# Ramsey Clark is a hero, and anyone who criticizes him is a fool. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 6, 2005, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-is-a-hero-and-anyone-who-criticizes-him-is-a-fool/334388 "2005-12-06T18:05:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![CynicalGabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@CynicalGabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CynicalGabe)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-is-a-hero-and-anyone-who-criticizes-him-is-a-fool/334388/41 "2005-12-07T20:15:49Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > All the WP crap is a sideshow invented by **CynicalGabe** to cover up the fact that he’s losing in his effort to portray Ramsey Clark as a rational person. Pay it no mind. All I said originally was that I thought he was a hero for standing up for his principles in spite of the fact that a majority of people damn him to hell both for this action, and because they don’t like his principles to begin with. The WP was brought up as an example of one of the multitude of human rights abuses and war crimes by the United States. I posted the links as supporting evidence > [@Weirddave](#): > > Gabe, do you have any cites that aren’t from fringe political movements pushing their own agendas? Just curious. How about the BBC? [Link](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm) WP is only banned when it is used as a weapon for its toxic properties, not for illumination. The military’s use of it in so-called ‘shake-n-bake’ applications is clearly a violation. > [@Lemur866](#): > > Now you’re just making stuff up. Did you even read the couple dozen fucking threads on this? WP IS NOT BANNED BY TREATY. WP is not a chemcial weapon when used against people, that’s a flat out lie. There is a treaty on incendiaries, althouth the US is not a party to the treaty. However, that treaty doesn’t ban incendiaries. To help you out, I’ll link to the text of the treaty, you read it, and come back and admit you made a mistake. The above goes for you too. > [@Ravenman](#): > > That you’re trying to draw a connection between the atrocities in Iraq and the treatment of people in the United States indicates that you are an idiot. 1. Your use of personal attacks instead of debating what I actually said indicates that you should go fuck yourself. 2. I was not trying to connect the two, I was showing examples of US human rights abuses. Noone said they had to be overseas. 3. How about testing the effects of nuclear weapons on our own troops? 4. Smallpox blankets to the indians? 5. Most of the early activities of the Bureau of Indian affairs? 6. I can go on and on. I’m not saying Saddam wasn’t a brutal dictator, I’m just saying that the US doesn’t have the best record either, and in fact, has a worse record. We’ve killed far more innocents than he ever did. Besides, _we_ helped _him_ do it! He was allowed by the US to purchase everything he needed to build his chem/bio program. He was then given political cover by the Reagan administration for his use of it in war and against his own people. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-is-a-hero-and-anyone-who-criticizes-him-is-a-fool/334388/42 "2005-12-07T20:37:31Z")
The BBC referenced the Chemical Weapons Convention, so let’s go to the source, shall we? [The OPCW](http://www.opcw.org/) was established by the countries that joined the CWC. From their [overview](http://www.opcw.org/resp/html/cwagents.html) of chemical weapons. > [@](#): > > These Military Chemicals are Not Considered to be Chemical Weapons > > Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy. Certain types of smoke screen may be poisonous in extremely high concentrations but, nonetheless, smoke ammunition is not classed as a chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their use. Saying WP is caustic is like saying napalm stings the eyes. It may do that, but the fact that it burns the hell out of whatever it touches is the reason it is being used. If it is being used for some “toxic” property rather than thermal properties, you should have no trouble digging up cites as to what damage the toxin does outside of burning flesh. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-is-a-hero-and-anyone-who-criticizes-him-is-a-fool/334388/43 "2005-12-07T20:54:16Z")
> [@CynicalGabe](#): > > I’m not saying Saddam wasn’t a brutal dictator, I’m just saying that the US doesn’t have the best record either, and in fact, has a worse record. You should make this your sig, so that as others read your posts, they may immediately know how retarded your view of the world is. ---
**Author:** ![Blackclaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@Blackclaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackclaw)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-is-a-hero-and-anyone-who-criticizes-him-is-a-fool/334388/44 "2005-12-07T20:54:54Z")
> [@CynicalGabe](#): > > How about the BBC? > [Link](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm) > WP is only banned when it is used as a weapon for its toxic properties, not for illumination. The military’s use of it in so-called ‘shake-n-bake’ applications is clearly a violation. The link you provide shows that there is nothing “clear” about it. [quote] So WP itself is not a chemical weapon and therefore not illegal. However, used in a certain way, it might become one. Not that “a certain way” can easily be defined, if at all. The US can say therefore that this is not a chemical weapon and further, it argues that it is not the toxic properties but the heat from WP which causes the damage. And, this argument goes, since incendiary weapons are not covered by the CWC, therefore the use of WP against combatants is not prohibited. … However the United States has not signed up to a convention covering incendiary weapons which seeks to restrict their use." If the US is not a signatory to the treaty, then its use of WP is not a violation of international law. And continuing to try and hold that Saddam has a better Human Rights record than the US continues to be bizzare arguement. In order to make it you are comparing the record of multiple US administartions covering two centuries of the existance of the US to just Saddam’s reign. That’s a lot of digging. And I still don’t think you’ve convinced any of us that our human rights would have been safer under Saddam. ---
**Author:** ![CynicalGabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@CynicalGabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CynicalGabe)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-is-a-hero-and-anyone-who-criticizes-him-is-a-fool/334388/45 "2005-12-07T21:03:48Z")
> [@Blackclaw](#): > > And I still don’t think you’ve convinced any of us that our human rights would have been safer under Saddam. Did I ever claim they would? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-is-a-hero-and-anyone-who-criticizes-him-is-a-fool/334388/46 "2005-12-08T01:46:00Z")
