Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General under LBJ, who has never met a left-wing cause or anti-American dictator he didn’t like, has published an article in the Los Angeles Times entitled “Why I’m Willing to Defend [Saddam] Hussein.” The URL for this ordure is here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-clark24jan24,1,1821609,print.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
If you must read it, sit down, have lots of Pepto Bismol handy, and make sure your medico has renewed your chill-pill prescription. When El Jefe read it last night, SWMBO, his loyal staff, his mistresses and goombas had to peel him off the ceiling. Some money quotes, with El Jefe’s comments, are below.
1). “Both international law and the Constitution of the United States guarantee the right to effective legal representation to any person accused of a crime.” First, what possible relevance does the Constitution of the United States have to Mr. Hussein ? Mr. Hussein is a prisoner of the Iraqi government. The Constitution of the United States has no more relevance than that of Japan. Ditto international law, since Saddam is technically a prisoner of Iraq. The only legislation of any applicability whatever is that of Iraq – and certainly under Iraqi law, as established by the self-same Mr. Hussein, there’s a statute somewhere that would make it perfectly legal to stand him up against a wall and shoot him without bothering with a trial.
2). “The war has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis and the widespread destruction of civilian properties essential to life.” This is regrettable, but hardly relevant. The equally just war against Germany and Japan caused the deaths of millions of citizens of those countries, and the destruction of civilian properties essential to life. However, this hardly constituted a defense for Hitler, Tojo, or their henchmen. In all three cases, lives could have been saved had the governments in question promptly surrendered. Had Mr. Hussein left Iraq peacefully before the war, or not seized every possible opportunity to violate the cease-fire terms of Gulf War I, all of the aforementioned devastation could have been avoided.
3). “President Bush, who initiated and oversees the war, has manifested his hatred for Hussein, publicly proclaiming the death penalty would be appropriate.” Mr. Clark’s unwritten premise is that hatred for Mr. Hussein and the death penalty are not appropriate. Substitute “President Roosevelt” for Bush and “Hitler” for Hussein and see how you like the sentence. Does Mr. Clark seriously think Mr. Hussein does not deserve the death penalty? Stupid question, because Mr. Clark clearly believes Mr. Hussein does not. Quite aside from the fact that the United States does not have custody of Mr. Hussein, and that President Bush is not trying Mr. Hussein, so that Mr. Clark’s statement is entirely rhetorical anyway, I would contend that the sponsor of rape rooms for dissidents deserves death by the slowest, most painful method that could possibly be devised. Again, why bother with a trial ?
4). “The United States, and the Bush administration engineered the demonization of Hussein, and has a clear political interest in his conviction.” First, Spell Check says that “demonization” is not a word – but since Mr. Clark used to be an Attorney General, and is reckoned smart for a liberal, I’ll take his word for it. I thought Mr. Hussein “engineered the demonization” of Mr. Hussein. Wasn’t it Mr. Hussein that invaded Kuwait? Wasn’t it Mr. Hussein who murdered approximately 40 of his own relatives? Didn’t Mr. Hussein’s regime kill between 50,000 and 100,000 Kurds? Didn’t Mr. Hussein’s army dump mustard gas on Kurdish villages? Didn’t Mr. Hussein’s regime divert Oil-for-Food money to friends of the regime and to military programs, resulting in the deaths of almost 400,000 children? Didn’t Mr. Hussein’s regime execute thousands of political prisoners? Didn’t Mr. Hussein’s army loot Kuwait in 1991 ? How many Kuwaitis are still missing? Mr. Hussein doesn't seem to have needed much help with the demonization engineering business.
I could go on, but you get the idea. The United States demonized Hussein ? Who DOESN’T “have an interest in his conviction," and in making Mr. Hussein stone-cold dead ASAP.
5). “Obviously, a fair trial of Hussein will be difficult to ensure – and critically important to the future of democracy in Iraq.” This just drips of the condensation we’ve come to expect from our liberal friends. Mr. Clark's telling us the wogs and dummies in Baghdad can’t come up with a procedure that would pass muster with Mr. Clark and his friends at Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN and the ACLU. That’s not saying much, Jesus Christ on a Starship couldn’t please that crew, if an enemy of the United States was in the dock.
