I’m breaking out the big brush for this one because I see no other way to frame it.
I firmly believe that Ramsey Clark is a hero for actually having principles and standing by them by giving Saddam Hussein an actual defense. I just watched another Fox News report in the guise of a newscast calling him a traitor and saying he deserves to stand on trial alongside Hussein.
Anyone who calls him a traitor or says that what he is doing is wrong “as a former attourney general” is a fool.
I won’t say he’s a hero, but Sadaam does need representation and Clark seems to specialize in representing people that are considered evil by most. I think he just like having the spotlight on him and putting his political views out to a wider audience than he would have been able to do as well without the spotlight.
I don’t know why he supported Milosevic, but it might be that he wants to point out that the U.S. supported Hussein when he was doing some of his worst things. That is, he would like that to come out in the trial.
If you’re a cannibal mass murderer like Jeffery Dahmer you deserve a defense attorney. But said defense attorney would be scum if he praised cannibalism and mass murder, wouldn’t he? A defense attorney doesn’t have to praise murder to defend a murderer.
You people defending Ramsey Clark generally know nothing about him. He’s not scum because he’s defending Saddam Hussein, he’s scum and he’s defending Saddam Hussein.
Jesus fucking Christ Gabe, maybe if you turned off the fucking Fox channel and got off your fat ass and did a little bit of research, you’d have a chance of looking like you have a clue.
There are already two threads on this subject in GD:
A.) Defending the most evil scum in the universe because everyone deserves a day in court is a noble thing to do.
B.) Ramsey Clark is defending Saddam not out of noble motive, but because he likes to stick it to the U.S.
As supporting evidence for B, we have cites that show:
*that Clark visited Iran during the Hostage Crisis in order to help the Revolutionaries draw up a list of War Crimes to charge the United States (and by extension, the hostages) with;
that Clark spreads lies about the Grenada war, claiming that twice as many innocents were killed in the invasion than actually lived there when the war started;
that Clark has written up lists of War Crime indictments against Bush Sr., Clinton, and W.;
that Clark’s organization - ANSWER - is mostly led by members of the Stalinist “World Worker’s Party”, which was founded by American Communists who supported the Soviet Union’s crushing of Hungary in 1956, and which supported the Chinese government in crushing the Tianamen demonstrations, and which supports the efforts of Kim Jong Il to get nuclear weapons
that Clark visited Kosovo in 1999 even as NATO was bombing it, and praised the government and stated that they would eventually defeat NATO;
that Clark praised Saddam Hussein’s human rights record in 1999 while castigating that of the United States.
So fucking wake up. Ramsey Clark is a traitor, and was before he took up Saddam’s defense.
Just because someone hates Bush as much as you do doesn’t make them smart or right.
I’ve never claimed I agreed with Clark’s views on the Balkans. Nor is it relevant to discussions of his representation of Hussein.
I don’t know about his ‘praise’ of Saddam’s record, and I’d appreciate a cite (I’ve never heard it). But I can promise you the US has a worse record than he does.
Fuck you. He’s not a traitor.
Not in all respects. But certainly in the one I’m actually talking about.
So, you think Clinton deserves to be brought up on War Crimes trials for NATO action in Kosovo?
If so, you’re a looney.
So, if you join a Communist Organization, are a member of this Communist Organization when it makes statements supporting Communist dictators, it’s invalid to suggest that one perhaps agrees with Communism?
Bullshit. It’s completely relevant. Clark has a long history- in Rwanda, in Yugoslavia, in Iraq - of excusing the atrocities of non-Western Socialist/Communist governments as “necessary” or “irrelevant” or as not really atrocities. It shows that Clark isn’t defending Hussein out of some noble philosophy about all people deserving equal justice in the law; it shows that Clark wants to make the U.S. look bad and to allow third-world dictators to commit genocide.
Well, maybe you could get off of your fat ass, as I suggested earlier, and read those other threads I linked to? Or is that too much effort for your tiny, over-taxed brain to go to? No, no, you’d rather watch Fox TV so that you can immediately jump to conclusions about what everyone else thinks and how wrong they are. Amusingly ironic, since you probably bitch about conservatives who do exactly the same thing.
But since I’m a nice guy, and I actually take the “fighting ignorance” mission seriously rather than treating this message board as my personal shit stick to wipe with, here’s a cite:
In which Clark is quoted as stating the U.S. shows “little concern for economic, social and cultural rights”
And wait: you said “But I can promise you the US has a worse record than he does.”
