I disagree.
Yes. The beginning of his descent into madness.
Bullplop. As has been said many times before, he states that Saddam’s massacre in Dujail was no different than any other world leader would have done. The organizations he is affiliated with endorse the Tiananmen Square massacre as a “battle against counterrevolutionaries,” not a slaughter of defenseless civilians. Again and again I hear hand-wringing that Rumsfeld should not have met with Saddam that one time in the early 1980s (a point on which I generally agree), but deafening silence from Clark supporters about his repeated meetings with Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb who is still at large and wanted on several charges relating to genocide.
Furthermore, Clark, in an interview with CNN, responded to the point that Saddam used chemical weapons on defenseless populations with the following: “Wolf, that’s pretty tired, you know. People have worked that for years and years…” Finally, when one of the Rwandans responsible for the genocide there was sentenced to ten years in prison, Clark called it “a miscarriage of justice.”
It is readily apparent that Clark does not have a problem with the violence committed by some of the worst characters on the world stage in the last 30 years… just as long as they are not from North America or Western Europe.
All true. However Clark has become a public scold whose message has been repeated so many times that few pay any attention to him any more. I don’t think he can’t hurt the US much and I don’t understand what all the fuss is about.
No, you don’t have to have a factually innocent client to do your ethical duty. The duty of the defense attorney is to protect the rights of the defendant. They do this by holding the police and the prosecution to their burden of proof, and by making certain the police and prosecution live up to their obligations under the law and the Constitution. They enforce the law against the government just like the government enforces the law among the community.
Likewise, the duty of the prosecutor is to see that justice is done within the bounds of the law. The function of each role depends on the other, and without opposing counsel, each role is meaningless. Both are officers of the court with concomitant ethical obligations to the proper administration of justice. There are no white hats and black hats.
So? Eugene Debs was anti-capitalist, and he was not anti-American in any respect. Neither was Norman Thomas, nor Bayard Rustin, nor Michael Harrington. (Again, I say nothing of Ramsey Clark.)
Noam Chomsky is not anti-American either, for that matter. He’s against our government and foreign policy but that’s not the same thing.
Exactly. He’s like the right-wing in exact reverse. If anyone other than Americans, or possibly white people, did it, then it wasn’t really wrong after all, but just necessary. It’s a farce of a moral position.
As all decent people should be . . . In any case, if you look closely at what ANSWER actually is and does – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSWER – there ain’t no downside, despite its having Trotskyists and such in on the project.
No downside, except for the fact that some of the leaders of ANSWER have pronounced their support for how China handled the Tianamen Square “counter-revolution”, that during an ANSWER rally a photo of Abdul Khan - he who sold nuclear secrets to Libya and North Korea - was pasted up as a dedication; and that ANSWER demands that every other leftist issue - ending the Palestine ‘ocucptaion’, freeing Mumia, etc.- must be given an equal billing, or else the rally/supporter is “racist”.
Or did you once again wander into a thread and not bother to read any of the material being linked to in it? If so, I suggest you peruse Ravenman’s link up above.
But, the linked article does not support such a characterization of ANSWER, as distinct from WWP – and, if ANSWER ever was a WWP front, based on the article it clearly isn’t now, following a WWP split. ANSWER has indeed supported freeing Jamal and an end to the Palestinian occupation – so what’s wrong with that?
It’s not “in on the project” so much as “are the project.” I went to at least one A.N.S.W.E.R. demonstration and decided I wasn’t going to another one after I found out more about what they were. Among other issues, I didn’t want to do anything that could be construed as supporting a group with their ideas.
I suppose if one is opposed to the war in Afghanistan – you know, the place from which the 9-11 attacks were initiated – and believes that NATO’s mission in Afghanistan as being some nefarious plan for the United States to take over the world in the name of corporations, then I suppose you’d find no downside with ANSWER.
On the other hand, if a person believes that the US was justified in sweeping a brutal, repressive, extremist, fundamentalist government out of Afghanistan after it materially supported an attack on the United States, then one would rightly view ANSWER as a bunch of extremist nutjobs, irrespective of that person’s view of the damn fool war in Iraq.
Re-read the article. The posting of Khan’s picture is specifically stated to have happened at an ANSWER rally after the split:
Besides the fact that it’s just plain silly, and the fact that it’s wrong, and the fact that it’s pulling time away from the actual anti-war demonstrations that were supposed to be the point? Well, there’s the fact that ANSWER uses those issues to dominate other groups:
“ites”
ists for Stalin, nd ites for Trotsky
(cf the workers front for revolutionary progrfess, the progressive front for workers’ revolution and the people’s revolutionalry front for progressive workers…)
Splitters.
First off, I’ll point out that I said specifically said I was talking about the last twenty years of Clark’s career.
On a broader note, I’d say your list proves the greater point. There is something consistent throughout Clark’s career. When the United States government is on the wrong side of an issue, Clark will be there speaking out against the United States government. And when the United States government is on the right side of an issue…Clark will still be there speaking out against the United States government. Blindly opposing everything the American government has done in the last fifty years is every bit as foolish as blindly supporting everything the American government did during that period. Clark is like Anne Coulter - he picked a side and now refuses to admit his side is ever wrong or the other side is ever right.
So you would agree with where I wrote that the process is the important thing? What would be your response to my follow-up - would you admire Clark equally if he had volunteered to assist in the prosecution of Saddam rather than his defense? In either case he would have volunteered to be part of the same legal system and would be doing his duty to advance his chosen side to the best of his ability.
THANK YOU. I was trying to draw attention to the way Clark is up in the judges’ face.
When you are a criminal defendant, the choo-choo is rolling, and you really want your lawyer to stand up in the middle of the tracks and say now WAIIIT just a minute…
I am referencing LAWYERING not choice of clients,( which I would otherwise be willing to debate, but that’s outside this thread.)
(I will say that If I were ever to lucky as to be asked to represent El Caballo, it would be an honor., ditto Mumia.)
I know that you comment wasn’t addressed to me, but I do agree with you. It is the process that is important. Either side earns my respect. But I am amazed at the number of people who do not want Saddam to have decent representation. They don’t seem to understand or appreciate the justice system.
Of course. My purpose was to I list some of the reasons he doesn’t qualify as a scumbag. You consider it vile that he has legally represented vile clients. I do not equate the two and neither does Harvard Law School or the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
C’mon, Zoe. Many friends and family members of mine are lawyers. I know better than to judge them by their clientele.
I can, however, judge them by their loyalty to our shared country.
And I’ll ask you directly, Zoe. Was it right for Ramsey Clark to go to Tehran and assist the Ayatollah Khomeini’s government in amassing evidence of American “crimes” in Iran, at the same time our hostages were being held there by that same government?
I’d appreciate an answer.
The problem is that he is amoral. He is very politically driven and he is no different than Henry Kissinger. Kissinger had no interest whatsoever in human rights if they violated right wing politics. Clark is the same way but with left wing politics. That is what alot of people here are upset about. the fact that people deserve a fair trial doesn’t bother most of us, it is that Clark amorally picks anyone no matter what they’ve done as long as they are/were an enemy of the US or Israels. Clark doesn’t seem to care if he is defending genocide, tyranny or marijuana users as long as it places him at odds with the US government.