SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Fred Thompson, Terrorist Lawyer

THE PLANK SEPTEMBER 11, 2007

Fred Thompson, Terrorist Lawyer

BY TNR STAFF AND TNR STAFF

Perhaps it's just me, but I'm amazed that more is not being made of the news that, back in 1992 when he was a lawyer/lobbyist, Fred Thompson billed a few hours of work on behalf of two Libyan intelligence agents charged with (and one of them later convicted of) the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Now, Thompson was not a crucial figure in the Libyans' defense; rather, one of his colleagues at Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, former Democratic Senator John Culver, was the point man for the firm's efforts and he asked Thompson to help out briefly. As Thompson explained yesterday:

As often happened, at the firm there I was affiliated for a couple of years, one of the senior partners came in and asked me for some legal technical advice. I believe it was a venue question, about where a trial would probably be held and whether or not there would be a change of venue, things like that. It was several years ago. I gave them my opinion, and that was the long and short of it. That's all I know about it.

As he did with his initial response to the revelation he'd done lobbying work for an abortion-rights group, Thompson seems to be understating his involvement. True, he only billed the firm for 3.3 hours of work on the case, but that's rather more than the someone-stuck-his-head-in-my- office-with-a-quick-question scenario he seems to be painting. Moreover, while Ibrahim Legwell, the Libyan lawyer representing the intelligence agents, says he never spoke to Thompson, he claims he remembers his name being raised in discussions, suggesting that Thompson's role, while minor, was probably not insignificant.

Thompson's mention of "venue" issues, too, is a little misleading. We're not talking about whether someone is tried in Manhattan or Queens here. As far as I can tell, we're talking about whether two indicted terrorists would be extradited from Libya to face justice. (It took years, but in 1999 they were finally handed over for trial in the Netherlands.)

That American law firms would represent two men indicted for killing 270 people in one of the most horrible terrorist attacks of all time--an attack, essentially, on America--was a scandal even at the time. Jay Leno expressed his disgust on the Tonight Show. A family member of one of the victims, Susan Cohen, said of a former State Department lawyer who accepted work from the Libyans (though subsequently withdrew in the furor), "I think this is treason.... [he] is going to work for a terrorist country that has American blood on its hands. It's disgusting."

Several prominent lobbyists, including Tommy Boggs, turned down overtures to work for Libya on the case, despite offers of a reported $1.5 million retainer. Vicki Reggie Kennedy, wife of Ted, actually resigned a partnership in her law firm over its decision to represent Libya, even though--as far as I can tell--she was never asked to do any work on the case.

But not good ol' Fred. Not go along to get along, take a dollar where you find it Fred. A couple dozen hours lobbying for abortion rights? Why not? A few more spent helping defend two men accused of a heinous act of terrorism? Heck, if it wasn't Fred, it'd just be someone else, right?

In a political era in which the cost of a man's haircut can be treated as though it were a window into his soul, you'd think people would be a little more curious what it says about Fred Thompson that he'd do work--even just 3.3 hours of it--for indicted terrorists.

--Christopher Orr

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 21 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

21 comments

Indicted terrorists. We want terrorists to have due process of law, right? Doesn't that imply that someone has to, you know, represent them? Lawyers defend clients; it's what they're paid to do and it's how the legal system works. I can't fault Thompson for this.

- ratnerstar

September 11, 2007 at 12:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The fact that defendants have a right to counsel does *not* mean that any particular lawyer has an obligation to accept any particular case. Lawyers turn down clients whom they believe to be guilty or otherwise reprehensible every day. If a client is so unseemly that they cannot find *any* private representation, they are entitled to a public defender. But, of course, anyone who has enough money need never worry about this, as they will always find some attorney willing to hold their nose and line their pockets. There is a reason we don't consider mob attorneys pillars of the legal profession. Representing Libyan intelligence agents indicted for a massive terrorist attack against the United States is worse.

