Saturday, October 27, 2018

Tagged under: ,

He Defended Accused Terrorists For 35 Years. Now He’s Back

Corey Kilgannon profiles Stanley Cohen for The New York Times.





Credit Eve Edelheit for The New York Times

After imprisonment on tax charges, Stanley Cohen, a freewheeling radical lawyer, has Hamas on the phone and is on the job again.

Jeffersonville N.Y. — On the day his law license was reinstated this past summer, Stanley L. Cohen got a call from an old friend and client, Mousa Abu Marzook, a senior political leader of Hamas, the militant Islamic group that controls Gaza.

“He said, ‘You’re up to trouble again already?’” recalled Mr. Cohen, 67.

In certain circles in the Middle East, he said, “Word had gotten around very quickly that I was back.”

That Mr. Cohen is back — after a prison sentence on federal tax charges that resulted in the suspension of his law license — is certain to infuriate many people.

He has spent much of his 35-year law career raising legal hell, defending controversial clients with an audacity that has antagonized his enemies, including United States intelligence figures and many Jewish groups.

He calls his clients “the despaired, the despised and the disenfranchised.” Others call them terrorists and irredeemable criminals.

They include members of Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, all of which the United States considers terrorist groups, as well as Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, a son-in-law of Osama bin Laden who was convicted in 2014 of conspiring to kill Americans.

He helped represent Kathy Boudin, the member of the Weather Underground involved in a 1981 Brink’s robbery outside New York City that left two police officers and a security guard dead. Another client, Larry Davis, shot six police officers in a shootout in 1986 in the Bronx.

The lawyer Alan M. Dershowitz — no stranger to controversy himself, having represented O.J. Simpson and Claus von Bülow, among others — said of Mr. Cohen: “I think he’s a horrible human being with horrible values, but I’ve defended worse.”



Stanley Cohen represented Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, a son-in-law of Osama bin Laden.
Credit Bryan R. Smith for The New York Times

Mr. Cohen has also handled cases involving a variety of causes, including Native American rights, East Village squatters and Occupy Wall Street protesters.

The criticism and the labels — terrorist supporter, traitor to his country, Jewish anti-Semite — all “come with the turf,” said Mr. Cohen, who relishes the spotlight his provocative style attracts.

In 2015, he suddenly dropped out of public view when he entered a federal prison in Pennsylvania after pleading guilty to having failed to file proper tax returns or maintain necessary financial records for his law practice.

True to form, Mr. Cohen denounced the case as politically motivated and retribution for his history of defending radicals and terrorists.

He served nearly 11 months of an 18-month sentence, in conditions he likened to a “Boy Scouts barracks.” Inside, he started a blog called “Caged But Undaunted” and ran the law library. He taught inmates civil and human rights law and held classes on Middle Eastern issues, he said.

His first call from prison after his release, he said, was also from Mr. Abu Marzook, who told him, “O.K. Vacation’s over.”

Before he entered prison, financial pressures led Mr. Cohen to give up a funky loft on the Lower East Side where he had kept a bohemian home office. Now, with his law license reinstated after its suspension because of his conviction, he is looking for a new base in New York City.


Mr. Cohen used to work from his loft on the Lower East Side but is now 
based in the Catskills. Credit Robert Caplin for The New York Times

For years, the legal fees from defendants in murder, drug, robbery and other criminal cases helped sustain his pro bono work for terrorist and political activist cases, he said. But that will have to change.

“I have to make a living now,” he said. “The days of 500 street arrests or 1,000 pro bono cases from Tompkins Square, I can’t do that anymore.”

Mr. Cohen, with his distinctive beard and ponytail, was dressed in a rugged tan outfit and leather boots. His three-legged chocolate lab, Emma, rested at his feet in the chalet-style home in the Catskills that now serves as his office, a two-hour drive northwest of New York City.

“This is all I have, after 35 years of practicing law, a house in the mountains,” he said.

Mr. Cohen said he was raised in an Orthodox Jewish household but in his teens became interested in social justice issues and turned from religion toward the political activism that has fueled his law career.

He attended law school at Pace University in Westchester County and then worked in the 1980s as a Legal Aid lawyer in the Bronx. As a lawyer in private practice in the 1990s, he took on Albanian and Bosnian clients and started to become known among Muslim civil rights groups. This led to his defense of Mr. Abu Marzook against efforts to extradite him to Israel in 1995 on suspicion of terror. Mr. Abu Marzook was able to avoid the charges and was flown instead to Jordan.

