King & Spalding, and Coke: Defending al Qaeda terrorists for free is ok, but defending the US House of Representatives is forbidden
This ought to make even the most cynical lawyer do a double-take. Two partners at King & Spalding, the law firm that dropped defense of DOMA on behalf of the US House of Representatives, have spent the past several years defending al Qaeda terrorists at Gitmo -- for free. And apparently with the law firm's blessing.
It also seems that Coca-Cola, a major K&S client, was behind the pressure that persuaded K&S to drop DOMA. Well, actually, drop the House, since it was the client.
K&S cites a lack of proper "vetting" as the reason they dropped the House. What does that mean? Did they properly vet the terrorists the firm's partners are defending, for free? Has Coke ever weighed in on K&S's free defense of terrorists, or any of K&S's other clients? I'd really like for them to show their work if they deign to answer.
Not to be Captain Obvious, but when terrorists get preferential treatment over the American people's representatives by one of the nation's more important law firms, we have a serious problem on our hands. Does Coke think al Qaeda is a burgeoning market? What on earth are they thinking?
I have always been a Coke man. But it may be time for an RC.