Amal Alamuddin and her work

Well I guess it "could" happen. But I don't think George drinks as much as people think he does.

If anything, I think George is in love drug stage so I doubt he's even thinking about anyone else.

At least one would hope not.

Agreed, Lorna. Seem remember someone saying he chucks drinks into the nearest plant pot......but of course that image wouldn't go down well with the Tequila campaign!

Great post, Alison - but I think he's more switched on about this stuff. And more knowledge is part of the attraction I'm guessing.......

Seem to be a few column inches saying that Amal would have a lot in common with Angelina Jolie...

Do we already have this somewhere?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Possible she has already met her. See Point 8 in the article

Point 8:

8. She belongs to a panel on preventing sexual violence in war zones that Foreign Secretary William Hague created and which is also supported by Angelina Jolie.


I don't think they met. They are just supporting the same organisation. But of course everything is possible....

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Meanwhile, far from Cabo, this man was in court in Tripoli today...........


Lockerbie bombing inquiry: lawyer warns police over al-Senussi interview

Interviewing potential suspect in Tripoli jail without lawyer would break precedent, Scotland's lord advocate told


The British lawyer for Libya's former intelligence chief, Abdullah al-Senussi, has called on Scottish police not to interview him as part of a new Lockerbie bombing inquiry without a lawyer being present.
Scottish detectives are due to interview Senussi, once the right-hand man of Muammar Gaddafi, hoping he can provide details of the bombing that killed 270 people in December 1988.
Last month Scotland's lord advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, visited Tripoli to arrange details of the visit after Libya dropped earlier objections.
But Ben Emmerson QC, appointed to represent Senussi by theinternational criminal court (ICC), said Libya has so far refused him permission to visit his client.
In a letter to Mulholland, Emmerson said detectives are in danger of breaking Scottish precedent if Senussi, a potential Lockerbie suspect, is interviewed in his Tripoli jail cell without a lawyer.
He wrote: "Mr Al-Senussi has been held incommunicado without access to legal advice in respect of any proceedings. I am certain that you would wish any interview to be conducted between Mr Al-Senussi and Scottish police officers to be scrupulously fair, putting its admissibility in subsequent proceedings beyond any doubt."
Scottish police are hoping Senussi, Gaddafi's spy chief for most of the dictator's 42-year-rule, can answer questions about the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 that have eluded investigators for quarter of a century.
A senior member of Emerson's legal team, Amal Alamuddin, said: "Any new inquiry into the events surrounding Lockerbie needs to be scrupulously fair, and this needs to start with Mr Senussi being given legal counsel during any interview with Scottish law officers."
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of the bombing, died in 2012 in Libya protesting his innocence.
Libya has appointed two officers to work with Scottish and American Lockerbie investigators, with the justice minister, Salah al-Marghani, saying: "We should know everything about what happened."
Senussi, indicted by the Hague for crimes against humanity, was captured in Mauritania after fleeing Libya after the 2011 Arab spring revolution. He was extradited to Libya and last year went on trial, amid tight security, accused of crimes committed during the revolution.
Emmerson, who represented the Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, is also appealing against the ICC's decision in October that Libya could take the Senussi case, arguing that the country's turmoil raises doubts about its ability to hold a fair trial.

Thanks PAN for this find and for posting it. xxx

Thanks for the link

Senussi "the butcher"? Really?   
Well, for sure he and Saif Al-Islam can pay the best lawyers... with that money won at the expense of the blood of Libyan people, but who cares. Money is money, isnt it?

chiki wrote:Thanks for the link

Senussi "the butcher"? Really?   
Well, for sure he and Saif Al-Islam can pay the best lawyers... with that money won at the expense of the blood of Libyan people, but who cares. Money is money, isnt it?

Absolutly true but also morality is morality or not?

Yes, but everybody, and anybody, is entitled to a fair trial and therefore legal representation, I guess

lelacorb wrote:Absolutly true but also morality is morality or not?

yes, but it's a personal choice, or maybe a point of view. Everyone has right to a lawyer and a fair trial, as PAN said. That's one of  the basis of our judicial system. But sometimes it's hard to deal with that, and someone has to do it. If you ask me, I would never defend this killer, probably responsible of death of thousands people, not for all the money in the world, further knowing where that money comes, but seems there are people willing to do it, and the only reason I can find is money, but maybe I'm wrong.