Mr. Cohen represented Moataz Al-Hallak, center, the imam of the Islamic Society of Arlington, 
after he was linked in 1999 by federal prosecutors to Mr. bin Laden. Credit Steve Hart/The New York Times

For now, Mr. Cohen works on an aging laptop surrounded by paintings by his longtime companion, Joni Sarah White, an artist and a member of the Mohawk Nation.

The walls are also covered with newspaper articles and photos chronicling his career, showing him with other radical lawyers like William Kunstler and Lynne F. Stewart, or with Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader regarded by many Palestinians as a hero and by many Israelis as a terrorist.

In one photo, he is smiling broadly and sitting between two Hamas leaders who were later assassinated in rocket attacks by the Israeli military. The same image is the profile photo on his Twitter feed.

Mr. Cohen has long been a fierce supporter of Hamas, touting his friendships with its leaders and supporting their right to armed resistance against Israel.

“Occupied people, under international law, have a right to armed struggle, period,” he said.

But his views on Hamas, among other things, have led to fierce criticism from Jewish groups, and he said one militant group labeled him “the world’s No. 1 self-hating Jew.”

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, an Israeli lawyer who represents victims of terrorist violence, criticized Mr. Cohen for taking a tradition of representing marginalized clients “to a very extreme and dangerous place,” and compared his representation of some terror groups to representing Nazi war criminals.

“Islamic terrorists are not the underdog or downtrodden deserving a zealous defense,” she said. “They are aggressive perpetrators who maliciously try to murder innocent Jews.”


Mr. Cohen has this broken picture frame holding a photo of a Hamas camp in his 
home office in Jeffersonville, N.Y.CreditEve Edelheit for The New York Times


Mr. Cohen countered that he has “always opposed attacks on civilians by anyone for any reason.”

“But to draw any comparisons of that suffered by Palestinians with the rare injury to Israelis, is simply disingenuous or dishonest,” he said.



Scarves Mr. Cohen has collected hang in his home in Sullivan County. 
Credit Eve Edelheit for The New York Times


Mr. Cohen has incensed critics by saying that, to take a case, he must feel a kinship with his clients or their cause. Mr. Cohen made headlines after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, by saying publicly that he would not rule out representing Osama bin Laden.

Mr. Dershowitz said he has represented clients he does not necessarily like or agree with, but whom he believes deserve a rigorous defense. Mr. Cohen, he said, goes a step too far.

Credit Eve Edelheit for The New York Times

“I pick my clients by their need for representation,” he said. “If you represent people because you like them, then you can be judged by the clients you keep.”

As for his tax conviction, which included failing to file tax returns for six years, Mr. Cohen said he pleaded guilty only after growing tired of fighting the charges, accumulating legal fees and having relatives, friends and clients “harassed” by the authorities.


“I’m a target till the day I die, because of what I say, who I represent and what I write,” Mr. Cohen said.

Mr. Cohen spoke outside the federal courthouse in Newark in 2011 after two of his clients, 
Mohamed Mahmood Alessa and Carlos Eduardo Almonte, pleaded guilty 
to conspiring to acts of terrorism. Credit Juan Arredondo for The New York Times


But prosecutors have dismissed his claim of selective prosecution. In pleading guilty, Mr. Cohen did not “downplay his guilt, or his conduct,” said Grant C. Jaquith, the United States attorney for the Northern District of New York, the office that won a conviction against Mr. Cohen.

“In this case, as in all cases, our decision to bring charges was based on careful consideration of long-established principles of federal prosecution and our commitment to equal justice under the law,” Mr. Jaquith said.

In any case, Mr. Cohen said he recently hired a scrupulous accountant and still plans on handling pro bono political work in the Middle East, albeit on a more limited basis.

“I just spent 80 hours researching a Palestinian case,” he said. “I still take them — that ain’t going to change.”



Corey Kilgannon is a Metro reporter covering news and human interest stories. His writes the Character Study column in the Sunday Metropolitan section. He was also part of the team that won the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News. @coreykilgannonFacebook 

A version of this article appears in print on Oct. 22, 2018, on Page A18 of the New York edition with the headline: After Jail, a Lawyer for Extremist Clients Rehangs His Shingle. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe



20 comments :

marty said...

