Re: Amal Alamuddin and her work

by oldweston Wed 11 Mar 2015, 20:03

Donnamarie - if I had the ability to do so I would have given you a green on this. flower

Quote below from you in case I have not got the hang of quotes.

"I do think she believes that every person, regardless of their actions, is entitled to basic human rights. That's a hard pill to swallow for many people."

I would add to this that the concept includes not only those accused but not yet tried but also those tried and convicted. It is everyone. The right to security of the person - the right not, for example, to be subject to torture, applies to all including those who have been found guilty.

by Nicky80 Wed 11 Mar 2015, 20:09

jusquatoi2014 wrote:Just one more note and I'll shut up: justice is never blind, otherwise we wouldn't have had those positive legal/social changes we enjoy today. Justice is only blind if we take a formalistic view of it.

"justice is blind" is a positive Quote. It means that justice should be meted out objectively / impartiality. So because "justice is blind" we enjoy all the positive legal / social changes today. Sometimes you can see the "Lady justice statue" with blindfolds in front of the court all over the world. She also wears a scale and a sword.

Like this

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

Since the 15th century, Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of money, wealth, power, or identity; blind justice and impartiality.

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

by Way2Old4Dis Wed 11 Mar 2015, 20:42

I will grant there is something admirable in Amal Clooney's purist belief in the traditional system. It's what makes her a strong advocate in the face of fierce opposition. But, to me, it stems from a very black-and-white view of the world, and this world has not been black and white for a very long time.

I do not equate a man who kills his wife in a fit of passion with a man who murders thousands of his countrymen in a bid to hold on to power and money. They are both heinous crimes, yes, but they are not the same in magnitude nor consequences. Genocide destroys cultures and generations, and it is perpetrated by those who have assumed and then betrayed a mantle of public trust.

I'm simply suggesting that the current system is no longer enough to fully address the escalating crimes against humanity, and adhering to a simplistic process out of blind loyalty and unquestioned belief does no service to humankind in terms of the administration of real justice. Yes, it's what we have, and in most cases it works, but in a growing number of instances it doesn't, and those instances are having a huge detrimental effect on our world. I'm not saying we need to do away with our current court system. But I do think we need to reconsider the universal application of what we know and accept as 'due process,' and explore new means of meting out justice in those cases of blatant government corruption.

And don't tell me about the ICC or any of the similar institutions. They're toothless and politicized to the point of being worthless. And yes, that Amal participates in them as if they mean something gives me further pause about her.

by Hebe Wed 11 Mar 2015, 21:35

When I read about how some people are tortured, abused, denied a fair trial and all manner of atrocities by other individuals or corrupt regimes my gut reaction is often that the perpetrators do not deserve to be treated with humanity. Then I think about what would happen if any of these perpetrators were tried without the rights that we all have.

If even one person was tried without being permitted to have legal representation how can that court try those who have denied others legal representation. If the international court concerned with human rights denies this basic right then the corrupt regimes can say 'You have denied these rights to someone so you cannot claim we are acting illegally when we do it' so they will continue to conduct unfair trials.

The international court has to have the highest integrity and must ensure that all those on trial are accorded the same rights. It must not be seen to treat anyone with bias or otherwise deny them their rights however heinous their alleged crimes.

Amal is just doing her job when she takes on work representing individuals who are accused of atrocities etc. She is ensuring they have a fair trial, she is not condoning their actions in any way. As others have said she probably has other more low profile cases that we don't hear about.

by Jenn Wed 11 Mar 2015, 21:35

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

‘Respect Clooney case vs Phl’

MANILA, Philippines - The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has called on the public to respect the integrity of the process involving the case filed by international human rights lawyer Amal Alamuddin-Clooney against the Philippine government.

“I just wanted to stress the nature of this process because some groups are trying to paint a political color to it,” CHR spokesman Marc Cebreros said in a text message to The STAR.
“We should all respect and uphold the integrity of the process,” he said.

Earlier reports said Clooney filed a case before the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD), a body under the UN Commission on Human Rights.
The case was reportedly filed over alleged violations committed by the Aquino administration against former President and incumbent Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

“The criminal prosecutions against Mrs. Arroyo are politically motivated and persecutory in nature,” the British lawyer and her associate Katherine O’Byrne were quoted as saying.
“The presumption of innocence was violated when public officials made inappropriate comments suggesting Mrs. Arroyo guilty while she was on trial,” the lawyers said.

