A bulldog for Blackwater

Thanks. I do see your point, and it's one I have some misgivings about. I've known attorneys at WCSR, they're good people. And I also suspect there is at least some consternation about this new client.

That said, I've seen Blackwater literally get away with murder (in my opinion) and operate with impunity at huge costs to our nation, both financial and moral. As someone dedicated to integrity in government, I don't feel I can stand by wringing my hands on this one. Especially given the North Carolina connections - and the toll mercenaries take on the safety of loyal soldiers, Marines and sailors.

WCSR is indeed representing Blackwater's legal interests, and from what I can tell, that's their story and they're sticking to it. Until those interests are no longer legal, WCSR has hit the jackpot. Indeed, WCSR has a financial stake in ensuring that Blackwater's business stays both legal and highly profitable.

And that's where I have a problem. The attorneys working to represent the interests of, say, the town of Cary, are also working to ensure that a band of mercenary war-profiteers remain in "good standing" with the government. WCSR may be one step removed from the business of killing, but it seems to me that they are at risk of becoming accessories. And since what they're all doing is legal, the only court to try them in is the court of public opinion.

I'm under no illusion about this. There's not a natural adversary to Blackwater like there was to the OLF in Washington County. People have enough problems without getting stirred up over the business dealings of a billionaire sociopath and his legal counsel.

But a guy's gotta do what a guy's gotta do.

To my knowledge.

Whether the court is one of an actual judge or jury or whether it is the court of public opinion, yes, the entity is entitled to representation, and it is certainly entitled to pursue its business interests. To vilify the law firm representing its interests is within your rights, but I personally don't think I'd target my opposition toward the law firm or otherwise attempt to suggest that it or its members are somehow morally compromised for taking on the client.

In other words, I'd rather go after the action that I object to on the part of Blackwater than go against someone who disagrees with me about that action. I don't like what Blackwater does, but I like even less the idea that its lawyers are to be denounced for representing Blackwater's lawful interests -- and pursuit of business is a lawful interest.

It does cut too close to the idea that a criminal lawyer has dirtied his hands by representing someone accused of a crime. In both cases the idea is about persuading a person or persons to give attention to a perspective that might not be popular. To say that such an advocate is evil for performing that role is like saying it is not permissible for anyone to have a different perspective. All of this assumes, of course, that we're discussing lawful -- albeit unpopular -- activity.

I'm very interested in what you're saying, but apparently I misunderstood your original comment. I thought you were making the case that everyone should have the right to representation, no matter how odious their behavior.

I was agreeing, but adding that this agreement between Prince and Blackwater doesn't appear to be about "representation" in the sense of litigation. This is about lobbying the government for contracts.

Can you give it one more try? Please?

That wasn't my point, but I don't think you're all that interested in anyone else's point, so never mind.

I get your point, and you're right. I should have drawn a clearer distinction between lawyering to keep Prince out of jail (criminal law) and lawyering to help him rip off American taxpayers land government contracts.

The point your attorney friends are trying to make is not that the baddest of bad guys need a lawyer because bad guys need lawyers, but that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law because it is not so infrequently the case that we decide someone is "bad" before knowing whether he/she actually is a criminal or not.

The reason for you and me to defend the concept of zealous representation for the seemingly worst of the worst is that neither of us knows whether or not circumstances might someday cast you/me as the evil-doer, or maybe our sons and daughters. In that case, you would hope our system of justice affords you a fair opportunity to say it ain't so.

In a sense we're mixing apples and oranges by talking about whether a company is morally reprehensible as opposed to whether it has committed a crime, but I can see some parallels in the points raised in either case when it comes to the matter of what moral inferences we can or should make of someone who chooses to be that company's advocate.

The criminal attorneys I know are quick to point out that even the baddest of bad guys need defenders, and that's certainly true. But let's not hear any talk of that lofty ideal regarding this relationship between WCSR and Erik Prince. This isn't about defending criminals, this is about helping them get even richer.

Prince is profiting by building a mercenary army that has put our troops at risk in more ways than you can count. The leaders at WCSR want to tap into that gravy train, even if it means selling their souls.

Is there nothing the firm won't do for a boatload of money?

I can't wait to hear the story WCSR will spin about the American dream and how little Erik Prince pulled himself up by his bootstraps. I doubt they'll mention how many people his company stepped on and how many lives they've ruined along the way.

What a disgusting development.