Mr Cohen may have defended some lowlifes but I wonder will he ever have to go as low as defending Clinton, Bush etc, the misery these bastards caused makes all his other clients look like petty criminals,

wolfe tone said...

Seeing as he's fond of Hamas and the bin laden clan then it could be argued he's merely a front for the CIA.

Barry Gilheany said...

Without defending every action of the Clinton and Bush administrations, there can be no parallel in criminal law between actions taken after due deliberation in a democracy and those of a genocidal organisation such as Hamas dedicated to the eradication of the State of Israel and its Jewish population by an Islamist theocracy (check its Founding Charter of 1988).

Arguing that because Stanley Cohen is so "fond of Hamas and the Bin Laden clan" could be a front for the CIA is conspiracist rot.

On the substantive focus of the article, Stanley Cohen is entitled to pick and choose his clients regardless of his ideological standpoints. What matters is his adherence to ethical standards in the courtroom. I would draw a parallel with the representation of the Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie by the late Pol Pot sympathiser Maitre Jacque Verges whose prime motivation for defending Barbie was Verges' memories and hatred of Western colonialism. It was the conduct of his defence that mastered not the holding of his views many of which I found obnoxious.

What I will say is that I found much of Stanley Cohen's arguments on TPQ, particularly his comparisons with the actions of Israel with Nazi Germany and his invocation of images of Nazi concentration and death camps grossly antisemitic. But that is an argument for an another day which I guess will be soon.

AM said...

Barry - why is comparing like with like anti-Semitic? War criminals are all pigs from the same sow. The war crimes of Hamas pale into insignificance compared to the war crimes of Israel. Are you telling us that because a democratic government decides to murder it is better than a non democratic government deciding to murder? Were the war crimes of British Bomber Command against German civilians during WW2 somehow morally superior to the war crimes of the Nazis at Babi Yar?

Barry Gilheany said...

AM

The point I am making about antisemitism is that making comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany is a from of modern antisemitism and is explicitly cited as such in the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's definition of it. It is not comparing like with like because of the unique crime of the Holocaust.

No, I never said that murder perpetrated by democracies is "morally superior" to murder committed by dictatorships. You cite Bomber Harris. Yes I agree that the mass aerial bombardment of German cities in World War II were war crimes. Others would say that we are applying the moral judgements of today to the circumstances. The Luftwaffe did exactly the same as Bomber Harris against the civilians of Guernica, London, Coventry, Belgrade and many other places. The massacre of Jews at Babi Yar took place behind enemy lines and being part of the process that culminated in the Final Solution. Nazi Germany went to war to impose its monstrous race hierarchy on the rest of Europe; in that respect the Allies had an exponential moral superiority.

Hamas, like or to a considerably lesser degree than than Nazis, is fundamentally a racist and totalitarian organisation which is reflected by the hundreds of civilians it killed in suicide mass-murder attacks in Israel during the Second Intifada and its willingness to endanger the people it rules over by its firing of 50,000 rockets at Israel since it took power in the Gaza Strip.

No doubt Israel has committed, by accident or design, war crimes when defending its territory from Hamas incursions but do these alleged war crimes really compare in intention and scale to the mass bombardment of non-combatants, hospital, schools, feeding centres and aid convoys by the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen and the Assad-Putin alliance in Syria not excluding the sarin gas and chlorine attacks.

No hands are ever clean in war even when that war is just. I would not defend the sickening anti-clerical excesses of Anarchists and the massacre of prisoners by the Communists during the Spanish Civil War but would recognise the absolute difference in moral and democratic legitimacy between the Republican side and the genocidaires of Francoism.

Because the ANC perpetrated crimes in its base camps in Angola does not undermine the legitimacy of the anti-apartheid struggle or establish some sort of moral equivalence between the ANC liberators and the apartheid regime in South Africa.

A world free of war and armed conflict is something we should all aspire and work towards. Since this is a long sway off, the best humanity can do is to uphold the laws of war and seek the compliance of belligerents with them e.g. the Geneva Convention, the Genocide Convention and the International Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

AM said...

Barry,

It is not a form of anti-Semitism at all. It is confronting the Israeli state with the hypocrisy of its actions. A state that was supposedly borne of the need to protect people from mass murder in now engaging in it.