Yes, completely agree, Chiki, but Ben Emmerson and Amal Alamuddin have been assigned to this case by the International Criminal Court, and they were warning the Scottish QC for Lockerbie not to allow the Scottish Police to interview Senussi in prison without a lawyer, which would be unprecedented..........and would possibly allow that sort of behaviour anywhere in the world - which is definitely not the way to go

Sure, I agree, prisoners must have access to a lawyer, in Libya or wherever, basic human rights.
(Sorry if I didn't explain right.   )

I haven't been following everything here, so I do nott understand it all. However I would think you have to go on the totality of a lawyers client list to make any conclusion on who they will and won't represent. There is only so much that one on the outside can understand and if they were assigned the case they have to do their best.

Interesting to think about a possible future (let's hope not too far into the future!) scenario.........Al-Bashir arrested and in time brought to face charges in the International Criminal Court..............

party animal - not! wrote:Interesting to think about a possible future (let's hope not too far into the future!) scenario.........Al-Bashir arrested and in time brought to face charges in the International Criminal Court..............

Now that thought makes my day/

The law says that even a murderess has the right to counsel and to a fair trial, but if I want to be a defender of human rights in the sense that I want to defend people whose human rights have been violated, I can choose who to defend and then let's stop in wanting to sacrifice someone as great woman who defends the human rights of the most vulnerable but let us look at how a lawyer who defends those who pay more! The lawyers with few morals are most lawyers practice their profession to make money!

And so do doctors and nurses and CEOs etc. etc. etc. 

People wanting to make money is not limited to lawyers and people wanting to make money at all costs no matter who it hurts also is not limited to lawyers. 

There are quite a few bankers on Wall Street who should be in jail but aren't.

Ever seen the Oscar winning 2010 documentary 'Inside Job', narrated by Matt Damon about the 2008 economic crisis and how it happened? Truly shocking even for a cynic like me..and yep, many walked away with their properties and art collections intact.......and some continue to advise government....

I don't know enough about the legal process at this level or how human rights lawyers find themselves defending those they would rather not........I suspect there might be a some sort of oath not dissimilar to a doctors, because everybody has a right to be heard. If that was not the case I think you would en up with kangaroo courts.

Tht's why I alluded to the Al Bashir/ICC possibilities. He would be entitled to a defence team......

I understand and agree with the idea that everyone deserves a competent defense, but I don't understand how you look at yourself in the mirror if you succeed in getting someone truly horrible off on a technicality. That kind of thing has to take a piece of your soul.

I totally agree. But the trouble is what is the alternative? (Wish I had a law degree - there must be many a lecture on this ethical dilemma!!)

I don't know for sure, but I have a relative in this arena, and from memory it is almost like earning you spurs to get your teeth into horrible cases. You earn a type of notoriety, and make a "name" for yourself. It shows you are willing to go the extra mile, that many would consider unthinkable ... Career advancement I suppose, but I really don't know it's jmo

WWHS - I'm glad there are people who do "go the extra mile" in our courts because everyone should have good legal counsel and a fair trial. I just don't understand how the lawyers justify it to themselves when they know their client is guilty. I think that's why lawyers are so often disrespected - because they seem to make it a game that they want to win, no matter what - more a way to get a reputation and advance their careers than to get justice.

LIZZY, I also, don't understand how they do it ... I would crumble ... I suppose that is why they get the big bucks. Little like selling your soul to the devil.
I would find it impossible not say what I truly felt about someone, to overrule my emotions and conscience for my job. So as you say they make it a game.

party animal - not! wrote:Ever seen the Oscar winning 2010 documentary 'Inside Job', narrated by Matt Damon about the 2008 economic crisis and how it happened? Truly shocking even for a cynic like me..and yep, many walked away with their properties and art collections intact.......and some continue to advise government....

I don't know enough about the legal process at this level or how human rights lawyers find themselves defending those they would rather not........I suspect there might be a some sort of oath not dissimilar to a doctors, because everybody has a right to be heard. If that was not the case I think you would en up with kangaroo courts.

Tht's why I alluded to the Al Bashir/ICC possibilities. He would be entitled to a defence team......

PAN I have to agree that was a shocking documentary in my opinion. We all seem to know our own little corner of the world.

Slightly off topic....here in UK we had a brilliant TV drama series called Silk which was about a defence lawyer and her work and her colleagues in chambers.
I miss it now that its finished.      



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]








 

LizzyNY wrote:I understand and agree with the idea that everyone deserves a competent defense, but I don't understand how you look at yourself in the mirror if you succeed in getting someone truly horrible off on a technicality. That kind of thing has to take a piece of your soul.

Yep I know what you mean and agree.

But look at this way...if you are a lawyer or a doctor or a police officer whatever it is you did an oath to help others.