– Janvic Mateo, Pia Lee-Brago, Jose Rodel Clapano

ps. Katherine O’Byrne

Assisting Amal Clooney, representing former President of the Philippines Gloria Arroyo, held in pre-conviction detention on electoral fraud charges for two years, in relation to her rights under the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights;

by Way2Old4Dis Wed 11 Mar 2015, 22:40

I'm not suggesting that anyone, even the obviously guilty, be denied health care, or treated inhumanely, or not have the right to representation. Civil rights are civil rights. It's the system in which they are contained that needs revision, in certain cases.

If a case meets certain criteria (for instance, defendant's position, access, eyewitness accounts, forensic evidence), then maybe the burden of proof should shift to the defendant. That can happen without the denial of any rights. And it should certainly happen that no high government official can use money 'possibly' obtained through theft from the country to hire their attorney. They can still have one, just not at the victims' expense. No rights trampled. Just a couple of examples.

Amal Clooney has already declared that the charges against Arroyo are "persucatory." Yet she has problems with people in the government -- who don't have anything to do with the courts or the trial -- saying Arroyo is guilty. Can't have it both ways.

by Silje Wed 11 Mar 2015, 23:20

Amal is a lawyer and she works "human right cases" rather then corporate law. But she is doing a job for money and big fish like Arroyo pays well. Of course she is going to say that her clients rights are violated, of course she is going to say her clients are mistreated and ill - that is her job! As a lawyer she protects her clients interests. But that doesn't mean that she is telling the thruth and it doesn't mean that justice is serviced if she gets her way. It just means that she is a good lawyer and that is why people like Arroyo hire her.

by Donnamarie Thu 12 Mar 2015, 00:39

Amal didn't have to take Arroyo's case. I would assume she did take it only because she believed there was abuse of Arroyo's rights. Yes she should protect Arroyo's interest but I would hesitate to say she would be willing to lie to do her job. She wouldn't have taken the case if she didn't believe in her client's rights and that they were abused. Justice will be served if Amal's client receives proper treatment and respect of her rights as a defendant prior to and during her trial . Regardless if she is found guilty or not. At least the judicial process was working as it was intended to.

by kat19 Thu 12 Mar 2015, 00:55

Here's an article that gives some more perspective about where Amal's argument is probably coming from in regards to this case. I don't think you'll see this side covered much by mainstream Filipino outlets so it's worth a read:

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

Amal Alamuddin Clooney can help expose the Aquino government’s human rights abuses

March 12, 2015
by Ilda

International human rights lawyer Amal Alamuddin Clooney has confirmed what some of us have been saying all along – that former President and Congresswoman Gloria Arroyo‘s human rights are being violated by the Philippine government under the leadership of President Benigno Simeon (BS) Aquino.
As early as 2011, concerned individuals have already highlighted how the cases against Arroyo seem to have been rushed just to meet the criteria needed to prevent her from leaving the country in her bid to seek medical treatment for her problems with her cervical spine. Despite the fact that there was still no pending case against Arroyo at that time, her right to travel and her right to presumption of innocence have been trampled upon by the Aquino administration.

We recall that there was pandemonium at the Manila international airport in November 2011 when Department of Justice Secretary Leila De Lima panicked after she found out Arroyo was leaving the country and ordered officers at the airport to help bar her from leaving for Singapore. And with the assistance of the media in inciting anger against Arroyo, some members of the public also joined the fray – besieging her at the airport. Her frail and helpless appearance on a wheelchair did not stop them from acting like a lynch mob. The scene resulted in a standoff because Arroyo’s supporters insisted on her right to travel abroad as stated in the Philippine Constitution.
De Lima’s initial violation back then was in defying the Supreme Court’s temporary restraining order on the travel ban against Arroyo. De Lima even risked disbarment for ignoring the highest court’s order. Senator Miriam Santiago likewise questioned De Lima’s action citing the DOJ had no legal basis to issue a watch-list order against Arroyo since there was no pending case against the former President and was only a respondent in a joint DOJ Comelec investigation on electoral fraud at that time.

Santiago said the DOJ had “no legal basis” to issue watch-list orders based on the memorandum circular.
She rejected the argument that Arroyo’s constitutional right to travel could be suppressed as a matter of “national interest.” She noted that a person could be barred from traveling based only on three exceptions: national security, public safety or public health.
“It is a very serious and grave mistake to think that national security, public safety and public health can be interchanged with national interest,” she said. “We are putting words in the mouth of the Constitution, that is why the Supreme Court ruling is correct.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Justice Secretary Leila De Lima acted like the President’s thug in preventing Arroyo’s departure.