Even so, to evaluate this statement, we have to buy into Mr. Clark’s false premise that a fair trial is necessary for Mr. Hussein and that same is critically important for the development of Iraqi democracy. A fair trial isn’t half as important as seeing that every atrocity that Mr. Hussein and the Baath Party committed in its reign is fully aired, and seeing that Mr. Hussein is convicted and promptly made (say it with El Jefe folks !) stone-cold dead. Killing the tyrant and showing Iraqis he’s dead is much more important then allowing poseurs like Ramsey Clark a platform to snipe at decent people. If Mr. Clark and his minions had their way, Mr. Hussein would still be in his palace and his police state in full operation.
6). “This trial will write history, affect the course of violence around the world and have an impact on hopes for reconciliation within Iraq.” Absolutely right, Mr. Clark ! You never wrote truer words. When Mr. Hussein’s carcass is flung down from the scaffold and rendered into ash to be poured out in some anonymous ditch, every two-bit tyrant in the Middle East, and right round the world (yeah, you - nutbar Osama, Dear Leader Kim, and Comrades Fidel, Hugo and Bob Mugabe) will get the message that it can happen in their countries too – that they can be jerked right out of their palaces, and stripped out of their fancy-pants uniforms – and wind up in the ditch, (say it ! stone-cold dead !). Comes the day guys…But don’t worry, Fidel, Hugo, Bob, et al. I’m sure Mr. Clark will represent you the way he did Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, Saddam Hussein, Moammar Qaddafi, Augusto Pinochet…oops, my mistake. Clark never defended Pinochet. Pinochet was pro-American, and Clark deploys his skills for primarily anti-American tyrants and murderers.
7). “Hussein has been held illegally for more than a year without once meeting a family member, friend or lawyer of his choice.” Held illegally ? How do you figure Mr. Clark ? Illegally by Divine Right of Dictators or something ? Oh yeah, perhaps it’s because you mean the United Dictators (er, United Nations), didn’t authorize us to go arrest their fellow thug. Too bad, so sad Mr. Clark. If you wanna get legal, Mr. Hussein violated the cease-fire terms of Gulf War I, and lots of United Dictators’ Club resolutions. Besides, President Bush had acts of Congress authorizing that war – legislation that actually means something, as distinguished from the bumpf produced in that international whorehouse on the Hudson. We’re as legal as we need to be, sir. As for the rest, El Jefe’s heart bleeds for poor, poor Mr. Hussein, not getting to meet a family member, friend or lawyer of his choice. At least he hasn’t yet been fed feet first into a wood-chip machine, like some in Mr. Hussein’s prison system were, eh Mr. Clark ?
8). “[S]urrounded by the same U.S. military that mistreated prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.” Well, okay, we have to consider the source. Almost a necessity for a Great Liberal Lawyer to make a ritual denunciation of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Consider the duty discharged Mr. Clark, your salaam duly made. Next time we’ll just avoid taking prisoners. No terrorist prisoners, no problem.
9). “[I]nternational law requires that every criminal court be competent, independent and impartial. The Iraqi Special Tribunal lacks all of these essential qualities…illegitimate in its conception – the creation of an illegal occupying power that demonized Saddam Hussein and destroyed the government it now intends to condemn by law.” Beg pardon, but what does international law have to say about it ? This is an Iraqi matter. If you give this argument to the Iraqi judge, he should tell you to suck eggs and haul your interfering behind right back over the border. As for all that propaganda about an “illegal occupying power” – what bosh. No more illegal than the Allied occupation of Hitler’s Germany – an occupation which “destroyed the government it…intend[ed] to condemn by law.” Are you saying Saddam’s courts were legitimate ? Saddam, who usurped state power by an unlawful coup, from persons who were themselves beneficiaries of an unlawful revolution ? Try again Mr. Clark. The government which will be installed next week, Mr. Clark, will be the only legitimate government Iraq has had since 1958, and the only government ever created in that country by the ballot. You should be ashamed.