So the U.S. has a worse human rights record than Saddam? Lemme see your fucking cite, hemp-head.
God-damned straight he is. He wants to tear the United States government down and replace it with Communism. He demands that NATO gets broken up. His friends and associates want nuclear technology spread to North Korea so that NK has a “fighting chance” against the United States. He walks with, talks with, and supports anyone who attacks the United States, and he tries to sucker people like you in by pretending he’s just working for peace or justice.
Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then. But starting up a thread screaming, “This pig is a hero, and anyone who calls him blind is a fool” reveals your own idiocy, not that of your opponents.
A fool is someone who maintains an association with an organization that claimed, as early at 1996, that the Tiananmen Massacre “had been proven false” and that “the June 4 events were a battle-not a massacre.” Cite. (What’s more, Clark did not only maintain his association with this extremist group, he worked with them to found ANSWER, the “anti-war, anti-racism” group, in September 2001. If he had a shred of decency, he could have cut off relations with the WWP, but he didn’t: he increased his links with them after it made such an odious claim about the massacre of peaceful pro-democracy activists.)
A fool is someone who calls the decision that sent a Rwandan priest who lured Tutsi refugees into his church, only to call in death squads to butcher them, to a prison term of ten years “a miscarriage of justice.” Cite.
A fool is someone who blames the United States and Britain for instigating Serb massacres of Muslims in the Balkans in the late 1990s. But that’s exactly what Clark argued, after consorting with depraved war criminals like Karazdic and Milosevic.
A fool is someone who responds to flies to Tehran to participate in a show trial entitled, “Crimes of America” at the same time that 66 Americans were being held hostage. Cite.
Lastly, a fool is someone who turns their blinders on a person’s active support for these political atrocities.
If Clark were in the Bush Adminsitration, you’d be raising holy shit. Tell the truth: are you outraged at Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam once in the early 1980s? if so, are you outraged that Ramsey Clark was the personal guest of Saddam Hussein numerous times from 1989 right up to 2003?
Clark is no more than an insane anti-American zealot. There is nothing to praise about anything he’s done in the last 30 years.
I’m not sure if Johnson said the same thing, but Truman said of Ramsey’s father, Tom Clark, who served as Truman’s Attorney General: “Tom Clark was my biggest mistake… It isn’t so much that he’s a bad man. It’s just that he’s such a dumb son of a bitch.”
So Truman appointed Tom Clark to the Supreme Court to get rid of him. Then, years later, Johnson appointed Ramsey Clark to be AG, knowing that Tom Clark would step down, which Johnson claimed was his real goal.
Huh…so you admire the guy. Not sure that warrants another OP.
Anyway, hero, nutcase, whatever. I’m just glad someone stepped up to the wretched job so we could actually have this trial.
Personally, I think we should’ve simply executed Saddam (which, let’s face it, is what most of us wanted, and I’m pretty sure most of Iraq would appreciate it as well). But now that we have a trial, we need everything that goes into a trial. That includes a defense.
Correct. I don’t know much about Ramsey Clark. I’m not too sure I even should care, other to find out if he’s a jerk or not. BUT, even the worst, guiltiest scum deserves a fair trial. Saddam will be found guilty, then they’ll hang him (or whatever they do). It will be legal and proper and he will be judged. That’s all that matters.
This isn’t Fox, it is that shining paragon if impartiality, the dreaded Newsmax
Ramsey Clark: An American Traitor
There was an interview over on CNN, in which the accuser (David Horowitz) doesn’t fare very well. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/28/pzn.01.html
… (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: So, David, why are you opposed to Ramsey Clark defending Saddam Hussein?
DAVID HOROWITZ, EDITOR, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM: Ramsey Clark can do whatever he wants to do.
But the man – Ramsey Clark is a self-declared enemy of America, an American traitor, and a very sick human being. When our – when John McCain was being tortured in Hanoi, Ramsey Clark would write off to Hanoi to praise his torturers and to cover for them.
When our hostages were taken by the Ayatollah Khomeini, he was off defending the hostage-takers. When the PLO terrorists pushed Leon Klinghoffer in a wheelchair into the sea, he was defending the terrorists against the family that was suing them.
Ramsey Clark has only one moral lodestar. And that is to defend enemies of the United States. This is…
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: You still haven’t answered the question, though. Other than personally vilifying Ramsey Clark, what’s wrong with any American serving on the defense team?
HOROWITZ: Well, I did. I said I don’t care if he goes there or not. There is nothing wrong with that.
