Grim Double Feature
A new documentary, "Terror's Advocate" (mostly in French, with English subtitles), offers a fascinating insight into the history of post-WWII terrorism. Centered around interviews with Jacques Verges, a French-trained lawyer who has defended everyone from Klaus Barbie to Carlos the Jackal as well as representing seemingly every major leftist terrorist group to have operated in Europe and elsewhere over the last half-century (Baader-Meinhof, Red Brigades), the film offers chilling observations from an unrepentant Verges as well as many of his cohorts and clients -- many of whom are repentant. Verges, now in his 80s but extremely lucid, is scary in his ability to charm even while, for example, minimizing the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge and his friend Pol Pot.
The film is obviously of interest for its potential insights on the current debate over terrorism, though it offers few answers to a problem for which there are no good answers. One theme that emerged was that terrorism has been a depressing part of life in Europe for decades. There have been various series of bombings across Europe instigated by sophisticated networks of terrorists. One such series, one observer in the film suggests (rather unpersuasively), ended simply because the terrorists ran out of bombs. More pointedly, almost all of the terrorists were tracked as criminals and caught and prosecuted as criminals, after which their terrorist activities stopped.
The film also shows, however, the dangers of providing legal process to accused terrorists. Verges happily recalls how he and other lawyers were the lynchpins in communicating orders from jailed terrorists awaiting trial to those outside who followed those orders. While it is obviously necessary not to go too far in restricting access to counsel, it is not possible to see this film without appreciating the important and dangerous role that complicitous lawyers can play in a terror plot.
Verges also represents a contorted version of the argument that a lawyer should provide a vigorous defense to any client, because his version of a vigorous defense was to refuse to deny the charges but simply to assert that his clients did things for the greater good. (Although this might otherwise count as a spoiler alert, the following is from the trailer for the film. Verges says: "People ask me, 'Would you have defended Hitler?' I answer that I would even defend Bush. But only if he agreed to plead guilty first.")
Verges cut his teeth during the French occupation of Algeria, which was one of the first (if not the first) insurgencies based on bombings of civilians. The film uses some footage from the classic film "The Battle of Algiers" (in French and Arabic, with English subtitles), which is a non-documentary film that recreates the time leading up to Algerian independence. Together, the films make an uneasy case that the fight against French colonialism was ugly but ultimately just; but no matter how one feels about that historical episode, "Terrors' Advocate" shows how easily ideals can be twisted into brutal, mindless murder. These are not uplifting films, but they are important.
Posted by Neil H. Buchanan
The film is obviously of interest for its potential insights on the current debate over terrorism, though it offers few answers to a problem for which there are no good answers. One theme that emerged was that terrorism has been a depressing part of life in Europe for decades. There have been various series of bombings across Europe instigated by sophisticated networks of terrorists. One such series, one observer in the film suggests (rather unpersuasively), ended simply because the terrorists ran out of bombs. More pointedly, almost all of the terrorists were tracked as criminals and caught and prosecuted as criminals, after which their terrorist activities stopped.
The film also shows, however, the dangers of providing legal process to accused terrorists. Verges happily recalls how he and other lawyers were the lynchpins in communicating orders from jailed terrorists awaiting trial to those outside who followed those orders. While it is obviously necessary not to go too far in restricting access to counsel, it is not possible to see this film without appreciating the important and dangerous role that complicitous lawyers can play in a terror plot.
Verges also represents a contorted version of the argument that a lawyer should provide a vigorous defense to any client, because his version of a vigorous defense was to refuse to deny the charges but simply to assert that his clients did things for the greater good. (Although this might otherwise count as a spoiler alert, the following is from the trailer for the film. Verges says: "People ask me, 'Would you have defended Hitler?' I answer that I would even defend Bush. But only if he agreed to plead guilty first.")
Verges cut his teeth during the French occupation of Algeria, which was one of the first (if not the first) insurgencies based on bombings of civilians. The film uses some footage from the classic film "The Battle of Algiers" (in French and Arabic, with English subtitles), which is a non-documentary film that recreates the time leading up to Algerian independence. Together, the films make an uneasy case that the fight against French colonialism was ugly but ultimately just; but no matter how one feels about that historical episode, "Terrors' Advocate" shows how easily ideals can be twisted into brutal, mindless murder. These are not uplifting films, but they are important.
