Comments on: “Should Trial Lawyers Make Terror Policy?”

By: The costs of universal jurisdiction

The costs of universal jurisdiction — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:31:53 +0000

[…] “International human rights law” — what could sound more cuddly and humanitarian? Who could disapprove of such a thing? That’s one reason it’s so popular at almost every law school nowadays following years of generous support by the Ford Foundation, Soros, and other donors. In practice, as is now clear, it often tends to furnish a set of handy weapons for carrying on “lawfare” — warfare by means of courtroom action against one’s adversaries, particularly in the courts of third countries. (Anne Herzberg, “Lawfare against Israel”, WSJ, Nov. 5). For the closely related issue of laws empowering private attorneys and litigants to pursue foreign entities over alleged terrorist support whether or not such actions advance U.S. diplomatic goals, see Sept. 12, 2007. […]

By: Insomniac

Insomniac — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:30:53 +0000

Here’s why we need trial lawyers making foreign policy:
1) The people who make anti-terrorism policy should be those who are most American
2) Who is more American that trial lawyers?
3) Trial lawyers are the perfect candidates to make anti-terrorism policy

Posted by: Alternate Reality | September 12, 2007 11:24 PM

Alternate reality, indeed.

By: Alternate Reality

Alternate Reality — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:24:52 +0000

Here’s why we need trial lawyers making foreign policy:
1) The people who make anti-terrorism policy should be those who are most American
2) Who is more American that trial lawyers?
3) Trial lawyers are the perfect candidates to make anti-terrorism policy

By: Supremacy Claus

Supremacy Claus — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:02:09 +0000

Excluding the lawyer from all terror policy, including removing those embedded in the military at the tactical level, is good for the lawyer profession.

If a major terror attack recurs, the lawyer will be scapegoated, with unforeseeable consequences.

By: thorckmorton

thorckmorton — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:49:13 +0000

Something that continues to worry me is that the head of the FBI is not a former agent or even an alalyst, rather he is an attorney. FBI agents at present now have an additional level of attorney oversight at each level leading to the term “Washington Post Test” before they can act on any possible terror case.