Fred Thompson: For The Defense Of Libyan Terrorists?

10:43 pm EST September 9th, 2007 | News | 3 Comments

The thing that seems to be coming to light about Fred Thompson’s legal and lobbyist career is that he would work for anyone willing to pay. Anyone.

A little over three years after Pan Am Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland, Fred D. Thompson provided advice to a colleague about one of his law firm’s new clients: The man representing the two Libyan intelligence officials charged in the terrorist bombing.

The colleague, John Culver, a partner at the Washington firm of Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn began advising the two suspects’ Libyan lawyer in February 1992. Mr. Thompson, according to a memorandum from that era written by his secretary, held “discussions with Culver re: Libya ” that same month.

At the time, Libya was facing international outrage for refusing to comply with a United Nations demand that the two suspects be extradited to the West for trial in the 1988 bombing, which killed 270 people. Revelations that American firms were representing Libyan interests provoked a furor among the Pan Am victims’ families. Some law firms refused to represent the country or the suspects, while others withdrew.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

3 Responses to “Fred Thompson: For The Defense Of Libyan Terrorists?”

  1. Enlightened Liberal says:
    September 10, 2007 at 8:13 am

    Hey, he had to pay for Mrs. Thompson’s new tits somehow!

  2. Enlightened Liberal says:
    September 10, 2007 at 8:14 am

    Hey, he had to pay for Mrs. Thompson’s new tits somehow!

  3. Some guy says:
    September 10, 2007 at 3:07 pm

    And some people seemed to have tampered with evidence to ensure a conviction…

    “Nearly two decades after Pan Am flight 103 exploded over Scotland on 21 December, 1988, allegations of international political intrigue and shoddy investigative work are being levelled at the British government, the FBI and the Scottish police as one of the crucial witnesses, Swiss engineer Ulrich Lumpert, has apparently confessed that he lied about the origins of a crucial ‘timer’ – evidence that helped tie the man convicted of the bombing to the crime.”
    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2160655,00.html

    Regardless of whether or not the men were truly guilty, they had the right to competent legal counsel.