Not are we bound by the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s of what is or is not anti-Semitism. The Holocaust was not unique. There was a far worse Holocaust in terms of dead in a more limited time frame – Rwanda. Almost a million in 100 day. The Jews have nothing to compare with that, horrible as their fate was. Israel wants to control the Holocaust narrative and prosper from the Holocaust industry.

If you didn’t say that murder perpetrated by democracies is "morally superior" to murder committed by dictatorships, you came as close as to make no difference. As for the some who would say that “we are applying the moral judgements of today to the circumstances” – strange that they don’t apply that to the Holocaust.

The Luftwaffe was no better than Bomber Command – its war crimes extend far beyond the places you mention. Let us not forget its role in Operation Barbarossa when the Russians lost maybe 5-6 times what the Jewish lost. The Nazis crimes against Russia far surpassed what they did to the Jews. Not that it ultimately matters. The Holocaust was an abominable crime for which there is not the slightest mitigation. Just don’t pretend it was unique.

The Allies had a moral superiority in terms of why they want to war. There is no moral difference between their war crimes and those of the Nazis.

I don’t support Hamas, not in the slightest. But the figures alone tell us it does not pose a greater threat to human life than Israel. It lacks the capacity. As Finklestein says of its rocket capacity – akin to firecrackers for the most part.

War crimes are not committed by accident. They are perpetrated by design. Israel has been responsible for numerous war crimes. Don’t know why you are telling me about the Saudis in Yemen. A disgraceful shower of bastards whose embassy I have stood outside protesting as well as the Israeli one.

There is always a moral equivalence between war criminals. There is not always a moral equivalence between the regimes they serve but we are not discussing that.

“A world free of war and armed conflict is something we should all aspire and work towards” but we will not do that if we continue to shout anti-Semitism at those who feel so horrified by Israeli war crimes, that they cannot help but see a resemblance to the Nazis.

Barry Gilheany said...

AM

I would never state that criticisms of the Israeli state and its actions is antisemitic.

What is antisemitic is opposition to the existence of the State of Israel and a weapon in its delegitimation that is used by its opponents is invocation of Nazi crimes against the Jews as a weapon against Israel e.g. comparison of Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto and use of the epithet "Zio-Nazi". This has become a staple of many in pro-Palestinian advocacy organisations like the Palestine Solidarity Campaign such as "Zionist" control of the media, Israel being behind 9/11, ISIS and the influence of the Rothschilds. This forms the core of contemporary left antisemitism which is increasingly manifesting itself in the Labour Party of Jeremy Corbyn. Although of the far left, such groups see no problem in linking to Holocaust denial and in receiving the approval of David Duke, Nick Griffin and David Irving.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree but there is no comparison between the crimes of the Nazis and actions of Israel; neither in scope, intention and planning. That is why I disagree with Mr Cohen. The Rwandan genocide is a much more appropriate comparison as the Hutu extremist perpetrators were influenced by the same European fascist ideology as the architects of Treblinka and Belsen. The Holocaust is unique though as the Nazis sought to eradicate every trace of the existence of European Jewry before and after death through the burning of corpses and the destruction of their heritage. It was not a war crime sui generis but the most egregrious crime against humanity in human history.

I will write an article for TPQ on genocide and its punishment if you would like me to.

Hams may lack the capacity (for now thank goodness) but not the intention to wipe out Israel just as ISIS/Al Queda may lack the capacity but not the intention to impose its Caliphate on the unbelieving and infidel world. So please Chomsky spare us the "weapons of the weak" shtick and Finkelstein "relocate the population of Israel to the US" spare us the "firecracker" comparison.

Btw Anthony I never suggested nor would I ever suggest that you support Hamas. I mentioned Saudi Arabia in Yemen alongside Syria (and would add the massacre of 40,000 Tamils at the end of the Sri Lankan civil war in 2010 to that list) not to score points against you (I concur with your disdain for the Saudi regime totally) but to point out the double standards that some people of an anti-Israeli and anti-American persuasion have in relation to crimes committed by regimes within their ideological orbit. Supporters and apologists for both sixes in the Cold War were guilty of the same nauseating hypocrisy in relation to their "sons of bitches". I hope we have moved on from then.

AM said...