- chrisorr

September 11, 2007 at 12:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Now, I suppose if this were a case where there was some clear legal or moral issue that interested Fred--if, for example, he had long made a point of defending Middle Easterners whom he felt had been unjustly "profiled"--but this is no such case. Fred was merely acting (as he typically did) as a mercenary gun for hire. And he had every reason to believe that the men hiring him were terrorists and their enablers.

- chrisorr

September 11, 2007 at 12:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think that they should have received excellent counsel, but pro bono. We don't respect mob attorneys because they potentially profit from illegal activity. Had Akin Gump or Cromwell represented the Libyans on a pro bono basis, it would have shown both their respect for rule of law, and their disagreement with the potential source of the income.

- reff

September 11, 2007 at 12:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To me, the real question is not what work Thompson did for 3.3 hours, but how much money did Thompson pocket due to his firm's willingness to represent terrorists? And where did that money come from? When President Bush talks about how Iran (for example) is the world's largest supporter of terrorism, does money spent to protect terrorists from accountability for their actions count? Did Thompson's firm meet and agree to represent these terrorists? Did Thompson oppose the representation? What steps did he take to avoid personal complicity? At the very least, Thompson certainly would have refused to accept his share of the profits the firm generated from such a distasteful representation. Right? Right? Fred? Bueller?

- shorvat

September 11, 2007 at 12:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ratnerstar, I believe it is important to distinguish between terrorists and accused terrorists. This is why I strongly oppose the Bush Administration's claim to be able to imprison any American it wants, for as long as it wants, solely on the President's accusation that the person is a terrorist. But right now, Fred Thompson is a candidate for the Republican nomination. Have any Republicans drawn a distinction between terrorists and accused terrorists in any public statement over the past six years? If not, why should they start now?

- shorvat

September 11, 2007 at 12:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

and it was discovered that John Edwards had represented Libyan intelligence, can you IMAGINE what kind of field day the GOP would have?

- viceroy

September 11, 2007 at 1:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chris, as the movie expert around here, surely you remember the excellent little soliloquy about innocent until proven guilty that Richard Gere delivered in Primal Fear? Yes, lawyers turn down cases all the time. But it's not their ethical responsibility to decline cases of this sort (see this). Nor could it be, for the legal system would quickly be overwhelmed if every private lawyer turned down every case where it seemed likely that the defendant was guilty. "Mob lawyers" are not held in esteem because of the suspicion, probably justified, that they are not fulfilling their ethical responsibilities and are aiding their clients in continuing to subvert the law. Not every lawyer who defends a mobster is a "mob lawyer," only the sleazy ones.

- ratnerstar

September 11, 2007 at 1:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with you. Public Defenders? under such a case as that no PD will get the financial support to do his job well. Let us not forget that one of the two was found not guilty! I am sorry, but I think Chris is barking up the wrong tree, unless he thinks the one who was found not guilty should have been sacrificed at the altar of "let's get them foreign bastards" If that one guy was truly innocent (and I don't know enough to make any determination) than it was a good thing that he was adequately defended. Period.

- blackton

September 11, 2007 at 1:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Then let Thompson explain how because of his firm's work, one of the accused terrorists was freed. This proves one of two things (1) Thompson accepted money to allow a terrorist to roam free, or (2) sometimes people are wrongly accused of being involved in terrorism. It's a win-win from where I sit.

- shorvat

September 11, 2007 at 1:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

May I assume that TNR will stop selling the magazine to Republicans, lest they derive benefit from the political tactics articles that it contains? Or perhaps TNR should give the magazine to Republicans for free, and stop accepting payment from them?

