Rebecca has another strong post at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude. Below is an excerpt. I think she lays it out pretty clear with her usual strong convictions and style.
lynne stewart is wrongfully convicted and the new york times wants to talk about carli fiorina
friday, february 11, 2005 and the editorial board of the new york times elects to focus on the most important woman in the news.
if you think carleton fiorina's getting fired from hewlett-packard is more important than what's happening to lynne stewart and apparently the new york times does think so.
was there a point of the fiorina editorial? i doubt if and when gail collins gets forced out of the new york times she'd want an editorial on her 'fatal operating error.'
but that's where the paper of non-record is today. wasting space on fiorina. i'm sure fiorina's a wonderful person and i'm sure she will or will not bounce back and i am sure that none of it matters to me 1 way or another except to think, 'gee since she's not up on charges a la tyco, do you think maybe you could quit reporting this like the scandal to end all scandals?'
meanwhile lynne stewart was convicted yesterday. of what? who knows with the current justice department. she was defending a client that won't win any applause from most americans. the justice department puts in place a policy that isn't exactly a law since, last time i checked, the justice department wasn't in the business of writing and passing legislation.
so they target lynne stewart (they includes the clinton administration though at least janet reno had enough sense not to bring stewart up on charges - that dishonor would go to john ashcroft) and tap her in what may or may not have been legal.
and the lawyers who should be defending her (because she is them) are in the news stories in the new york times today making idoitic comments about how they were for her until they heard the audiotapes.
don't we expect a little more from lawyers? don't we expect that they will be the 1st to say, 'now those tapes may or may not be appropriate evidence?'