It was apparent then that De Lima was acting on orders from President BS Aquino. He even cut short his overseas trip when he found out Arroyo was about to leave the country. De Lima acted like the President’s thug and seemingly obeyed his orders to do anything – even break the law and deny basic human rights – just to prevent Arroyo from leaving the country.

Fast forward to 2015, De Lima’s actions have come back to bite her. Now that Amal Alamuddin Clooney, a high-profile international lawyer, has brought Arroyo’s case to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the DOJ’s and the local court’s actions or inaction on Arroyo’s plight is being exposed at the world stage. This can only mean bad news for the Aquino government. It is another blow on BS Aquino’s bid for the Nobel Peace Prize.
It remains to be seen if the President will back De Lima or use her as scapegoat and say “De lima fooled me” once the UN grants a decision in favor of Arroyo. If Alamuddin-Clooney wins this case, the Philippine government will have to apologize to the former President; pay her damages; order her immediate release and grant her permission to seek medical treatment abroad for her illness.
We can already predict BS Aquino washing his hands off any responsibility on this matter. Unfortunately for him, his penchant for conducting a trial by media against Arroyo is all on record especially since he never misses an opportunity to badmouth her during his speeches. He made people believe that Arroyo is to blame for everything including his own shortfalls during his term.
As expected, De Lima and BS Aquino’s supporters were quick to dismiss Alumuddin-Clooney as “flamboyant” and “clueless” as per some lawyer’s group. They probably think she is dumb enough to take on a case without studying it first; as if she could reach her status by being careless like De Lima. The lawyers advised her to focus on the cases of ordinary citizens who do not have the money or connections like Arroyo. What they don’t realize is that, if a high-profile individual like Arroyo can be denied justice, what more ordinary citizens? Arroyo’s high profile case, if she were to be granted her rights, would set a precedent for justice and rule of law to prevail in the Philippines.
De Lima also denies that Arroyo’s continued detention is a result of political persecution. Never mind that most of Arroyo’s co-accused in her plunder case have been granted bail while she remains detained in the Veterans Memorial Medical Center; not to mention, most of the cases filed against Arroyo were already dismissed for lack of evidence or for being weak.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
President BS Aquino’s relentless blame games constitute persecution.

The problem is, BS Aquino won the public when he repeatedly vowed to prosecute Arroyo. But instead of prosecution, what he pursued was persecution, particularly when he blames her in his speeches. He still blames her even after being in office for five years. Her continued detention is probably a way for BS Aquino to hide his embarrassment. BS Aquino’s bullying tactics are probably influencing members of the local courts to rule against Arroyo’s request for bail.

It is too bad that it had to take someone from abroad like Alamuddin-Clooney to remind Filipinos about human rights violations. It seems Filipinos have lost the ability to sympathize with the sick and elderly. They need to be reminded that they will fall sick and get old too one day. Sadly, a lot of Filipinos were gullible enough to believe in the negative propaganda perpetuated by BS Aquino and his supporters against Arroyo so much so that they think punishing Arroyo this way is justified. It is baffling how the innocent-until-proven-guilty or presumption of innocence doctrine only applies to BS Aquino and his allies.
It is also unfortunate how a lot of BS Aquino supporters are now attacking Alamuddin-Clooney’s personality. They claim that she has a penchant for defending “evil” clients and that she is allowing herself to be used by opportunistic people. It is not surprising that Aquino supporters would stoop down to ad hominem and red herring argumentation. They resort to that when they cannot use reason to defend their position.

by Donnamarie Thu 12 Mar 2015, 01:27

Thanks kat19. Enlightening article.

by LizzyNY Thu 12 Mar 2015, 02:12

Thanks Kat19 - Interesting article. Arroyo may very well be guilty as charged. That doesn't mean the Aquino government isn't persecuting her. It proves the saying that just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't after you - or maybe two wrongs don't make a right? Smile

This discussion clarified something for me. Amal may be called a human rights lawyer, but I don't think that's accurate. I think she's a lawyer who specializes in international law with a focus on areas that might affect human rights, and there's a big difference between the two. One focuses on the issues affecting people who are being mistreated, while the other focuses on the legal process itself. That's where I think her interest lies - the intellectual/academic side of the international legal system.

