It's the law, friend

I'm trying to get my head inside this Lynn Stewart trial. On one hand, she seemed to tell the government that she wouldn't help her client communicate with others outside of jail, and then she did, with a very public press release even. On the other hand, the rules that her client was supposed to operate under seem to violate his civil rights. It's the old security vs. freedom debate. I don't like to believe that it is a zero sum game, but the Bush administration does act as if it is. More freedom = less security and vice versa. It's true that dictatorships have low rates of random crimes, but when the government becomes the criminal, who defines crime? Oh yeah, the government.

I keep thinking that it must be hard enough to find people to defend anyone accused of terrorism, because then they get branded a "terrorist sympathizer" or worse. This trial seems to prove that in a way, but I'm not sure if that's why Stewart was convicted. Having been on a jury, and knowing the narrow paramenters that are forced upon you, I realize it may have been their only choice based on the evidence presented (and the fault of the defense lawyers, I suppose). However, how on earth will other lawyers be convinced that even the seemingly "worst" of criminals need defense, otherwise the system DOES NOT WORK? Wes reminds me that every period of war in this country has brought increased securities and reduced freedoms, and it eventually swings back the other way. I hope he's right. I hate to defend lawyers, because I hate them, but they are necessary for the justice system to work. My thoughts on tort reform are not too much different. Too many big jury awards? Yes. Should we limit them? Maybe, maybe not. Grrr. The world is way too gray.