- tarfon

September 11, 2007 at 1:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, I remember the line in Primal Fear. But up until the latter part of the film, when Gere discovers a conscience, wasn't he basically a bad (if charming) guy, who buddied around with his mobbed up client? In real-life, attorneys like him don't turn out to be good guys. Moreover, I haven't seen real details about exactly what Arent Fox (and Thompson) did for Ibrahim Legwell, and Thompson's sure not eager to provide any. But the main issue at the time was whether the indicted terrorists would be extradited from Libya to stand trial elsewhere. Libya, which at the time was designated as a rogue nation and sponsor of terrorism was thumbing its nose at the world and refusing to make the suspects available for trial. It seems almost certain that whatever work Arent Fox--and Thompson--were doing for Legwell, it wasn't to ensure the indictees got a fair trial but to ensure they *didn't*.

- chrisorr

September 11, 2007 at 1:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

that is nuts, one of the accused was found to be not guilty, that is not the same as allowing a terrorist to go free, and as a Lawyer he will explain, of course some people are wrongly accused of crimes, otherwise why have trials at all? I just don't see win-win here. Liberals must not go around questioning Presumption of innocence to score cheap political points. If we are going to beat Thompson, let's do it straight up, without sacrificing our own values.

- blackton

September 11, 2007 at 1:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

... when it was made by a Pentagon official about lawyers for the people at Guantanamo, and it is wrong now. http://tinyurl.com/yoemor Yes, conservatives would be screaming about this if it were a Democratic candidate, but there are some levels we should not sink to and some arguments that are simply morally corrupt. In this country, you have a right to a lawyer, and (sadly) if you can afford it, you have a right to pick the lawyer that you think will best defend your interests. I'd hate to be an innocent person accused of a crime in a country where lawyers are afraid to take certain types of cases because they'll be hounded for it. This argument is unworthy of this writer.

- tmv0674

September 11, 2007 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

fine, if you want to criticize him for trying to go and get his client off on a technicality, but isn't that what Lawyers are supposed to do? It would be odd to say, I will defend you only if you turn yourselves over to America? In that case, they should not defend them at all. Anyway, it seems like they were saying we will work to ensure you are tried in a place where you can get a fair trial (the Netherlands), not we will try to ensure you never have to leave Libya. (which I agree would not really be that defensible, since non American lawyers could do that)

- blackton

September 11, 2007 at 1:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arent Fox was not contributing to the "defense" of the two indictees because no trial was pending, because Muammar Qadafi, who was believed to be behind the plot in the first place, was refusing to extradite the indictees. That is the context in which Arent Fox's work, whatever its details, took place. I fully agree about the slandering of defendants' counsel at Guantanamo. I really don't think this is in any way comparable.

- chrisorr

September 11, 2007 at 2:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thompson can always say if an American firm did not agree to provide counsel the trial would most likely never have occurred. (and it did occur, let's not forget that) The defendants would never have turned themselves over to Justice. In addition, Libya would still be a pariah state and doubtless be up to very nefarious ends now.

- blackton

September 11, 2007 at 2:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not suggesting that liberals question the presumption of innocence. Rather, I am looking forward to conservative attacks on Thompson for "representing terrorists." But even liberals can make use of Thompson's firm's representation. Issues about expanded presidential power are almost certain to arise in the upcoming election. And just like every other dishonest Republican (or is that redundant), Thompson will mischaracterize the Democratic opposition as concern for terrorists: "Democrats don't want us to listen to al Qaeda." "Democrats want the terrorists to be freed from Guantanamo." The fact that Thompson knows that people can be wrongly accused can be thrown back in his face. (And again, he has to admit that one of the guys was wrongly accused, because otherwise a terrorist went free.) "Senator Thompson, so you are saying that an accused terrorist should be given due process when you can put money in your pocket, but not now?" At any rate, even though every defendant has the right to counsel, I think it is still fair game to nail Thompson for doing business with and accepting money from terrorists and terrorist supporters. (Wasn't Libya considered a state sponsor of terrorism until this year?)

- shorvat

September 11, 2007 at 2:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

once litigated for the Carlyle Group, and the circle will be complete.

- williamyard

September 11, 2007 at 5:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- teplukhin

September 11, 2007 at 6:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What's the matter with you guys?

- sleepyavl

September 11, 2007 at 10:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close