is blind and even the worst deserves representation - otherwise we might as well live under the KKK rule - Bush is quite close though.

moondancer wrote on September 11, 2007 4:38 PM:

He would so much fun to run against. But I dont see him making it to the promised land. I just hope the democrats have the cojones to let loose some skilled operatives with sharp "knives" to carve these guys up. I want a 40 plus state landslide. No prisoners!

Chuck wrote on September 25, 2007 5:05 PM:

Check out the hit piece on Fred Thompson, including a few things the media never talks about. To read it go to thirdrailradio.blogspot.com

Tom Puzzo wrote on January 14, 2008 1:07 PM:

Those attacking Fred Thompson are getting desperate, especially the personal ones about his wife and family life. Fred was married only once before and by his own admission, it was a mistake since he got married while in high school. As far as lobbying for or representation a terrorist, all totally false as "he has explained many times." And besides, the minimal advice he gave to a lawyer actually working the case was to give him "procedural" advise on the law and nothing more. Thompson was only counsel to the law firm and not a partner.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)