Is Ramsey Clark a supporter of Sadam Hussein (as he has seemed to have joined
Saddam Hussein’s defence team?)
Lawyer = Supporter? 
Maybe the OP meant “advocate”… in the legal sense, of course.
To which I would say, of course.
According to Aljazeera, the very Iraqis who suffered imprisonment and torture under Saddam, are now saying the country was better off under him.
Even a US Senatorsays that the Iraqi women were better off under saddam.
Given the fact that the White House is keeping the Truth hidden in secrecy, brainwashing the American public through collusion with the mainstream media, maybe it is a good thing that Ramsey Clark would get in the act and expose all the lies and deceptions that still has 37% of Americans supporting this treasonous administration lying to the public as to why we invaded Iraq at the first place. Go Ramsey, Go … and let the truth prevail.
Tell you what - you go poll the Iraqi people, and ask them how many would like Saddam back.
As for Ramsey Clarke, he’s an obnoxious Stalinist, so it’s not surprising that he’s got a fondness for dictators. He and George Galloway are two birds of a feather.
You can defend someone like Saddam without being a supporter of his, if you just really believe in the concept of a fair justice system and a fair trial.
However Ramsey Clark actually does probably support Saddam Hussein the dictator. Ramsey Clark takes anti-americanism to the next level by being someone who has actively supperted real enemies of America for the last thirty years.
Ramsey Clark is a believer that every person has the right to a fair trial. You look at his past and you will see that. In addition, he like his father before him, served America in a number of different capacities.
Is he a “supporter” of Suddam? No, I don’t believe he is, as a matter of fact, I would be willing to bet that he would have defended any number of people in Saddam’s “trials” while Saddam was in power against those very abuses that he now hopes to defend. He is one of those guys who feels everybody deserves a fair shake.
In some people’s minds that probably makes him anti-American, a “Stalinist” and the like.
Did you state that as yet another mere article of faith, or do you really not suspect it’s been done? Google is your friend.Cite:
Shouldn’t be a surprise.
Similar-vintage story, from last April:
The Sunnis think they’re worse off too, in this one.
Plenty more where those came from.
No; that in combination with his working for the Branch Davidians, the Iranian “Crimes Of America” conference, the PLO, and Yugoslavian War Criminals kind of makes him anti-American. The fact that many of the “peace organizations” he worked for were created by the World Workers’ Party, and many of them were anti-American yet pro-Castro and pro-North Korea, is what makes him a Stalinist.
Ramsey Clark has been a constant voice calling the United States evil and Communist dictators wonderful for the last thirty years.
John Murtha is an American hero and an anti-war activist; Ramsey Clark is a Stalinist tool.
:dubious: Cite? Argument? Anything more informative/meaningful than a couple of snarl-words?
From the Wikipedia – :
Nope, nothing “Stalinist” there – in fact, it is a record highly to Clark’s credit in each and every particular. Continuing to his post-AG work:
Now, Clark has chosen to represent some rather unsavory figures, but so did F. Lee Bailey and nobody ever called him a traitor. It’s called practicing criminal law, look it up. Nothing there makes Clark a “Stalinist” – not even the possible indirect association with the Workers World Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers’_World_Party), which is Trotskyist (a distinction you might not recognize as important, but trust me, that’s like calling a Baptist a Catholic).
Galloway is no Stalinist either, by the way. :rolleyes:
“Tool,” now! And what particular Stalinist state wields this tool, pray tell?
What truth do you expect to prevail-- that Saddam is innocent? Remember, this is Saddam’s trial, not Bush’s.
Bush’s trial comes later.
Ramsey Clark! Ah, it gladdens the heart to hear his name again, if only for the furious rage he elicits amongst the tighty righty! They froth, they gibber, they roll about on the floor, all over this one, rather insignificant little man. His very name fills venom sacs to brimming amongst the right, the left… pained bemusement, not much else.
