To the Editor:

Based on what I read in the January 14 issue of the Law Tribune, a Connecticut lawyer for convicted terrorist Jose Padilla is suing another attorney for writing a legal interpretation with which he disagrees.

My question is: What if he wins? Wouldn’t this mean that any government attorney who expresses what turns out to be an unpopular legal opinion can be forced into court to defend his reasoning? Ironically, having exhausted every constitutional argument he can find on behalf of his terrorist client, Padilla’s attorney seems unwilling to recognize even basic First Amendment protections for his political enemies.

I assume this pathetic attempt at intellectual intimidation will be seen for what it is – a direct assault on core American values.

Dial Parrott