So if you decide not to help because of that person history/background then not only you break the oath you also are like any other person who you don't like when you start refusing to help somebody because of your judgement. 

Example...I'm sure when a police officer get called to help a child molester who gets attacked at his home by neighbors after he gets released from prison is for sure no the job the police officer likes to do. But in this moment he has to do it as this person needs help. If he wouldn't do it maybe those neighbors take they justice in they own hands and you kind of have blood on your hands too because you let it happen by doing nothing. At in this case it is your job to help. You did an oath.

Maybe this example is to heavy but I think you get the point of it.

If you are a lawyer, doctor or police you need to switch kind of your judgment for "who is this person" you need to judge "what happen in this moment" and if this is wrong those people need to help regardless of the background.

And at the end that's why judges exist. Doesn't matter what kind of lawyer you have. In the ideal world if the person did wrong it is not the lawyer who decides it it is the judge....

@Nicky80 - I do understand how people put their own feelings aside to do their jobs. As a teacher , there are times when you have a student in your class who you just can't warm up to, but you do your best to put your feelings aside and treat them just like all the others. You even make more of an effort to reach them. But I can tell you that it makes you feel bad that you, for whatever reason, cannot like this child. That is what I question. If you, as a lawyer, know that winning a case puts an evil person back into society, how do you justify it to yourself? And if it doesn't bother you, what does that say about you as a person?
In this country it is usually a jury, not a judge, who decide a case. If a lawyer is skilled at arguing a case he can convince a jury to believe him. There are many factors that make up a jury decision, and it doesn't always result in justice based on facts. Sometimes it depends on which lawyer is more convincing.

Lizzy you do have some valid points but I wonder how many lawyers go through this ethical quagmire on a daily basis.  It's not just limited to Amal so I don't think we should try to find fault in her for doing what many lawyers have to also do on a daily basis.

@Lorna - I think we kind of got off topic here. I wasn't thinking of Amal so much as lawyers in general, and more specifically those who take up unpopular cases by choice - not because they were assigned to them. I don't know enough about her to know why she works on the cases she does.

Well, I'm sure every Lawyer was thinking before why they wanted to be a lawyer and as every job there belong tasks you do not like and/or think at the time they are right to do this task. Everyone has different believes....

And every job can be questioned even the President.

When you work 60 years in your life I'm sure there is one morning during this time where you couldn't look in the mirror....

And if we ask all the time the moral for each job or "how to justify yourself" then soldiers can't be soldiers....

This is a discussion with no beginning and no ending....

Just saying

chiki wrote:yes, but it's a personal choice, or maybe a point of view. Everyone has right to a lawyer and a fair trial, as PAN said. That's one of  the basis of our judicial system.

It's not only the basis of the legal system, it's the basis of civilisation.

And yes, I really do think it's as important as that.  The minute one group of people (no matter who they are: ethnic minorities, a religious minority, people who are clearly bad and deserve to go to jail, terrorists, gay/lesbians, paedophiles, women who want to vote, racial minorities) are denied a free and fair trial, you are looking at a country that's taking a step away from civilisation.

It's really, really hard for us to believe in this in our hearts because it goes against all emotional reasoning.  Of course terrorists deserve to be punished, of course paedophiles should be locked up and the key thrown away (IMO, of course!) but once we allow that to happen without a fair and free trial, we open the door to absolute chaos where nobody is safe.  

And I do mean nobody because we've opened to door to allowing someone to arbitrarily decide who is acceptable in society and who isn't without giving that person the right to defend themselves and who knows which group will be arbitrarily selected next?  Working mothers?  The mentally disabled?  Jews?

If you don't give everybody the same rights (no matter how painful/expensive this is) then you've effectively removed those rights from everybody.

Katiedot wrote:

chiki wrote:yes, but it's a personal choice, or maybe a point of view. Everyone has right to a lawyer and a fair trial, as PAN said. That's one of  the basis of our judicial system.

It's not only the basis of the legal system, it's the basis of civilisation.

And yes, I really do think it's as important as that.  The minute one group of people (no matter who they are: ethnic minorities, a religious minority, people who are clearly bad and deserve to go to jail, terrorists, gay/lesbians, paedophiles, women who want to vote, racial minorities) are denied a free and fair trial, you are looking at a country that's taking a step away from civilisation.

It's really, really hard for us to believe in this in our hearts because it goes against all emotional reasoning.  Of course terrorists deserve to be punished, of course paedophiles should be locked up and the key thrown away (IMO, of course!) but once we allow that to happen without a fair and free trial, we open the door to absolute chaos where nobody is safe.  