He is almost the impossible being, the fanatic liberal. He believes, and I agree, that anyone, no matter how monstrous, deserves a day in court with as full and competent a defense as can be mustered. Why? Because this is the only way we can be sure that we are trying a monster, and not trying someone we have been told is a monster. It is a worthy distinction.
I have no doubt Saddam is guilty, I have next to no doubt that Mr. Clark agrees. His point is well taken: if we are so sure, we have nothing whatever to fear from a completely free and open trial, with all legal niceties observed.
Only if later = never. Otherwise, how much would you like to bet?
“Gracious! Who are those poor shivering waifs, stumbling through the snow with their feet wrapped in rags, thier lunch pails filled with week old boloney and stale Ho-Ho’s?”
“Ah, the Mace children! A sad story, perhaps you heard? Their father offered a million to one odds, and, well, you know the rest…”
Who said anything about odds? The way idiocy is bandied about around here, the MaceMunchkins would be wearing nothing but handmade Italian footwear if people would just put their money where their mouths are.
BTW, I agree that Saddam needs a defense team, and we need to have a trial I don’t think that is so much in question. One wonders about an American, though, who would rush across the globe to defend a tyrant. Are there no Iraqi lawyers of his caliber?
He’s not defending a man, so much as a principle. A principle we both hold dear, if I understand you correctly. As to Iraqis of his caliber…he can come home, and they have to live there. Besides, what advantage does an Iraqi have? Iraqi law, at this point, is pretty much whatever we say it is. Is Musharaff any more the legitimate ruler of Pakistan than Saddam was of Iraq? He is on trial because he lost, he is tried by us because we won.
(I trust the MaceMunchkins are well cared for, never doubted it. After all, if one cannot trust the cool analytical judgement of a libertarian, well, what standards can we have faith in, at all?)
Why would you wonder? He’s simply defending one of the principles that the founding fathers fought for: that everyone deserves a defence, no matter how despicable. That’s why they wrote it into the Constitution: they, better than anyone, understood the passions that can be aroused during times of great civil unrest and war.
In the context of the Sixth Amendment, this situation is very much the equivalent to the famous quotation attributed to Voltaire and used in First Amendment discussions: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Under the Sixth Amendment, a lawyer may disagree with the client’s actions, but will do everything possible to ensure a fair and vigourous defence, not a Soviet-style show trial.
By offering his services, Clark is supporting the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and also demonstrating the commitment of the United States itself to the rule of law for all. For those who are tossing the “Stalinist” label around, I would submit that Clark is acting exactly contrary to how Stalin ran his show trials, where the defence counsel were bumbling stooges for the government. He’s doing his part to ensure that the government will have to prove its case in open court, fairly and according to law.
No, there aren’t, for two reasons.
First, as the President keeps reminding us, Iraq has been a dictatorship for decades. No matter how good the individual members of the Iraqi bar may be, they simply cannot have the tradition of an independent, vigourous bar, used to opposing authority on a regular basis in court. Lawyers who did that during the Saddam period tended not to practise for long, I would assume. If you accept that the US needs to be there to help them build a civil society, based on democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, then having lawyers come in to help the Iraqi bar learn their new function, of defending the individual against the state, is just as important as training the Iraqi police and army and subordinating them to the new civil authority. As the US founding fathers knew, an independent bar is a cornerstone of a flourishing civil society.
And second, this isn’t the trial of some petty crook. It’s the trial of a former head of state, put on trial by the victors in an international conflict. It’s being watched like no other trial at the moment, and carries great political significance.
Ramsey Clark is a former Attorney General of the United States. On the international stage, there aren’t many lawyers who carry that kind of reputation - a reputation that Mr. Clark is putting into play to ensure a fair trial for an accused, put on trial by the victors.
If the US and new Iraqi government are confident in their case, and they want to avoid accusations of “victors’ justice”, then they should want Saddam to have the most star-studded defence team possible.