Again, as I’ve stated in both the GD threads: Saddam deserves his day in court as much as any other person. No matter what he has done or has been accused of, he deserves adequate representation to ensure that justice is fairly carried out.
But, as per your analogy, I’ll state again: If during the French-Indian War, Adams had travelled to Paris and publicly decried the actions of the American colonists as evil and the scalping of settlers as “a necessary justice”; then praised the Stamp Act as a necessary pain upon the evil American capitalists; then demanded the imprisonment of the Boston Tea Party members for war crimes; and finally, responded to the Declaration of Independence with a Statement of Rebuttal in which he listed fictious and exagerated offenses of the Continental Congress while praising King George III…
then I would consider Ramsey Clark as much a patriot and good human being as John Adams.
Ramsey Clark is a piece of shit. An asswipe of the highest order who chases around spotlights where he can stand and decry the United States; none of the spotlight cases he took up were ever finished with him remaining as a member of the team. He allies himself with Stalinists and people who not merely apologize for genocidal dictators, but actively assert and demand the right for dictators to commit atrocities because they “need” to due to the United States being a constant threat. Whether Clark is a true-believer or an empty suit who is in love with praise and the spotlight does not really matter; he works to further the cause of evil, and he does so while subverting real peace organizations trying to do some good.
Ramsey Clark managed to find an acorn. This does not mean that he is not a blind pig.
It was the best I could do, I couldn’t find the right Fox transcripts - they may be too recent(?). If nothing else, it shows that it isn’t only Fox talking, and it isn’t just Fox using the “T” word (if they are). The CNN transcript was not an opinion piece - it reads more like a fight.
I don’t see why he’s a hero, what he’s doing is actually of little importance. And it’s not like he’s the only attorney in the world who would do this, he’s just the most prominent. He’s doing this to get his name in the paper, and this is exactly the way he’s done it in the past.
The fact is, you can say he’s defending the principle of a fair trial. But the fact is Saddam is getting convicted, whatever happens in court is of absolutely no consequence. This is victor’s justice and just because a former AG is involved that doesn’t change.
Having not seen the “Paula Zahn Now” program, I can’t form an honest conclusion either way. However, it seemed to me to be program where various talking heads and random “experts” talk about the news (hence opinion), like the Sunday Morning shows on various networks.
There’s nothing wrong with talking about the news, but talking about the news is just that, commentary, not news. I’ll take your word that PZN is news and not commentary, though, not having seen the show.
The world socialists are just a bunch of lunkheads who wish communism wasn’t such a stupid idea. I trust Fox news more and I wouldn’t trust Fox news to tell me the time of day.
Prevented an invasion that would have killed millions.
See 8
“White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law.” http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm
During the time of Saddam’s rule, I think its safe to say his record on human rights was worse than that of the US. The US didn’t even come close to him in the number of executions.
In the US he does. In Saddam’s Iraq he’d have had the right to agree with Saddam. Conviently for him, he always has.
And I have the right to call him a scumsucking douchebag for his support of genocide.
It bears pointing out that even without Clark, Saddam would still have a defense team. Appartenly, he had 1,100 attorneys working on his case when Clark signed up to his defense (although the overwhelming majority of those co-counsels have dropped the case). There has been the implication in some posts that without Clark, Saddam would not have a defense at all. Now, I agree that a defendant should have the assistance of a bazillion lawyers if he wishes, but it is not as though Clark is the only one standing in the way of Saddam being left high and dry without counsel.
Furthermore, I seriously question whether Clark has done a decent job handling ANY of his high profile cases. I posted details to this effect in one of the other threads. Suffice it to say, I find no evidence that Clark is a good trial attorney, and plenty of evidence that he’s a half-informed hack. (For example, writing to the US Secretary of Energy to ask that Milosevic’s trial be ended. At the time of the letter, he was apparently unaware who the US Ambassador to the United Nations was.)
Considering that even after the atomic bombs were dropped there was coup by some military officers in an attempt to prevent Japan from surrendering, I strongly disagree with your opinion.
It’s your choice. It was just a random sampling that the “traitor” accusation is floating around, and Shodan had asked for references to where the accusation was appearing. I never claimed it was “hard news”. I was just showing some sources for the “Clark is a traitor” claims. I would submit, that if the Fox news broadcast was being portrayed as News (I still haven’t found it, still trying), then it should also be considered to be a thinly disguised opinion piece. As for me, I don’t know enough about Clark. Some things he has been quoted as saying make sense, other things sound completely crazy.
No offense, SteveG1, but we haven’t seen that Fox is saying this at all in their news. There was a specific accusation, that Fox was calling Clark a traitor in their news. So far, we have an opinion piece from NewsMax, an interview on CNN, and a statement from a Supreme Court justice that isn’t about Clark or treason. And the interview of Horowitz does not say that Clark is a traitor for defending Saddam. AFAICT, 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 the loose sense of the term, that sounds rather like treason to me. Should Clark be indicted for it? I don’t believe so. Should he be condemned for it, in opinion pieces and by his detractors, in interviews and elsewhere? You betcha.
YMMV, as always. Void where taxed or prohibited. Past performance is no guarantee of future earnings. Consult your doctor or pharmacist before beginning an exercise program. Do not operate heavy machinery after reading this post. Do not take if you are pregnant or nursing.
US Intelligence Classified WP as a weapon
From this :
“1993 Chemical Weapons Convention which bans the use of any “toxic chemical” weapons which causes “death, harm or temporary incapacitation to humans or animals through their chemical action on life processes”.”
From this :
“White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for “Military purposes… not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare”. But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be “any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm”.”
From this :
" But the article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Weapons bans their use against civilians.
Perhaps of crucial importance to the Iraqi investigators, the treaty also restricts their use against military targets “inside a concentration of civilians except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians”. "
No problem. I’m starting to not like Clark too, but that’s not anything earth shattering. I’m not ready to call him a traitor, but I will alow that he may be a major asshole in his more recent “activities”. He seems to have a “special place in his heart” for foreign war criminals, foreign mass murderers, and foreign despots. But, even they are entitled to a fair trial before the hanging
Freedom House has given the US the highest ratings in political and economic freedom since they began their surveys three decades ago. Iraq was given the worst possible ratings in all but five of those years, at which points they ranked barely above the worst of the worst human rights abusers in the world.
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.
Serious question: have you ever been to a country that is not free? If so, what aspects of that repressive country do you find replicated in American life?
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.
Just goes to show that the Old Boy network takes care of its own. Apparently it’s impossible for a rich guy with connections to fuck up so badly that he’ll actually have to suffer some serious consequences for it.
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.
I am STILL trying to find that Fox transcript, with no luck. We need someone who is strong in the Google, or stronger than I am. Lots of left and right wing blogs and comments (for and against Clark), but they are all mostly just junk.
One extreme rightwing guy however did say the right thing - he said who cares. If a former Attorney General defends Saddam and he is found guilty anyway (he will be), then no one can claim Saddam wasn’t represented, no “Saddamists” can yell about a kangaroo court, no one can claim the trial wasn’t fair. He said it better than I can. As for Clark’s motives, who knows. He may even serve a useful purpose in spite of himself this time.
I absolutely agree with everything in this paragraph except the first line.
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.
Besides, it’s doing a great job of pulling some really looney viewpoints out of the woodwork: CynicalGabe stating that the United States has a worse human rights record than Iraq; BrainGlutton stating that people who promote genocide and dictatorship are more valuable to the United States than people who want to spread democracy; and alaricthegoth continuing to prove that he has no idea how to create a coherent paragraph. I enjoy figuring out who I can just write off as off-the-wall.