10). “Finally, any court that considers criminal charges against Saddam Hussein must have the power…to consider charges against leaders and military personnel of the U.S., Britain and the other nations that participated in the aggression against Iraq.” Wow, that’s just breathtaking Mr. Clark. Saddam’s Information Ministry could really have used you. You’re so much better educated then Baghdad Bob, and I bet you’d have looked spiffier in that silly uniform he wore too. If it wasn’t for that U.S. “aggression,” Saddam and his minions would be killing and plotting to this day, which would apparently suit you just fine. Perhaps if similar “aggression” had taken place in 1936 against Nazi Germany, lots of trouble, say, millions dead, might have been avoided. Do you really believe what you’re saying, or is what galls you the fact that the US had the effrontery to, for once, shoot trouble first ? Had somebody removed a pro-US regime, why is it that I doubt you would care?
Finally, you tell us that the “. . .defense of such a case is a challenge of great importance to truth, the rule of law and peace.” I don’t know about that, but making Saddam stone-cold dead is certainly of importance to truth, the rule of law and peace. It will certainly make his victims rest a little easier. I hope the Iraqi judges run you right out of there on a rail.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-clark24jan24,1,1821609,print.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
If you must read it, sit down, have lots of Pepto Bismol handy, and make sure your medico has renewed your chill-pill prescription. When El Jefe read it last night, SWMBO, his loyal staff, his mistresses and goombas had to peel him off the ceiling. Some money quotes, with El Jefe’s comments, are below.
1). “Both international law and the Constitution of the United States guarantee the right to effective legal representation to any person accused of a crime.” First, what possible relevance does the Constitution of the United States have to Mr. Hussein ? Mr. Hussein is a prisoner of the Iraqi government. The Constitution of the United States has no more relevance than that of Japan. Ditto international law, since Saddam is technically a prisoner of Iraq. The only legislation of any applicability whatever is that of Iraq – and certainly under Iraqi law, as established by the self-same Mr. Hussein, there’s a statute somewhere that would make it perfectly legal to stand him up against a wall and shoot him without bothering with a trial.
2). “The war has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis and the widespread destruction of civilian properties essential to life.” This is regrettable, but hardly relevant. The equally just war against Germany and Japan caused the deaths of millions of citizens of those countries, and the destruction of civilian properties essential to life. However, this hardly constituted a defense for Hitler, Tojo, or their henchmen. In all three cases, lives could have been saved had the governments in question promptly surrendered. Had Mr. Hussein left Iraq peacefully before the war, or not seized every possible opportunity to violate the cease-fire terms of Gulf War I, all of the aforementioned devastation could have been avoided.
3). “President Bush, who initiated and oversees the war, has manifested his hatred for Hussein, publicly proclaiming the death penalty would be appropriate.” Mr. Clark’s unwritten premise is that hatred for Mr. Hussein and the death penalty are not appropriate. Substitute “President Roosevelt” for Bush and “Hitler” for Hussein and see how you like the sentence. Does Mr. Clark seriously think Mr. Hussein does not deserve the death penalty? Stupid question, because Mr. Clark clearly believes Mr. Hussein does not. Quite aside from the fact that the United States does not have custody of Mr. Hussein, and that President Bush is not trying Mr. Hussein, so that Mr. Clark’s statement is entirely rhetorical anyway, I would contend that the sponsor of rape rooms for dissidents deserves death by the slowest, most painful method that could possibly be devised. Again, why bother with a trial ?
4). “The United States, and the Bush administration engineered the demonization of Hussein, and has a clear political interest in his conviction.” First, Spell Check says that “demonization” is not a word – but since Mr. Clark used to be an Attorney General, and is reckoned smart for a liberal, I’ll take his word for it. I thought Mr. Hussein “engineered the demonization” of Mr. Hussein. Wasn’t it Mr. Hussein that invaded Kuwait? Wasn’t it Mr. Hussein who murdered approximately 40 of his own relatives? Didn’t Mr. Hussein’s regime kill between 50,000 and 100,000 Kurds? Didn’t Mr. Hussein’s army dump mustard gas on Kurdish villages? Didn’t Mr. Hussein’s regime divert Oil-for-Food money to friends of the regime and to military programs, resulting in the deaths of almost 400,000 children? Didn’t Mr. Hussein’s regime execute thousands of political prisoners? Didn’t Mr. Hussein’s army loot Kuwait in 1991 ? How many Kuwaitis are still missing? Mr. Hussein doesn't seem to have needed much help with the demonization engineering business.