Barry, it is not anti-Semitic to oppose the existence of the Israeli state – that is a propaganda device designed to delegitimise criticism of a terrible injustice. Hundreds of millions of people believe the setting up of the state of Israel was a gross violation of justice. Are they anti-Semitic for believing that? Denying the Holocaust is anti-Semitic but not opposing the creation of the Israeli state.

If people find the crimes of Israel comparable to the crimes of the Nazis – the slaughter of school children, the destruction of the Gaza infrastructure through endless bombing, are they to refrain from saying it just because some propagandist or smear merchant is going to label them anti-Zionist?

What of those people whose sympathy for the Jews is rooted in what happened during the Holocaust yet find it inexplicable that a people created from such horrible violence and oppression will resort to it themselves, and believe that many Jews having looked into the abyss now have the abyss looking into them? Take a look at Gaza bombed from the air – how would an in image of the Warsaw Ghetto not jump our at people familiar with the history of the WW2? Take a look at the photos in the Stroop report compiled by Jurgen Stroop after he led the SS assault on the Warsaw Ghetto and tell us they fail to conjure up images of Gaza after Israeli bombardment.

The regressive left and its nonsense can be ignored for the sake of this discussion – we know what they do and the manner in how it reinforces the legions of Jew Haters who like to scream about the Jewish conspiracy to take over the world/own everything/4000 didn’t turn up for work on 9/11 because they had advance knowledge of the attack/deserved what they got in Pittsburgh. We are able to assess when something is anti-Jewish and something is anti-Israeli oppression and don’t try to conflate the two and readily see through attempts to do so. Every time a criticism of Israeli violence is reduced to the anti-Semite slur, it feeds into a culture of racism – that the victims of Israeli terror are somehow children of a lesser god and thus less human and correspondingly do not deserve protection from violence in the way that Israeli citizens do. The purpose of the slur is never to protect the abused but the abuser.

I don’t agree that the greatest Nazi war crime was inflicted on the Jews. I believe it was on the Russians and believe we have the evidence to prove it. Not that it lessens the egregiousness of what the Nazis did to the Jews. Abominable, unspeakable, unpardonable. It is impossible to go into Auschwitz and come out relaxed or to think there was perhaps the slightest justification or mitigation.

Hamas will compromise and come to terms with the existence of the Israeli state. Some still point to the 1988 text referencing obliteration but choose to ignore more recent positions: We have a 2017 Charter and a Hamas parliamentarian claiming:

We have already stated repeatedly that we accept the existence of Israel within the 1967 borders as a political reality even if we do not approve its moral legitimacy.

Hamas has arguably no intent to destroy Israel and demonstrably no capacity. Israel on the other hand has every intent of expanding into Palestinian lands to create more living space. Now explain to us how that is essentially any different from the German policy of Lebensraum (which the Nazis inherited but did not create) and why it is anti-Semitic to think it is pretty much the same?

I think you ultimately end up in the same position as those you criticise in relation to crimes within their own ideological orbit. You are reluctant to call out crimes committed by Israel which dwarf those perpetrated by Hamas yet eager to call out Hamas and everybody else not in your own ideological orbit.

Yes, an article would be great on it or associated matters.

Barry Gilheany said...

Anthony

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the existence of the State of Israel which came into being as a result of a vote by the UN General Assembly. To my knowledge this body does not usually assent to bringing racist states into existence. Let us hope that the same body will someday assent to an independent Palestinian state. I support a two state solution based on 1967 border on the basis that both Jews and Arabs (like Kurds, Assyrians, Druze, Yazidis) are indigenous peoples to the Middle East.

Of course I condemn, as the rest of the world does, the building of Jewish settlements on the West Bank as colonialist and as a mini-Lebensraum without the camps. I do not condone the damage that Israel has wrought in Gaza in response to Hamas attacks and where war crimes have occurred the perpetrators should be held accountable. But I am sorry I cannot agree with comparisons with the Warsaw Ghetto; to do so would be to talk of Israeli actions in Gaza as a prelude to a Final Solution of the Palestinian problem.

I am afraid that hostility to Zionism and the existence of the State of Israel does often segue into outright antisemitism as the current scandals in the Labour Party show often generated from the idiot Left you refer to. I saw with my own eyes at the Labour Party Conference what this has led to with Luciana Berger MP of the Jewish Labour Movement requiring police protection.