The idea that we don’t know if Saddam Hussein is guilty – he invaded two countries. There’s nobody, nobody – nobody in his ranks or anywhere – that challenges the idea that he invaded, say, Iran, killed millions of people. Shoot him. …
ZAHN: Why isn’t Ramsey Clark a traitor?
KUBY: Well, first of all, Saddam Hussein isn’t charged with any crime against the American people. He’s charged with crimes against the Iraqi people.
So, the fact that – that an American chooses to take a position different from that of the Bush administration or the executive branch doesn’t make you a traitor, any more than the – the military officers, who – who today are down in Guantanamo, aggressively and zealously defending the rights of the Guantanamo detainees.
ZAHN: David.
(CROSSTALK)
KUBY: They’re not…
HOROWITZ: It’s a – it’s a life…
KUBY: They’re not traitors. They’re patriots.
But it’s a pointless discussion, as to who is a traitor and who is a patriot…
HOROWITZ: No, it isn’t.
KUBY: … because we’re always going to disagree about people’s motivations.
(CROSSTALK)
HOROWITZ: It’s a career…
ZAHN: That is a very strong accusation, that Ramsey Clark…
HOROWITZ: A career of…
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: … is a traitor.
HOROWITZ: Well, but my definition of a traitor is, your country’s at war and you want the other side to win.
And Ramsey Clark has made a career – a career – out of showing his support, going to capitals, kissing the ring of the Ayatollah Khomeini, whoever America’s enemy is. So, he’s a traitor. I mean, he like America.
ZAHN: Would you represent Saddam Hussein?
KUBY: Well, look, I don’t think any…
ZAHN: No, would you?
KUBY: Well…
ZAHN: Could you? Would you have the conscience to represent Saddam Hussein?
KUBY: I actually – I mean, my biggest concern about representing Saddam – Saddam Hussein, honestly, is the security situation.
ZAHN: So, that sounds like a no to me.
KUBY: It sounds like…
ZAHN: You wouldn’t do it.
KUBY: I would – I – I hope I would have the physical courage to do what Ramsey Clark has done.
He’s there in the gravest danger, ironically, trying to defend the most basic democratic principles. Yet, David accuses him of being a traitor.
HOROWITZ: That’s ridiculous.
ZAHN: And you got him rolling his eyes.
Quick final thought.
(CROSSTALK)
HOROWITZ: I hope nobody kills Ramsey Clark, because it would create sympathy for him. That’s the only reason.
(CROSSTALK)
KUBY: Compassionate conservatism at work.
ZAHN: There you have it.
Gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us tonight.
HOROWITZ: Thank you. (END VIDEOTAPE)
Here is what our new Supreme, John Roberts says. Although he is not speaking about Clark, he does say something worth listening to. For some reason I always think he should have a deep Dread Pirate Roberts voice
You know, it’s a tradition of the American bar that goes back before the founding of the country that lawyers are not identified with the positions of their clients. The most famous example probably was John Adams, who represented the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre. And he did that for a reason, because he wanted to show that the revolution in which he was involved was not about overturning the rule of law, it was about vindicating the rule of law. Our founders thought that they were not being given their rights, under the British system, to which they were entitled. And, by representing the British soldiers, he helped show that what they were about was defending the rule of law, not undermining it. And that principle, that you don’t identify the lawyer with the particular views of the client, or the views that the lawyer advances on behalf of a client, is critical to the fair administration of justice.
In short, even the vilest scum still has rights under the law. The “foul villain and traitor (?)” John Adams is now enshrined as one of The Founders, and became president.
I meant Bush I & II. Typing these long posts requires me to be brief.
You’re changing your argument.
Stalinism is NOT Communism
We are not talking about Communist dictators.
There has NEVER been a government, dictatorship or otherwise, that practiced “Communism” as it was originally defined. All have been various degrees of totalitarianism.
And YES, just because someone belongs to an organization, does not mean they agree with all policies or viewpoints of that organization.
I’m trying to lose weight.
I fully back him up. The US has a terrible record for all these.
In no particular order:
I don’t smoke pot, and never have, so calling me a ‘hemp-head’ is just silly.
Cite? And doesn’t he have a right to his personal opinion, no matter what it is or how dumb it is? Something about our Constitution…
Fuck you more.
I’ll try and find one. This was Shepherd Smith this morning.
If I were a sarcastic person, I would challenge you to find me one thing on Fox except “Around the World in 80 Seconds” that is NOT an opinion piece… But I’m not, so I won’t.
