# Lawyers: Would you defend Osama bin Laden? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 22, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050 "2010-04-22T23:49:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050/61 "2010-04-23T18:56:59Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > I would be proud to do it. The fact that we give fair trials, even to those we despise, is one of the great virtues of our Republic. > > I would not do it, however, at the cost of my own life. I’d like to think that I’m the kind of man who could sign on for my own death, if I thought the cause worth it - and there’s no doubt in my mind that the cause of Justice (cue ringing bells and whatnot) is worth it. But I just can’t do that. I don’t want to die. Seconded. Hell, I once represented a neo-Nazi, covered with Aryan tattoos, in a contract dispute. (He actually seemed like a nice guy when I spoke with him, but I was careful not to bring up either politics or religion with him). I could and would represent OBL, since even the scum of the earth are entitled to counsel if their lives and liberty are at stake. But unless it was to save the life of a family member or a dear friend, I can’t envision willingly entering a situation in which I _knew_ I was going to be killed. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050/62 "2010-04-23T20:06:14Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Yes, you can claim whatever you like, but it’s an ethical standard. “Claiming it” isn’t really the point. For me it wouldn’t be true that I couldn’t represent him because of my personal feelings, is all I’m saying. So if appointed, as the OP asks, I would accept. Also, if someone actually filed an ethics complaint, there is an element of reasonableness that would come into play here. I’d have a hard time convincing the Maryland bar that I truly found the crime of shoplifting so repugnant that I couldn’t represent an accused shoplifter. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050/63 "2010-04-23T20:20:44Z")
I’m impressed, and saddened, by the number of people here who agree bin Laden would deserve counsel and a fair trial, and would even be happy to see corrupt evidence against him dismissed, in a hypothetical, but heatedly refuse the same considerations to guys locked in cages in Guantanamo, for far less if any reason, in what is a very real situation. Principles that sound noble in the abstract can be problematic when it’s time to actually apply them, apparently. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050/64 "2010-04-23T20:37:51Z")
I don’t think there are that many of those people. AFICR, **Shodan** is the only one who actively lobbied against shutting down Gitmo, and I may not even be remembering _that_ right. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050/65 "2010-04-23T20:44:57Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > You aren’t actually arguing with anything that I’m saying, and your degree of combativeness is really confusing, so I’m just going to drop it. I guess you think I was insulting you somehow? Sorry about that. I took your statement: “Why is it so confusing that the ethical thing to do is not to pass the buck?” to mean that NOT representing criminals is “passing the buck” and somehow not the ethical thing to do. If you didn’t mean that, I apologize, but it seemed to me pretty clear. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050/66 "2010-04-23T20:54:16Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > How is justice done by allowing the prosecution to introduce tainted evidence against a criminal defendant? If he’s guilty, let the prosecution prove it legitimately. I am assuming that he will walk if I challenge the evidence, that it is 100% certain that he is guilty, and that the government cannot prove its case without it. > [@](#): > > If you’re willing, as his defense attorney, to fix the trial against bin Laden in this special case because you know he’s guilty, why even bother giving him a trial at all? In a perfectly informed world, you wouldn’t need trials, true. Again, the only reason for the presumption of innocence and the other rights of the accused is (in my view) because the accused is sometimes innocent. That is not the case here - acquitting him would be a miscarriage of justice. I can understand how lawyers can feel like their eithical obligation to defend the guilty is a good thing in and of itself, but it isn’t - it is (as mentioned) a means to an end. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050/67 "2010-04-23T20:56:35Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I’m impressed, and saddened, by the number of people here who agree bin Laden would deserve counsel and a fair trial, and would even be happy to see corrupt evidence against him dismissed, in a hypothetical, but heatedly refuse the same considerations to guys locked in cages in Guantanamo, for far less if any reason, in what is a very real situation. Principles that sound noble in the abstract can be problematic when it’s time to actually apply them, apparently. Who? I think these people you refer to only exist in your own head. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050/68 "2010-04-23T20:57:54Z")
There are more than one in this thread alone, buckaroo. ---
**Author:** ![kathmandu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kathmandu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kathmandu)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050/69 "2010-04-23T21:01:06Z")
IAAL, but not a criminal lawyer. I would pass on the case, simply because I’m no longer competent in that area of law. If, hypothetically, I was competent, or if there was no one else to take the case, I would act to the best of my ability without reservation. Not at the expense of my own life though - I’ve got kids to think about. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050/70 "2010-04-23T21:10:25Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I am assuming that he will walk if I challenge the evidence, that it is 100% certain that he is guilty, and that the government cannot prove its case without it. > In a perfectly informed world, you wouldn’t need trials, true. > > Again, the only reason for the presumption of innocence and the other rights of the accused is (in my view) because the accused is sometimes innocent. That is not the case here - acquitting him would be a miscarriage of justice. > > I can understand how lawyers can feel like their eithical obligation to defend the guilty is a good thing in and of itself, but it isn’t - it is (as mentioned) a means to an end. > > Regards, > Shodan You make a valid point – assuming, as the hypothetical does, that there is irrefutable proof of guilt available to the attorney. However, may I bring to your attention that, even though the ideal outcome from the defendant’s point of view may be an acquittal, the ethical obligation to mount the best possible defense is not necesarily to secure that acquittal? Example: two men who own handguns are logged onto an Internet chat )at the same computer) with webcam going. They have been drinking. They get into an argument, and one (who unaccountably has not unloaded and secured away his handgun) takes it and shoots the other to death, in the heat of his anger at the argument. There is no question he killed him – it’s recorded on webcam, and was witnessed by other participants in the chat. What there is, however, is grounds to argue for a manslaughter charge, and if the D.A. obstinately insists on a murder charge with no lesser included offense rule present, to show that he was indeed not guilty of murder as the statute defines it (premeditation, and so on). Granted the D.A. would be a blithering idiot not to pursue a manslaughter charge – but do you see the point I’m making? A trial is to determine if you are guilty of the crime(s) charged, including lesser included offenses. If you are accused of speeding on Highway 12 at 11:05 AM on Sunday, April 18, and 500 people saw you in church at that time, the fact that the arresting officer meant Highway 120 at 11:05 PM on Saturday, April 17 doesn’t matter – you did not do what you were charged with having done. You are not obliged to prove your innocence of all possible charges whatsoever, just to demonstrate you are mpt guilty of the crime charged – and even there, the onus is on the prosecution to prove you guilty; all you need do is show he has not made his case beyond reasonable doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050/71 "2010-04-23T21:15:04Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > The real point is the question in the title. Everything else is just background. Got to admit, I’m surprised so many are willing to take the case. Representing a monster is a heavy thing. And it leaves scars that don’t always heal. I want to come back to this for a minute, since I sort of got side tracked by the supernatural stuff. Here’s the thing - we toss around the phase “If you do X then the terrorists win” usually but not always ironically. The phrase has been over used but there’s a certain truth to it. OBL’s goal was not to just kill people - he wants to destroy American and what we represent to the world. In my opinion, the way to defeat Al Qaida and to demonstrate to OBL that he lost, is treat him the same way we do any other criminal. If he forces us to lose ourselves and the rule of law which is central to our society - he will win, even if we manage to execute him. Just killing him isn’t the win condition. Subjecting him to our rule of law and demonstrating that our way of life is unscathed - _that’s_ how we win, even if he walks away, even if he never gets it. It’s not about him. It’s about us and how we’re better than he, and how he didn’t even touch us. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050/72 "2010-04-23T21:20:20Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Again, the only reason for the presumption of innocence and the other rights of the accused is (in my view) because the accused is sometimes innocent. That is not the case here - acquitting him would be a miscarriage of justice. Privately, I can see how you would feel that way. What do you think about the argument that it would also be a miscarriage of justice for the government to obtain a conviction based entirely on fraudulent evidence, and that the one is only a miscarriage to you, while the other is public? In this scenario, you’re the only living person who actually has the perfect knowledge that leads to your ability to throw out the presumptions of innocence, so I wonder whether you weigh the personal knowledge of what the proper outcome is against your knowledge that, as far as the government knows, it is fraudulently convicting a man they know they can’t prove did anything. Are you comfortable with, for instance, the current U.S. government making those decisions going forward? [QUOTE=Hamlet] I took your statement: “Why is it so confusing that the ethical thing to do is not to pass the buck?” to mean that NOT representing criminals is “passing the buck” and somehow not the ethical thing to do. If you didn’t mean that, I apologize, but it seemed to me pretty clear. [/QUOTE] I guess I hadn’t even really considered that angle, and I can see where it sounded like that. I already do get court-appointed from time to time, so it was easy for me to slip into explaining my own personal perspective. **brickbacon** asked “I can understand and appreciate why it’s important that he have a fair trial, and a competent attorney, but why would it have to be _you_?” and my circumstances are such that I really think I _would_ be passing the buck if I turned it down. If I was in civil practice the idea of that phone call out of the blue would be a very different experience, and I didn’t mean to speak to that possibility at all. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050/73 "2010-04-23T21:21:42Z")