Opposing the existence of the State of Israel begs the question of where European Jews were to flee during World War II. For the reality is that for the critical mass of Jewry, the Shoah/Holocaust confirmed the legitimacy of the Zionist case.

AM said...

Barry - I wonder had the UN been able to foresee the aberration it was approving, might it have gone ahead. It simply sanctioned a state fashioned from the theft of Arab lands. If it was not a racist state in 1948 it looks very like one today. A recent UN report found that Israel was an apartheid state. Even if that report is incorrect in its conclusions, the authors can hardly be labelled anti-Semitic although the PR machine will try to depict it as such.

I don't see the claim being made that the comparison of the Warsaw Ghetto is meant to denote some final solution being planned. I doubt gassing the Palestinians would cause people like Ayelet Shaked, Avigdor Lieberman or Mark Regev any qualms of conscience but I don't believe that is the intention of the Israeli government. But I do feel the destruction of Palestine is a key strategic objective.

Hostility to Zionism does on many occasions segue in anti-Semitism. But the two are not synonymous.

The Jews needed protection long before the Nazis came along. The Russians and Poles were never particularly kind to them. And Herzl was quite willing to settle the Jews in East Africa with his Ugandan Plan. Palestine was more useful than it was sacrosanct.

No matter what happened to the Jews it hardly justifies taking the land of some other people, perpetrating massacres against them to force them out and then rule over them as the Nazis might a protectorate. I wonder why Israel was not set up in Germany in 1948 - that would have at least rubbed it in the face of the Nazis, there were grounds for probable cause, and the new state could have benefited immensely from the Marshall Plan.

There would have been poetic justice in that. And the Germans could hardly have complained too much. But to go and beat up the Palestinians. No. It was wrong.



Barry Gilheany said...

Anthony

You are entitled to your reading of the history of Palestine and the Arab/Israeli conflict and to express it just as I am entitled to mine and to articulate it I see no further point is pursuing this debate any further as the issue only generates rancour and breakdowns of friendships as I have found out too often.

All I have to say is that legitimate criticism of Israel and critique of Zionism should never be pathways towards use of antisemitic tropes not should legitimate criticism of Palestinian leaderships, Arab regimes and critique of the religion of Islam descend into Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism.

Btw I am intrigued as to how you were able to watch Liverpool live on Saturday. I guess it it was a live streaming service. Which one it that was the casxe.

AM said...

Barry - Sky Sports channel

wolfe tone said...

Only a child or a complete lunatic would defend Bush,Clinton and the CIA as some sort of upstanding but misguided individuals and institution.

Barry Gilheany said...

AM

Which channel? Presumably not one available in the UK during the "black out hours" between 2.45 and 5.15pm.

AM said...

Barry - I will find out from my wife later. She handles all of that. I am not in the remotest teccie. But it is the channel where you get the first six months for 20 a month and then it goes up to 40 a month after that. It is not every Liverpool game I get to see because sometimes they have another match featuring.

AM said...

Barry - some interesting points above not that I agree with them. But I always admire the spirit that can stand up and stand over their own thoughts whatever they are and not use the shield of a moniker.

Barry Gilheany said...

Anthony

Thanks for those kind words. I admire your courage and tenacity in fighting for freedom of speech and the defence of journalist ethics even if I do not agree with some the scribes defended. It is the right to practice their craft not the words they write that matter.

What I like about TPQ is the safe space (if those words do not grate; I feel another discussion coming on!) that it affords to express opinions that were beyond the pale in other public forums; the abortion debate North and South being a prime example.

AM said...

Barry - how possibly could we agree with some of the people defended here?!! We defend them because they inhabit a crucial societal space while acknowledging they can pollute the same space. I could not possibly agree with Jamie Bryson but he is as entitled to his view as the next person and equal treatment within the NUJ. I have no doubt he would defend me as well in a similar situation. John Coulter, another person I am irredeemably out of sync with will never be found wanting when it comes to defending those he opposes in the sphere of freedom of opinion.

Carrie says it is just Sky Sports.

Barry Gilheany said...

AM

Did you get my piece btw?

Any issues with it just email me.

Your decision to publish it.

Was hoping that City would drop points at that excuse of a pitch last night>

AM said...

Barry - not yet. We had a problem before getting one of your pieces on abortion through. Let me know via a comment not for publication what email address you are using.