Both approaches are equally important, but I think when you focus on the law itself you don't really care too much who your client is, or what they've done, if you think the case will allow you to affect changes in the law. Just a thought.

by Way2Old4Dis Thu 12 Mar 2015, 02:34

Lizzy, I think you've hit the nail smack dab on the sweet spot.

I long ago dismissed the label "human rights lawyer" for Amal, but you said it in a way that crystalizes it. Her passion is for the infrastructure of the law as it applies to each individual, not for the collective human ramifications.

Well said.

by Katiedot Thu 12 Mar 2015, 03:21

Donnamarie wrote:Amal didn't have to take Arroyo's case. I would assume she did take it only because she believed there was abuse of Arroyo's rights.

I would say it's more than that: I think (and yep, this is just my opinion) that Amal is an ambitious lawyer who wants to make it to the top. Nothing wrong with that. In order to do so, she needs to take on as many high-profile cases as possible so that she has a shining track record of handling the really big cases. I don't necessarily mean cases that make the news headlines but rather the ones involving governments and high-powered people.

Donnamarie wrote: Justice will be served if Amal's client receives proper treatment and respect of her rights as a defendant prior to and during her trial . Regardless if she is found guilty or not. At least the judicial process was working as it was intended to.

Amen to that!

LizzyNY wrote:Amal may be called a human rights lawyer, but I don't think that's accurate. I think she's a lawyer who specializes in international law with a focus on areas that might affect human rights, and there's a big difference between the two. One focuses on the issues affecting people who are being mistreated, while the other focuses on the legal process itself. That's where I think her interest lies - the intellectual/academic side of the international legal system.

Yep, that's what I've been trying to say for ages but haven't been able to phrase it half as well. Heck, not even one tenth as well.

by Donnamarie Thu 12 Mar 2015, 13:09

I too think LizzyNY has clarified misconceptions of what Amal does in defending human rights. I think when people speak of a "human rights" advocate or lawyer they are thinking in more colloquial terms. Amal approaches her job from a different perspective. Amal is more focused on defending the human rights legal process. Making sure all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. When they are not, as in the Arroyo case or the Fahmy case, she takes up those causes.

by LizzyNY Thu 12 Mar 2015, 18:28

I am, as always, ambivalent about Amal. I'm glad something that was a sort of epiphany for me rang true for some of you as well. Unfortunately, it doesn't endear her to me any more than before - and I really wish something would!

I'm also curious if she would have the reputation of world class human rights lawyer if she had never met George. I'm not saying she's not a top notch lawyer - I give her credit for her professional accomplishments - but I wonder if she would have the professional reputation she has had they never met. Seems to me her colleagues are pushing her to the forefront so they can ride her coattails, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. She's famous because she's a great lawyer - or - she must be a great lawyer because she's famous. Either way, they'll all be getting a lot more work.

by Joanna Thu 12 Mar 2015, 22:33

Well I hope they do get more work Lizzy, because
then they'll pay more Income Taxes into the
government's pot to keep my pension going.

Long Live the Highest Paid Lawyers I say,
as they pay a higher rate of Income Tax !

Sofa bounce

by fava Thu 12 Mar 2015, 22:35

I agree --raising her profile has helped her reputation as a lawyer. Perhaps her skills justify it, but I am sure there are equally good lawyers who even though we may hear about their high profile clients, you never hear the lawyer's name. I believe amal was in pretty much that position when representing Yulia --before the Clooney connection.

by party animal - not! Thu 12 Mar 2015, 22:45

Lizzy, she did already have a pretty formidable reputation worldwide within her field, and being fluent in three languages has to help!

When you think of all the clients she's worked for including the UN, the British Government, numerous other governments), Eric Schmidt of Google, plus the likes of Charlie Rose and Ronan Farrow, she wasn't exactly a minor player. And she had already been interviewed by the BBC and other tv channels as a legal representative

In a way, it's pretty amazing that they hadn't met earlier

by Katiedot Fri 13 Mar 2015, 09:26

LizzyNY wrote:Unfortunately, it doesn't endear her to me any more than before - and I really wish something would!

Come and sit in my boat Lizzy. But don't worry. I don't like her and probably never will. I think that's ok. We can't all always like everyone in life and as long as I'm aware that my personal dislike of her will colour my opinions of her and that I therefore have to try harder to be fair to her then that's ok with me.

LizzyNY wrote:I'm also curious if she would have the reputation of world class human rights lawyer if she had never met George.