Exactly right, **Merneith**. Well stated. **Oakminster** , how do you tell which defendants are “monsters” and which are merely reprehensible humans? I really want to know what the distinguishing feature is. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050/74 "2010-04-23T21:28:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > IANAL. > > I am assuming the following scenario - > [ul][li]There is no doubt about Osama’s guilt[/li][li]If I take the case, Osama walks.[/ul][/li] > The purpose of the presumption of innocence and the right to counsel and so forth is to protect the wrongly accused. We err on the side of caution to achieve this - that the truly guilty are acquitted is an unfortunate side effect. Unlike other cases, we know for a fact that Osama is guilty. > > Therefore, the cause of justice is served by convicting him. Acquitting him is a less just outcome. > > The reason lawyers are expected vigorously to defend the guilty is because we cannot be sure they are guilty. We can in this scenario. > > I would go even further, and suggest another complication. There is some irrefutable but tainted piece of evidence. If I don’t ask certain questions on cross-examination, or don’t move for dismissal of the evidence or something, it will be admitted into evidence. Nobody knows this but me and Osama, and he doesn’t know American law well enough to realize this. > > I take the case but do not challenge and Osama is convicted. > > If we had perfect ways to establish guilt we would not need lawyers, or the presumption of innocence. > > Regards, > Shodan Hm. Hmmmmmmm. Hm. You know what? I think **Shodan** has made a really interesting argument here. Actually, I think he may have made the _right_ argument. As long as I keep reminding myself of the epistemological fantasy at the heart of the OP’s scenario, Shodan’s reasoning looks, for all the world, _correct_. Or at least plausible. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050/75 "2010-04-23T21:38:24Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Hm. > > Hmmmmmmm. > > Hm. > > You know what? > > I think **Shodan** has made a really interesting argument here. Actually, I think he may have made the _right_ argument. > > As long as I keep reminding myself of the epistemological fantasy at the heart of the OP’s scenario, Shodan’s reasoning looks, for all the world, _correct_. Or at least plausible. On the other hand, the OP makes a terrible assumption: “The reason lawyers are expected vigorously to defend the guilty is because we cannot be sure they are guilty.” Putting aside the magic here, there is another way for the lawyer to know their client is guilty - the client can _tell_ them. In this case, the lawyer is still expected to argue the case, correct? Unless I’m very, very confused? In this case, if the defense wins as a result of aggressive defense of the guilty party, justice would be sacrificed to avoid discouraging the accused from seeking legal counsel, but it does drive a spike into the assumption that the defense lawyer should decline to aggressively defend the guilty, doesn’t it? (Presuming the lawyer is court-appointed of course.) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050/76 "2010-04-23T21:41:30Z")
Within the constraints of the hypothetical being a _fantasy_, maybe, but even so it ignores the need for society’s representatives to appear to be applying justice fairly nonetheless. **Shodan** ’s answer is inapplicable in a real world situation, however. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050/77 "2010-04-23T21:44:19Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > I guess I hadn’t even really considered that angle, and I can see where it sounded like that. I already do get court-appointed from time to time, so it was easy for me to slip into explaining my own personal perspective. **brickbacon** asked “I can understand and appreciate why it’s important that he have a fair trial, and a competent attorney, but why would it have to be _you_?” and my circumstances are such that I really think I _would_ be passing the buck if I turned it down. If I was in civil practice the idea of that phone call out of the blue would be a very different experience, and I didn’t mean to speak to that possibility at all. Gotcha. Sorry if I jumped down your throat. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050/78 "2010-04-23T21:53:26Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > On the other hand, the OP makes a terrible assumption: “The reason lawyers are expected vigorously to defend the guilty is because we cannot be sure they are guilty.” Also to make sure they are treated fairly. Equally-guilty clients can get widely varying charges filed, and wildly-varying sentences after their convictions, depending on the overall performances of both counsels, right? What happens inside the courtroom is only part of the job, and maybe not even the most important part. Back to the real world: There have also been many, many people convicted whom everyone simply \*knew \*was guilty as sin, beyond not only a reasonable doubt but beyond even a shadow of a doubt - but evidence turned up later anyway, even after an execution. We know we can’t ever be sure, and even if we had a Watcher we couldn’t ever completely trust him to be right, either. In any case, we do need to show that we have a process of justice, and that it is being applied fairly\* and to everyone\*. We have to be able to show not only the world but each other that if even bin Laden can get a fair trial, anyone else can, too. Anyone. That’s an obligation that comes from a claim to be a civilized society. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050/79 "2010-04-23T22:18:16Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > I r bad at writing setups. > > The real point is the question in the title. Everything else is just background. Got to admit, I’m surprised so many are willing to take the case. Representing a monster is a heavy thing. And it leaves scars that don’t always heal. I gotta admit, I don’t see how it would leave any scars. Bin Laden’s an evil bastard, but he’s no more monstrous, really, than lots of people who’ve gotten fair trials in any number of courts. How is doing your job as a lawyer scarring? It’s not like I’d be forced to participate in a terrorist attack. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050/80 "2010-04-23T22:30:09Z")
The answer is no. I am not qualified to represent a criminal defendant, and there are lots of better qualified lawyers. Even if I were a criminal lawyer, I have far too much of a historical and political interest in the subject matter that attorney/client confidence and the relationship and effectiveness of counsel would be severely compromised. I am far too interested in what Osama (who I believe has been dead for a long time, but never mind that) would be able to add to the historical record and want to make it public. And screw the Watchers. Bunch o’ assholes if you want my opinion. Michael Tigar the guy who represented Timonty McVeigh’s buddy Terry Nichols would be my recommendation. Saved Nichols from almost certain execution. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-would-you-defend-osama-bin-laden/537050.md?page=5)