And this is why I say that Clark isn’t worth getting excited about. The only people who pay any attention to what he says anymore are those who are already enemies of the US. And, I guess, those who become enraged at any criticism of the US by anyone at any time. Everyone else has tuned him out.
I certainly don’t stay up at nights wringing my hands about Clark being a crackpot. However,the three threads started on this board in recent days about Clark are all by people who praise him for being some sort of Mother Theresa of the legal profession. That kind of chatter deserves to be challenged.
Mother Teresa would not be up in the judges’ face
Y
This, Zoe is obviously a question you are ducking.
Whether it is because you don’t know enough about the incident, or whether you cannot defend Clark here, only you can say. But answering the question at least would be honest.
I’ll field that one. No, it wasn’t right, under the circumstances. On the other hand, America’s “crimes” in Iran don’t deserve the quote marks; they were real. Going back to Operation Ajax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax
And this is why I say in return that Ann Coulter isn’t worth getting excited about. The only people who pay any attention to what she says anymore are those who are already allies of the US. And, I guess, those who agree with any criticism of the US by anyone at any time. Everyone else has tuned her out.
Same with Fred Phelps, right? No one should bother even flaming them.
Regards,
Shodan
I would have to agree that the process is more important than the role of any one participant. I should probably say that I don’t really “admire” Ramsey Clark one way or the other; before this I’d never really heard of him and I don’t really have any opinions on him one way or the other, so I’m just speaking in general terms.
I tend to admire lawyers more for how they do their jobs than what jobs they’re doing, people who fight hard and fight fair. Still, I have to say I do have a special place in my heart for the defense. Say you’re offered a choice of two jobs: on the one hand, as a prosecutor for your state, you can heroically fight to take a depraved child molester off of the street, thereby receiving the accolades of law enforcement and the community. On the other hand, you can defend to the best of your ability the guy accused of being a child molester, who is probably guilty, definitely crazy, and hates everyone in general and you in particular. You’ve got to give a little respect the guy who does the shit job. That’s not to say I respect defense attorneys more than prosecutors; it’s just a different kind of respect.
I agree completely with the principle that it’s important to give everyone a good defense, even those who are guilty. But I can’t admire any result that frees a depraved child molester or any other criminal. To me that’s just a regretable defect in a system that works overall.
I think that’s one reason I couldn’t be a defense lawyer. Suppose I knew about some evidence that pretty much proved my client was guilty of some crime and I also knew a way to have the evidence dismissed from the case. I’d be torn between my duty as a good lawyer to try to get my client found innocent and my duty as a good citizen to keep a criminal off the streets.
To me being a defense lawyer would seem like being a scientists working in a germ warfare lab. I wouldn’t want the burden of knowing that the better I did my job, the worst the damage was for society.
I don’t get excited about Ann Coulter, or Rush, or Bill O’Reilly or much of anyone like that. I listen to Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, et al because they are funny and not so much for political commentary. I do get a little agitated at people who have the power to do something useful but invade Iraq instead.
I’ll certainly agree with you there.
Would you consider Clark’s actions nearly treasonous, or just incredibly stupid?
Well, not “treasonous” – it can never be “treasonous” to point out when your own country is in the wrong, not in any circumstances; and before the Islamic Revolution, the U.S., in its relations with Iran, was always and entirely in the wrong. As for “stupid” – that depends on what Clark hoped to accomplish by his actions. Probably, “stupid.”
There’s a subtext herethat I was trying to implicate (unsuccessfully)
What I admire about Clark is that once he tells you (you being, saddam) that he will represent you,(let’s pause and contemplate all of the memes the word "represent’ has to carry)
once he SAYS he wll represent you, he doesn’t hold back, or second guss how the world really would be better with you off the streets.
Now you contemplate that moral conunundrum, and you make theother honest decision–I won’t be a criminal defense lawyer because I would be ambivalet.
The problem is that lots of defense counsel are ambivalent, but they take the case nonetheless. Those are the ones likely t sell out an inocent client in the mix …
In other words, Clark charges ahead without ever considering the morality or even the consequences of his actions and he never looks back to reconsider any decision he’s made. I think we’ve already had too much of this form of stupidity in Iraq and we don’t need Clark added his share.
OK. I’ve read it all and I have the answer to Saddam being on trial. (Zoe, I picked your post to quote as it was the first I found that caught my eye for this. You’re just so damn hot!) 
Here’s what we do. It appeases those wanting Hussein to face harsh justice, and appeases those…umm. This is tough. Those that support him? Those that hate America? Stalinists?
BTW,
Then what the hell is he? Other than dust with 20 million corpse-dust trailing him? His spirit lives in you from what I’ve seen.
Anyway, here’s the plan. And this should make eveyone happy.
Saddam is a flight risk. He has to be held without bail. Now we just need to hold trial for everyone he’s arbitrarily convicted to see if they had fair trials. Then hold new trials for all those convicted and sentenced to death under his rule. Let’s make sure they had fair trials before being too concerned about his defense in crimes he’s admitted to comitting.
Sound fair? I hope so. Those calling for a full, impartial and fair defense should be able to get behind that idea.
Prosecutor do this regularly, hence the large number of people in Illinois, for example, who were cleared by DNA of the crimes for which they were convicted.
Sir! Bite your tongue.
Have I not said I am a trotskyite, to whom there is perhaps no deeper wound than to be mis-named a Stalinist (except maybe a pusilanimous menshevik…)
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The chief judge in the trial of Saddam Hussein has tendered his resignation in protest at pressure from the Iraqi government on himself and the court, a source close to the judge told Reuters on Saturday.
Rizgar Amin would make me proud to be a judge (if I were)
This “backstory” illustrates the importance of having a defense counsel who dos not “lay down and die” in court.
When the apparatus of the state is arrayed in pursuit of the destruction of an individual, you want someone in court who will point out that butcher has his thumb on the scale, (to scramble metaphors…)