I think that can be answered with a yes. She already had a reputation (in the legal world) before she met him and earmarked for achievement. What you're reading now about her reputation is just the media repeating what's been said about her in the past.

by party animal - not! Fri 13 Mar 2015, 10:44

BBC today:

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

by Alisonfan Fri 13 Mar 2015, 13:08

Katiedot wrote:
LizzyNY wrote:Unfortunately, it doesn't endear her to me any more than before - and I really wish something would!
Come and sit in my boat Lizzy. But don't worry. I don't like her and probably never will. I think that's ok. We can't all always like everyone in life and as long as I'm aware that my personal dislike of her will colour my opinions of her and that I therefore have to try harder to be fair to her then that's ok with me.

LizzyNY wrote:I'm also curious if she would have the reputation of world class human rights lawyer if she had never met George.
I think that can be answered with a yes. She already had a reputation (in the legal world) before she met him and earmarked for achievement. What you're reading now about her reputation is just the media repeating what's been said about her in the past.

Mr Ramzi said "Now the world will know the name Amal Alamuddin" and Madam Bariaa too. He said about the marriage not the work.

by Joanna Fri 13 Mar 2015, 13:36

Alisonfan....When did Mr Ramzi say that ?
Just curious.

by LizzyNY Fri 13 Mar 2015, 13:51

Katiedot wrote:
LizzyNY wrote:Unfortunately, it doesn't endear her to me any more than before - and I really wish something would!
Come and sit in my boat Lizzy. But don't worry. I don't like her and probably never will. I think that's ok. We can't all always like everyone in life and as long as I'm aware that my personal dislike of her will colour my opinions of her and that I therefore have to try harder to be fair to her then that's ok with me.

LizzyNY wrote:I'm also curious if she would have the reputation of world class human rights lawyer if she had never met George.
I think that can be answered with a yes. She already had a reputation (in the legal world) before she met him and earmarked for achievement. What you're reading now about her reputation is just the media repeating what's been said about her in the past.

Katie, thanks for the invitation. I think we'd have a lot of company in that boat. I'll bring the Casamigos if you bring the chocolates! Very Happy

I agree with everything you said. I only wish I didn't feel like I have to watch every word for fear of offending some of her fans, who see hatred in every critical comment. IMO it's generational - they've grown up in the era of political correctness, while I was taught to accept that life is not all rainbows and lollipops - so agree to disagree and move on. As they used to say "Different strokes for different folks."

I think you're probably right as far as her reputation in legal circles is concerned. I think the difference is that in the UK (and maybe in Europe) she had some media presence - while in the US she had none at all. Now she's a household name. She was on track to make a name for herself well before she met George and I think the publicity she's gained from their marriage has just accelerated things.

by / Fri 13 Mar 2015, 16:28

I think that generally lawyers are very much unknown to the public, except for the really ambitious ones who only take on high profile cases and are on television all the time to give interviews. I can only speak for my (small) country, where you have 3 of those (male) lawyers, I don't know about the UK or US. So if she would never have married George, there would never have been this kind of publicity, even if she would have been the best lawyer in the world, so to speak. She would only be well known in legal circles.
As for her reputation, I think when you are a lawyer, you don't have the luxury to say: I'll only defend the good guys. You have to take on the defense of the bad guys every once in a while too. And how do you justify this to yourself and others? By saying you want fair trial, justice, correct application of the law,... This is also the job of a lawyer. They don't think emotionally about this, only rationally. I don't agree with every case she has taken on, f.e. the Al Senussi case. So I have quite mixed feelings about this. But I guess that's just the reality of being a lawyer.

by Way2Old4Dis Fri 13 Mar 2015, 16:49

I'll have to give this more thought, but I can think of only two professions in which the practitioners don't have a choice in who they serve: medicine and teaching. If a mass murderer comes through the doors of an emergency room, doctors and nurses provide the same care to him as they would anyone else. Teachers have to teach every kid in the class. Other than that, professionals -- and particularly those who are self-employed -- always have a choice in their clients. They can say that 'X' person needs the expertise of their profession, and that might be true, but that does not mean that the choice in serving them has been taken away.