Posted by Neil H. Buchanan
8 Comments:
At 1:45 PM,
Kevin Jon Heller said…
Neil,
I haven't seen the film -- it's not available yet in New Zealand -- so I can't say anything intelligent about your argument. But I do have a couple of questions, for clarification. First, are you arguing that Verges actually knowingly abetted terrorism by "communicat[ing] orders"? Does he admit as much?
Second, are you arguing that it is somehow unethical for a lawyer to invoke a necessity defense on behalf of a dictator? Or just that it's not likely to be an effective defense?
Third -- and I guess this is more of a comment -- you might think about your statement "The film also shows... the dangers of providing legal process to accused terrorists." That seems to come perilously close to suggesting that accused terrorists shouldn't be defended at all, a position I doubt you would embrace.
At 2:09 PM,
Mithras said…
All sorts of criminal organization leaders who have been jailed have managed to run their organizations while behind bars, and not through their lawyers. They can do it as long as they have a means of communicating with the outside; if that is taken away, they can bribe someone to look the other way. And gangsters kill people, too. So why question the right to counsel in terrorism cases? Because the Right has made it an issue. The "dangers" of giving terrorists lawyers is the same danger presented by the right to counsel in any criminal case: The law might be enforced when the state wishes to act without the restraint of law.
At 2:28 PM,
Sobek said…
"So why question the right to counsel in terrorism cases? Because the Right has made it an issue."
I believe the argument is that foreign nationals, captured on foreign soil, held in a foreign base, are not entitled to an attorney under the Sixth Amendment. That's a far cry from arguing that no one accused of "terrorism" gets a lawyer.
And even that argument is frequently (although not always) tempered with a pragmatic limit -- it is not practical to pull witnesses out of a war zone to allow full due process, so enemy combatants must wait until the end of hostilities. Obviously, that rationale ends when hostilities end.
At 6:41 PM,
Neil H. Buchanan said…
In response to kevin jon heller's questions and mithras's comment:
First, yes, Verges says point blank that he and the other lawyers knowingly (and, judging from his manner, gleefully) abetted terrorism.
Second, no, I am not arguing that it is unethical for a lawyer to invoke a necessity defense. I was being necessarily brief, but Verges's strategy was to use a necessity defense to make a mockery of the trial and to refuse to engage on the issues. (That's why he said that Bush would have to admit his guilt first.)
Third, I guess I can see why one might think that my comments come perilously close to suggesting that the accused should not be defended at all, but that is definitely not my position. It is absolutely necessary for all accused to be given legal process, but doing so does bring some dangers with it that must be carefully thought through. The point was that this is the first time I've seen or heard of a lawyer admitting that he has, in fact, gone beyond legal representation to join in the criminal activity. As a no-longer-hypothetical possibility, I was reminded that this is a more difficult issue than it is sometimes portrayed. I wouldn't be anywhere close to the middle of the continuum between "no legal representation" and "unfettered access" -- and it might well be that the current safeguards unduly restrict access to counsel (in fact, from what I know, that seems clear). My comment was simply that, though I strongly defend the right to legal representation, Verges's confession was striking.
It's true that inmates serving time for non-terrorism-related cases also manage to get the word out from their prison cells; and that is also a matter of concern. As mithras suggests, it's not a reason to deny lawyers to the accused. It is, though, a reason to think carefully about whether there are ways to allow robust defenses while minimizing this kind of activity.
It's absolutely true that the Right has made this an issue, which is why it struck me. My reaction to this kind of claim from Bushies has been to minimize the concern; so seeing Verges admit to it caught me short. To be clear, though, my response is NOT go to the opposite extreme.
At 11:48 PM,
Mithras said…
Sobek-
Jose Padilla. Maher Arar. Abu Omar. Of those we know. Some arrested on U.S. soil, others not. And none in a "war zone".
Neil Buchanan-
[T]his is the first time I've seen or heard of a lawyer admitting that he has, in fact, gone beyond legal representation to join in the criminal activity.
There are mob lawyers in Philly I could introduce you to, but you'd have to buy them a couple of drinks before they started telling stories.
It is, though, a reason to think carefully about whether there are ways to allow robust defenses while minimizing this kind of activity.
Prison officials have lots of ways of minimizing it, and use them on a regular basis. That includes limiting visitors, packages and contact with other inmates, and monitoring their phone calls. My comment was that anyone, including prison officials themselves, can become the conduit of such illegal communications, so focusing on lawyers seems only explainable by the political agenda.