Has anyone found the Fox link yet? I’ve given up looking. I just can’t find it. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-is-a-hero-and-anyone-who-criticizes-him-is-a-fool/334388/47 "2005-12-08T03:50:13Z")
> [@](#): > > **Ravenman** : Then, years later, Johnson appointed Ramsey Clark to be AG, knowing that Tom Clark would step down, which Johnson claimed was his real goal. That’s true, but you left off the purpose of having Justice Tom Clark step down. President Johnson wanted to appoint Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court and this was his way of making an opening. > [@](#): > > **lieu** : Lyndon Johnson called Clark the worst mistake he ever made. Amazing, considering that Clark drafted the Civil Rights Act which is LBJ’s most redeeming grace. Clark was definitely **not** his worst mistake. Did Johnson say that before or after his lies to the American people about Vietnam and before or after his decisions about the war led to another decision not to even try to run for reelection in 1968? > [@](#): > > **Shodan** : Horowitz is making exactly the same point that (for instance) John Corrado has been making - that Clark’s motives are not that he wants Saddam to have a fair trial, but that Clark automatically comes to the defense of anyone who attacks America, regardless of circumstance. In truth, we all can only speculate on what Clark’s motives are. He’s the only possible authority. > [@](#): > > \*\* Ravenman\*\*: If so, what aspects of that repressive country do you find replicated in American life? 1. Increased invasion of privacy 2. Government corruption 3. Political prisoners 4. Increased governmental secrecy 5. Use of torture 6. Increased accusations of “treason” 7. Increasing poverty > [@](#): > > **John Corrado** : The reason I care is because three seperate threads exist where people are demanding that Clark be praised as a hero, and those people are insinuating that people who dislike Clark are somehow anti-freedom and anti-justice. And it is that shit I will not put up with. **John** , no one is demanding that _you_ praise Clark. And I don’t think that you are anti-freedom. I’m sure that you understand the difference in “supporting” a person and “defending” his rights in a court of law. If you believe that everyone has the right to a good defense, then I would have no reason to believe that you in particular are anti-justice. I would not want to leave that impression with you. As for “putting up with this shit,” well, that’s what happens when we support freedom. We have to put up with each other’s shit sometimes. But we can always address it – as you and I both have done. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-is-a-hero-and-anyone-who-criticizes-him-is-a-fool/334388/48 "2005-12-08T10:33:48Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > But we can always address it – as you and I both have done. **Zoe** , I asked you point blank in [this other Ramsey Clark thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6873103#post6873103) whether a particular antic he pulled, namely his trip to Tehran in 1980, during the hostage crisis, can be supported. You have not favored me with a reply. Now, you certainly give the impression as one of Clark’s defenders on these boards, so I have to ask, again, if you support this particular action of his. ---
**Author:** ![Blackclaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@Blackclaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackclaw)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-is-a-hero-and-anyone-who-criticizes-him-is-a-fool/334388/49 "2005-12-08T13:26:59Z")
> [@CynicalGabe](#): > > Did I ever claim they would? By claiming that the US was a worse abuser of human rights than Saddam, you implied such. ---
**Author:** ![CynicalGabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@CynicalGabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CynicalGabe)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-is-a-hero-and-anyone-who-criticizes-him-is-a-fool/334388/50 "2005-12-08T18:04:00Z")
> [@Blackclaw](#): > > By claiming that the US was a worse abuser of human rights than Saddam, you implied such. No I didn’t. I said that the US had a worse record. I never claimed that people living under Saddam were better off. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-is-a-hero-and-anyone-who-criticizes-him-is-a-fool/334388/51 "2005-12-08T20:26:14Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Amazing, considering that Clark drafted the Civil Rights Act which is LBJ’s most redeeming grace. Zoe- do you have any cite for that whatsoever? I’ve been searching on-line, and the best I can find is that Clark drafted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, both of which were follow-ups to, and much lesser than, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which outlawed discrimination based upon race. Given that Clark wasn’t a member of the administration until 1965, I lean toward the supposition that you’re misremembering. > [@](#): > > **John** , no one is demanding that _you_ praise Clark. And I don’t think that you are anti-freedom. I’m sure that you understand the difference in “supporting” a person and “defending” his rights in a court of law. Absolutey. Now, do you recognize that sometimes there is **no** difference? And that after a man spends twenty years defending dictators and those who commit genocide, and spends twenty years making public statements denouncing those who are trying to bring dictators and those who commit genocide to justice, some of us might not be willing to assume that Clark is doing this out of some noble cause? > [@](#): > > If you believe that everyone has the right to a good defense, then I would have no reason to believe that you in particular are anti-justice. I would not want to leave that impression with you. As for “putting up with this shit,” well, that’s what happens when we support freedom. We have to put up with each other’s shit sometimes. But we can always address it – as you and I both have done. Eh. He’s doing the right thing for the wrong reason. I’m not complaining that he’s doing the right thing. I’m complaining that people seem to assume that because he’s doing the right thing, he _must_ have the right reason; and I’m complaining that people seem to assume that because people are attacking him, they _must_ be attacking his “right thing” rather than his “wrong reasons”. That, and as I said earlier: many of the people coming to Clark’s defense (and I do not include you in this Zoe, but I certainly include CynicalGabe) are making such outlandish statements about the United States government that I think a light needs to be shone upon them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ramsey-clark-is-a-hero-and-anyone-who-criticizes-him-is-a-fool/334388.md?page=2)