From what I'm reading, Amal researched this Arroyo case long before she became officially involved, and then requested (or offered her services) to be included on the legal team. That is the very opposite of not having a choice.

by Donnamarie Fri 13 Mar 2015, 17:11

Yes, Amal had the choice to take the Arroyo case. But we have already discussed the fact that she is only defending Arroyo for human right violations she purports the Phillipine government has waged against her. She's not joining the legal team that is defending her against the graft and plunder charges. Big difference.

by / Fri 13 Mar 2015, 18:39

You're right, you don't have to take on cases, it's your choice but in my opinion if you're ambitious and you want big cases, then you take on the challenging ones, whether it's for the accused or the defendant. But we can only guess the reasons why she takes on some cases and others not.

by Nicky80 Fri 13 Mar 2015, 20:01

Alisonfan wrote:
Mr Ramzi said "Now the world will know the name Amal Alamuddin" and Madam Bariaa too. He said about the marriage not the work.

Joanna wrote:Alisonfan....When did Mr Ramzi say that ?
Just curious.

Well as far as I remember it was not Mr Ramzi who said that it was a "source" and "Madam Baria" was not mentioned.

The Source said:

“Her father couldn’t be prouder of her and is beyond thrilled that the world now knows her name and what she has done,” the source says. “He jokes that George will become known as Mr. Alamuddin instead of Amal being known as Mrs. Clooney!”

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

by Joanna Fri 13 Mar 2015, 23:48

Oh thanks Nicky...
.....the Source of all Things Clooney Thumbs up!

by party animal - not! Sat 14 Mar 2015, 10:55

Here's a really good explanation of Amal's case for Arroyo:

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

by party animal - not! Sat 14 Mar 2015, 10:59

.........and it's in English as well at 1 minute something...!

Looks like there's been a lot of tele-conferencing........

by PigPen Sat 14 Mar 2015, 16:23

Lizzy, agree she was known before George etc. Wasn't she named hottest barrister or something like that? Before anyone jumps down my throat... the point is,she was already known in the UK. Period. How much of it for her work vs her "hotness" I have no idea.
Having nailed the "big one", massive ring and all, just made her more known and photographed internationally. And every thing she does is now considered news.

by jusquatoi2014 Mon 16 Mar 2015, 03:05

It seems that one of the key criteria for her choice of cases is "high-profile". People are different, being lawyers or not - some enjoy attention, some don't.

by party animal - not! Mon 16 Mar 2015, 13:02

Mm, I'm pretty sure that's not the basis a Chambers decides to take a case...........

by Donnamarie Mon 16 Mar 2015, 19:15

party animal - not! wrote:Lizzy, she did already have a pretty formidable reputation worldwide within her field, and being fluent in three languages has to help!

When you think of all the clients she's worked for including the UN, the British Government, numerous other governments), Eric Schmidt of Google, plus the likes of Charlie Rose and Ronan Farrow, she wasn't exactly a minor player. And she had already been interviewed by the BBC and other tv channels as a legal representative

In a way, it's pretty amazing that they hadn't met earlier

PAN, I did know that Amal knew Ronan Farrow but didn't know she and Charlie Rose had met. Charlie is a good friend of George's. Do you know how Charlie and Amal met?

by Donnamarie Mon 16 Mar 2015, 19:49

PAN, sorry. I think I just answered my own question to you. An old People article mentioned they had met at an Aspen Conference in 2012. I think it was the Aspen Ideas Festival. Didn't see that she spoke at the conference. Maybe just attended. Let me know if know differently.

by Way2Old4Dis Wed 18 Mar 2015, 17:30

I think the best way to look at Amal's visibility is that Amal Alamuddin was well known in the legal profession, whereas Amal Clooney is known everywhere.

by kat19 Sat 21 Mar 2015, 06:54

Looks like there is finally some good news about the Fahmy trial:

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

Mohamed Fahmy Trial Finally Hears From Key Witnesses

The twice-delayed retrial of Canadian journalist Mohamed Fahmy on charges of spreading false information finally opened Thursday in Cairo with the appearance of key witnesses who had been no-shows at earlier hearings.