The right answer to this problem is not somehow viewing the right to counsel as a "danger", but investigating anyone about whom there is probable cause to believe they have been passing orders to criminal associates.
At 9:01 AM,
Neil H. Buchanan said…
I don't doubt that there are mob lawyers, prison guards, and others who have abetted criminal activity. (I might live in an ivory tower, but I do look out the window every now and again . . .) The power of film is to make the hypothetical seem much more real; and that is what I was commenting on.
"The right answer to this problem is not somehow viewing the right to counsel as a "danger", but investigating anyone about whom there is probable cause to believe they have been passing orders to criminal associates."
The danger does not arise from the right to counsel per se, and I agree that the right answer to this is to investigate possible criminal activity by anyone for whom probable cause exists. Doing so, though, is to acknowledge that there is a danger of such activity even after someone is in custody -- including activity abetted and conducted by lawyers. We shouldn't overreact to that (as we have), but we also shouldn't pretend that no such danger exists.
The most important point that I was trying to make, and which I'll probably write another post about very soon, is that there have been successful prosecutions against terrorists that were conducted with full legal process and that resulted in the neutralizing or disbanding of terrorist groups. That's the real debate in the U.S. at this point, I think, and this whole "war on terror" rubric dangerously mischaracterizes both what we're facing and how best to respond.
At 1:59 PM,
Carl said…
My comment was that anyone, including prison officials themselves, can become the conduit of such illegal communications, so focusing on lawyers seems only explainable by the political agenda.
As your own example of mob lawyers illustrates, attorneys have strong psychological (in addition to professional) incentives to identify with their clients. This is certainly good reason to be more concerned about them than about prison officials, who have strong psychological (and professional) incentives to separate themselves from the prisoners they guard. While fellow inmates may be more likely to aid and abet each others' criminal enterprises (a perhaps dubious assumption), they are hampered by the fact that, well, they are in jail. And although the occasional visitor may serve as a ready conduit between the inmates and the outside world, these people will necessarily have much less access to the inmates than their attorneys will.
All of these are strong, non-political reasons why the moral hazards confronting attorneys might justify singling them out from among the others you mention as particular objects of concern. Whether the appropriate response is to curtail the accused's access to counsel, of course, is another matter.
At 3:33 PM,
Mithras said…
Carl and Neil-
"This is certainly good reason to be more concerned about them than about prison officials, who have strong psychological (and professional) incentives to separate themselves from the prisoners they guard."
I disagree. I think you're focused too much on the very unusual situation where a lawyer sympathizes with the political aims of his terrorist client to the degree that the lawyer engages in criminal behavior. The much more frequent way for crime bosses or other criminals to get assistance is from prison guards due to far more common motives: greed, fear and sympathy.
On a small scale, this is incredibly common. Drug smuggling is the most frequent example: Most drugs are brought into prisons by the guards. Wealthy prisoners can get all sorts of privileges and comforts, for a price. The purchase doesn't even have to be made directly from the guard; prisons are their own little economies, and a prisoner with a hookup can resell whatever contraband he gets smuggled in. Messages are just another form of contraband, and can be smuggled out by the same route.
I think slightly less common is coercion. Guards knows who the gang leaders are, and those guards (and their families) are subject to retribution by gang members if they fail to play ball with the powerful gang leaders.
And finally, there's sympathy. Prisoners and guards are often more like colleagues than adversaries. They want each other's help. They all live in the same environment, deal with the same personalities. There's a little market between them based on information and privileges. So a friendly guard might see no harm in passing an innocuous letter to an outside family member, not knowing that it contains coded messages from a gang leader. And in some other recent, spectacular cases, guards have developed romantic relationships with their prisoners, and then helped them to escape.
Lawyers, on the other hand, are usually concerned with upholding the law, by vindicating their clients' rights, not with breaking other laws. While there are occasional radical lawyers, and other lawyers who are subject to the same foibles as prison guards, the people who are in daily contact with prisoners are the most important security issue. That's why solitary confinement is used for dangerous prisoners - it's not just a punishment, not just a way of protecting or keeping the prisoner from other inmates, it's a way of minimizing contact with the guards. As they say in medicine, "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras." Corrupt or compromised guards are far more common than radical lawyers.
Post a Comment
<< Home