And I do mean nobody because we've opened to door to allowing someone to arbitrarily decide who is acceptable in society and who isn't without giving that person the right to defend themselves and who knows which group will be arbitrarily selected next?  Working mothers?  The mentally disabled?  Jews?

If you don't give everybody the same rights (no matter how painful/expensive this is) then you've effectively removed those rights from everybody.

Katie I really wish someone could get these basics into the head of the GOP here. They are trying little by little to takes these groups rights away. Before we know it women and blacks will lose the right to vote.

OK, I am not sure how it works in the UK but lawyers in the US do not take any sort of oath. They have a state code of ethics they work under and which if they are caught violating they can lose their license to practice law. The code of ethics is meant to guarantee that their clients get the best defense possible without breaking any laws in the process.

Also in the US unless you are a public defender you are not assigned cases as a defense attorneys, and have the right to not represent anyone.

Amal is not lead attorney on the two cases in question here and is only part of a team. Generally that means she is working on a very specific part of the cases where she has expertise. So for her there may be a point of law that appeals to her or is important to her no matter who the person in question is.

Whatever the case, I feel it is unfair to try to determine someone's moral judgments based on such a small snippet in a career she has spent years building. JMHO

Er, I think the Wikipedia entry has disappeared....................

  you are right Pan just looked as well couldn't find it. 

Guess somebody in the camp is unsure how to proceed      

Mm, wonder who put it there in the first place..........

It was deleted by Wikipedia as she did meet the criteria of a notable person. The Article of Deletion is there where it lists who reviewed and recommended the deletion and why.

It was originally submitted by a regular contributor who has written many articles for the site. All articles are subject for review and must meet certain criteria. Amal at this point met none of the criteria for notable persons.

Damn so dating George ISN'T going to be a career boost!  HA!

Well everyone knows she is dating George Clooney but Wikipedia doesn't think that's NOTABLE...Guess Amal would finally make it if she is Mrs. Clooney.

I don't think "Mrs" Clooney makes you a notable person. 

I like it that Wikipedia as curtain criteria  

You are right Nicky it would not make her notable. You must be notable in your own right, not by association or relation(ship). Meaning she would have to have made numerous and significant contributions in her field, been cited repeatedly by peers and this needs to be documented/supported by secondary media (not a book that she wrote). She currently meets none of the criteria. The majority of articles that were attached to her bio had to do with George and this was the basis of the first recommendation for deletion. It was supported by other reviewers, and ultimately the administrator agreed. It was even posted for discussion in the UK forum and from what I could see no one even commented.

Wow must bite that Stacy's got a wiki page!  Of course she's listed as notable for being a WWE wrestler!  HA!

I never knew Wikipedia to be so strict. Personally I think Amal could make it in her own right. She has much more success as a lawyer than Stacy for being a WWE wrestler, after all.

I guess this only shows in a few years what kind of success as lawyer she will have so far she is just part of a group and doing her job like any other lawyer so nothing special to have a Wikipedia side. So let's see

Part of the research team.

A researcher.

This link was sent to me by Miss-Sunshine2020-found by Kimber. Thanks.

It is not about the engagement as we have already a thread for that more about that Amal was her houseguest for some who are interested. Post it here as I thought this is more work related. Carmen Pedrosa - Journalism - Thomson Reuters Foundation

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Just getting back to this thread...

For a post way up there somewhere... A license granted in NY only allows her to practice in NY, not the entire US. Lawyers have to be licensed in each state in which they practice. Amal won't have any problem getting one in CA, though.

And of course I realize that lawyers sometimes have to defend people whose actions they find repugnant. But I don't think that applies when you 're a barrister/lawyer with a private firm that can cherry-pick its clients. She doesn't have to defend Assange.

Or didn't. Methinks the past few weeks have been spent passing her caseload off to others while she lines up work stateside.

wikipedeia has her posted again, as of today, the 27th
"This page was last modified on 27 April 2014 at 21:55"

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Interesting, side is back this time with more text. thanks playfuldep  

playfuldeb wrote:wikipedeia has her posted again, as of today, the 27th
"This page was last modified on 27 April 2014 at 21:55"

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Nicky80 wrote:Interesting, side is back this time with more text. thanks playfuldep  

Opps, I think I said this before  :

Sevens wrote:Well everyone knows she is dating George Clooney but Wikipedia doesn't think that's NOTABLE...Guess Amal would finally make it if she is Mrs. Clooney.