Speaking with CBC's Heather Hiscox following the end of the day's session, Fahmy said, "I consider it a step towards exoneration, and I'm happy about that."
The witnesses included Egyptian state television video engineers, who were questioned about reports written about Al-Jazeera footage. Those reports formed part of the prosecutions's case in the initial trial of Fahmy and two of his Al-Jazeera colleagues.
According to tweets from Guardian journalist Patrick Kingsley, who is at the hearing, one of the video engineers, Kamel Mohamed Kamel, testified that he could not remember how many videos they had watched or what was in them. Under questioning from defence attorneys, Kamel also testified that they could not determine if the video footage had actually been broadcast.
"The technical committee that originally decided that our videos were against the national security of Egypt and that they were fabricated, this committee basically collapsed today during the questions from the defence and the prosecutor," Fahmy told Hiscox.
The presiding judge has ordered a new committee to determine when the video footage was made, and whether it was broadcast.
Other witnesses called included two security officials and two police officers.
Following a session that lasted about three hours, the judge ordered the retrial to resume next Wednesday.
Fahmy said he believes the judge wants to expedite the case.
Fahmy was acting bureau chief for Al-Jazeera's English network when he, Egyptian producer Baher Mohammed and Australian journalist Peter Greste were arrested in December 2013 on charges accusing them of being part of a terrorist group and airing falsified footage intended to damage national security. Al-Jazeera is based in Qatar, a main backer of Egypt's ousted Islamist president Mohammed Morsi and his outlawed Muslim Brotherhood group.
The trio of journalists were convicted last year and Fahmy received a seven-year prison sentence. However, an Egyptian appeal court ordered a new trial for the three, who were released on bail in February. Greste was deported back to Australia that month.
Fahmy has said that the authorities are holding his Canadian passport, which he said he needs to conduct official transactions, including getting married and renting hotel rooms or a car. Fahmy, formerly a dual Canadian-Egyptian citizen, gave up his Egyptian citizenship earlier this year as a condition of getting released from prison.
At Thursday's hearing, a lawyer for Fahmy asked the judge for help in obtaining a Canadian passport for his client. However, the judge said he could not help, according to a tweet from the Guardian's Kingsley.
Fahmy later told CBC the Canadian ambassador pledged to meet with Egyptian Justice Ministry officials on Sunday to try to resolve the passport matter, and that if it isn't concluded he may be issued an exceptional document by the embassy that will allow him to get married.

by party animal - not! Sat 21 Mar 2015, 10:27

Yep, good isn't it?

The court's been adjourned for another week hasn't it? Maybe that's to allow for the paperwork to happen. Doesn't look as if they've allowed him to apply for a Canadian passport yet, and the authorities seem to holding up the issue of visas too for those who need to see him (and others)

by Donnamarie Sat 21 Mar 2015, 14:06

Keeping fingers and toes crossed for Fahmy. It does seem that this process is playing itself out at a snail's pace tho.

by Hebe Sat 21 Mar 2015, 15:03

Thanks for the update on Fahmy. I was wondering what was happening there. I'm glad the Canadian ambassador is helping with the passport matter so that Fahmy and his fiancee can get married. She has been very supportive to him.

by melbert Sat 21 Mar 2015, 17:40

No mention of Amal. Did she get fired?

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

Jazeera journalists undermined in retrial

Lead witnesses appear to contradict incriminating claims they made in written testimony against Mohamed Fahmy, Peter Greste and Baher Mohamed

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Al-Jazeera journalist Mohamed Fahmy talks to journalists alongside his co-defendant Baher Mohamed, following a session of their retrial in Cairo on 19 March. Photograph: Patrick Kingsley/Guardian
Patrick Kingsley in Cairo
Thursday 19 March 2015 11.31 EDT Last modified on Thursday 19 March 2015 20.07 EDT
The case against three al-Jazeera journalists on trial in Egypt was undermined in court on Thursday when the prosecution’s three lead witnesses and a lead police investigator appeared to contradict the incriminating claims they made in written testimony.

The al-Jazeera English journalists, Mohamed Fahmy, Peter Greste and Baher Mohamed, were convicted last year of broadcasting false news that harmed Egypt’s national security, based in part on specially commissioned reports from a trio of technicians from Egyptian state television.
Lawyers appealed against the conviction in January, and at a session of the journalists’ retrial on Thursday each of the three technicians admitted that they were not qualified to judge whether key video evidence harmed the stability of the state, nor whether it contained false information, or even if it was broadcast in the first place.
In a typical exchange under cross-examination, defence lawyers asked Kamal Mohamed Kamal: “Does the nature of your work make you intellectually capable of addressing whether the videos harmed national security?”
Kamal replied: “My work just gives me the ability to watch the videos and say whether it contains a montage or not.”
When it was pointed out that he had signed a report that had made grander claims, Kamal, like both of his colleagues, distanced himself from its contents. “I didn’t write that,” he said.
The admission was seized on by defence lawyers, who suggested that each of the technicians’ reports had been faked. Fahmy’s lawyer, Khaled Abu Bakr, told the court: “The testimony for the three prosecution witnesses were identical, to the letter. There’s not even one different letter in the three testimonies.”

