Former U.S. attorney general thrown out of court
Michelle Malkin has the rundown on the second-best thing to come out of the Saddam Hussein trial yesterday (uh, the first would be Mr. Hussein getting sentenced to dangle from the end of a tight knot).
From Reuters:
BAGHDAD – The judge presiding over the trial of Saddam Hussein and seven others on charges of crimes against humanity ejected former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark from the court on Sunday for insulting the tribunal.
Clark, who heads an international team of lawyers involved in the defence, was ejected at the start of a hearing at which Saddam and two aides were convicted and sentenced to death.
The judge, Raouf Abdul Rahman, ejected Clark because he had sent a memo to Abdul Rahman including the accusation that the tribunal was making ‘a mockery of justice’.
The judge told him in Arabic: ‘No, you are the mockery … get him out, out.’
Abdul Rahman then shouted in English: ‘Out! Out!’
‘You come from America and ridicule the Iraqi people,’ he said.
Kim Priestap at Wizbang:
Ramsey Clark puts on the front that he’s a protector of human rights, but the Iraqis see right through the facade and know exactly who he is: a terrorist sympathizer.
_________
Should the fact that Mr. Clark is a Democrat matter in this story? I think the answer is a resounding yes.
Mr. Clark isn’t just another registered Democrat. He’s the former US attorney general under President Lyndon B. Johnson (NOT under President Clinton, which I had mistakenly written). Here’s a guy who is probalby still invited to dinner with former-President Clinton and Presidential-wannbe Clinton. (edited because, it is now clear to me that he is not a Clinton-ite). Mr. Clark is the same type of Democrat as would-be-speaker of the house, Rep. Nancey Pelosi.
Mr. Clark is a BDS-suffering nut-job. I know it, the Iraqi people know it, and most of you know it. But he’s still a prominent Democrat, and his views against President Bush, his views against this war, and his views in favor of Mr. Hussein are still rather main stream in his political party.
Glenn Greenwald — a very representative and authroitative voice in the Left-o-sphere thinks Clark is a “true hero”.
Is it any wonder most of us don’t believe that Democrats can be trusted with protecting our country from terrorists?
Actually, Clark was Attorney General of the United States nearly 40 years ago under Johnson.
He has been a pariah in the Democratic party for quite some time.
[Editor's NOTE: Preston --- thanks for that correction. For the life of me, I don't know why I had it in my head that he was President Clinton's attorney general. But I was clearly wrong. I'll correct the post as well.]
Clark is a legal hack. He flits from one pwogressive cause to another filing these bullshit boilerplate legal briefs. I have asked before and I will ask again, who pays him and how much?
And, honestly, your link to Glenn Greenwald is pretty shameless given his clear statement:
I’m far from a fan of Clark’s political opinions, which are often inane and obsessively anti-American. But put those political views to the side. Here, Clark is risking his life in order to perform a service that is absolutely indispensable in promoting American objectives in Iraq — namely, ensuring that Saddam Hussein receives a fair trial.
I’ve come to understand that many on the right cannot understand the distinction between representing a vile criminal in a court of law and approving of the criminal’s actions but it is necessary in a nation of laws that even the most detestable receive a fair hearing.
And I’ve come to understand that many on the left cannot understand that there are ethical boundaries on the behavior of defense attorneys.
And, Clark is not motivated by the belief that everyone deserves a fair hearing. If that were true, he would be working pro bono in some rural legal services offices. No, Clark is motivated by $$$$, power, and his senile hatred for this country.
Anon-
You’ll have to tell me what ethical boundaries Mr. Clark crossed.
If that were true, he would be working pro bono in some rural legal services offices.
As for what motivates Ramsey Clark- I have no idea- but it’s very kind of you to provide some approved career choices for the man.
And it’s very pwogressive of you to attribute some greater motive to him than he deserves. Saddam had 40+ lawyers. He didn’t need Clark. Clark hooked up with him as I already explained for $$$, power, and in a lame attempt to embarass his own country. For you to falsely attribute some nobel motive to him is bullshit and is what we expect from you.
So it’s ok for the other forty lawyers to forsake their pro-bono jobs at rural legal services offices?
I’ve come to understand that many on the right cannot understand the distinction between representing a vile criminal in a court of law and approving of the criminal’s actions but it is necessary in a nation of laws that even the most detestable receive a fair hearing.
Preston, I understand the difference. If you notice in my numerous death penalty postings, I never criticize the defense attorneys for these monsters.
However, I don’t ascribe this same sense of commitment to the principles of law and fairness to Mr. Ramsey. I believe his motivation is much more nefarious and agenda-driven.
I believe his motivation is much more nefarious and agenda-driven.
Agenda-driven: yeah, probably- not that it’s a crime.
I agree that he sort of seems like a nutcase but I’m not sure if I agree that having an agenda is ‘nefarious’.
(I agree, it’s to your credit that you have never attacked the representation of the defendents your write about. I’m sure it’s an impossibly ugly job and the public gives them little appreciation when the prosecution is not able to do their jobs well.)
Just to be clear- he may very well have a nefarious agenda- but until you tell me what it is I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. Even if he does have this agenda it doesn’t erase the fact that he is risking assassination by attempting to ensure that Saddam isn’t tried and convicted in a kangaroo court: a result that we should all applaud to the extent that it may help acheive peace in Iraq.
Clark is the poster boy for the blame-America-First wing of the Democratic party.
He’s never met an enemy of the United States that he didn’t love.
Jim-
Paragraph 2 seems to be true.
Paragraph 1 is not.