The lead police investigator, Ahmed Ayoub, also struggled under cross-examination. He said he based his work on “secret sources who I cannot reveal”, and rowed back on claims made in his written statements that the journalists had imported their cameras illegally.
Most problematically for his case, Ayoub admitted that he did not know whether al-Jazeera English was banned from working in Egypt at the time of its journalists’ arrest.
“It’s not my job to know if it’s allowed to work or not,” Ayoub said, to the delight of the defence.
“This is the case,” shouted Abu Bakr.
The court was adjourned until 25 March, to allow time for a new technical committee to be assembled to determine when the video evidence was filmed, whether it was ever broadcast, and whether it did contain false information that harmed national security.
Following the session, Fahmy and Mohamed told reporters that they took heart from the day’s events. “Today was a big success,” said Mohamed. “They said they didn’t write the statement. So who wrote the statement? It’s a big question mark for us.”
Fahmy added: “Today the lead investigator, the guy who was the reason why we were in the cage, has again refused to respond to questions that are crucial to this case. The man has no answers.”
Fahmy and Mohamed are currently released on bail, after their 13-month custody finally ended at the start of the retrial in February.
Greste was deported to Australia a fortnight earlier, and there were initial hopes that Fahmy, a Canadian-Egyptian citizen, would be sent to Canada using a similar legal mechanism. But though he gave up his Egyptian citizenship to expedite the process, Fahmy’s deportation never happened, and he currently has neither Egyptian nationality nor a valid Canadian passport.
Additional reporting: Manu Abdo

by party animal - not! Sat 21 Mar 2015, 18:29

No, don't think so. I suspect that she's being denied a visa (too high profile) so has to send a member of her team. Remember Fahmy decided not use his legal team from Al Jazeera when I think he thought they weren't doing enough for him. Amal has also cut her fees by 90% to take this case

This is a Guardian piece by the Egypt editor, Patrick Kingsley, and I think he had to issue an apology to Amal for some incorrect information/misunderstanding earlier in the case.

by kat19 Sun 22 Mar 2015, 04:32

Khaled Abu Bakr is Fahmy's Egyptian lawyer, Amal is his international lawyer. They are working in conjunction with each other on this case.

She didn't get fired.

by Alisonfan Sun 22 Mar 2015, 11:28

party animal - not! wrote:No, don't think so. I suspect that she's being denied a visa (too high profile) so has to send a member of her team. Remember Fahmy decided not use his legal team from Al Jazeera when I think he thought they weren't doing enough for him. Amal has also cut her fees by 90% to take this case

This is a Guardian piece by the Egypt editor, Patrick Kingsley, and I think he had to issue an apology to Amal for some incorrect information/misunderstanding earlier in the case.

Egyptians Visa if refused would be very public big big news, I will look see if I find out.

Mr Kingsley man who taped Amal interview, and then she could not back up her story, nice to say he apologize but only for wording of headline. Story he wrote was true and on tape.

by Alisonfan Sun 22 Mar 2015, 11:31

Maybe she not fired but Mr Kingsley does not add to Amal's 15 fame.

by party animal - not! Sun 22 Mar 2015, 12:33

Severe delays to visa applications to Egypt are very common - often explained away by the authorities as due to expanding the building work of the department concerned etc etc. It is well-known that a lot of decisions are also being delayed by al Sisi because elections are soon and any positive legal decisions about the Al Jazeera journalists may well be delayed as a PR coup for the government.

Add to that Amal Clooney's IBAHRI's report and recommendations to create a independant judiciary from the Egyptian government...........

by LizzyNY Sun 22 Mar 2015, 17:03

Do you think she would have accepted the post at Columbia if she expected to be in Egypt? I think, for whatever reasons, she didn't anticipate going there any time soon.

by party animal - not! Sun 22 Mar 2015, 17:31

Umm, not sure. And not sure just how full of lectures her timetable would be either. Can't quite envisage the normal teachers' schedule of eight lessons a day, five days a week...............

by LizzyNY Sun 22 Mar 2015, 18:00

PAN - I'm sure she's not carrying a full teaching schedule. Just a guest lecturer - maybe a seminar or two a week and definitely NO paperwork. I guess she'd have enough time in between to do other work.

by Sponsored content