I could go on, but you get the idea. The United States demonized Hussein ? Who DOESN’T “have an interest in his conviction," and in making Mr. Hussein stone-cold dead ASAP.
5). “Obviously, a fair trial of Hussein will be difficult to ensure – and critically important to the future of democracy in Iraq.” This just drips of the condensation we’ve come to expect from our liberal friends. Mr. Clark's telling us the wogs and dummies in Baghdad can’t come up with a procedure that would pass muster with Mr. Clark and his friends at Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN and the ACLU. That’s not saying much, Jesus Christ on a Starship couldn’t please that crew, if an enemy of the United States was in the dock.
Even so, to evaluate this statement, we have to buy into Mr. Clark’s false premise that a fair trial is necessary for Mr. Hussein and that same is critically important for the development of Iraqi democracy. A fair trial isn’t half as important as seeing that every atrocity that Mr. Hussein and the Baath Party committed in its reign is fully aired, and seeing that Mr. Hussein is convicted and promptly made (say it with El Jefe folks !) stone-cold dead. Killing the tyrant and showing Iraqis he’s dead is much more important then allowing poseurs like Ramsey Clark a platform to snipe at decent people. If Mr. Clark and his minions had their way, Mr. Hussein would still be in his palace and his police state in full operation.
6). “This trial will write history, affect the course of violence around the world and have an impact on hopes for reconciliation within Iraq.” Absolutely right, Mr. Clark ! You never wrote truer words. When Mr. Hussein’s carcass is flung down from the scaffold and rendered into ash to be poured out in some anonymous ditch, every two-bit tyrant in the Middle East, and right round the world (yeah, you - nutbar Osama, Dear Leader Kim, and Comrades Fidel, Hugo and Bob Mugabe) will get the message that it can happen in their countries too – that they can be jerked right out of their palaces, and stripped out of their fancy-pants uniforms – and wind up in the ditch, (say it ! stone-cold dead !). Comes the day guys…But don’t worry, Fidel, Hugo, Bob, et al. I’m sure Mr. Clark will represent you the way he did Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, Saddam Hussein, Moammar Qaddafi, Augusto Pinochet…oops, my mistake. Clark never defended Pinochet. Pinochet was pro-American, and Clark deploys his skills for primarily anti-American tyrants and murderers.
7). “Hussein has been held illegally for more than a year without once meeting a family member, friend or lawyer of his choice.” Held illegally ? How do you figure Mr. Clark ? Illegally by Divine Right of Dictators or something ? Oh yeah, perhaps it’s because you mean the United Dictators (er, United Nations), didn’t authorize us to go arrest their fellow thug. Too bad, so sad Mr. Clark. If you wanna get legal, Mr. Hussein violated the cease-fire terms of Gulf War I, and lots of United Dictators’ Club resolutions. Besides, President Bush had acts of Congress authorizing that war – legislation that actually means something, as distinguished from the bumpf produced in that international whorehouse on the Hudson. We’re as legal as we need to be, sir. As for the rest, El Jefe’s heart bleeds for poor, poor Mr. Hussein, not getting to meet a family member, friend or lawyer of his choice. At least he hasn’t yet been fed feet first into a wood-chip machine, like some in Mr. Hussein’s prison system were, eh Mr. Clark ?
8). “[S]urrounded by the same U.S. military that mistreated prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.” Well, okay, we have to consider the source. Almost a necessity for a Great Liberal Lawyer to make a ritual denunciation of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Consider the duty discharged Mr. Clark, your salaam duly made. Next time we’ll just avoid taking prisoners. No terrorist prisoners, no problem.
9). “[I]nternational law requires that every criminal court be competent, independent and impartial. The Iraqi Special Tribunal lacks all of these essential qualities…illegitimate in its conception – the creation of an illegal occupying power that demonized Saddam Hussein and destroyed the government it now intends to condemn by law.” Beg pardon, but what does international law have to say about it ? This is an Iraqi matter. If you give this argument to the Iraqi judge, he should tell you to suck eggs and haul your interfering behind right back over the border. As for all that propaganda about an “illegal occupying power” – what bosh. No more illegal than the Allied occupation of Hitler’s Germany – an occupation which “destroyed the government it…intend[ed] to condemn by law.” Are you saying Saddam’s courts were legitimate ? Saddam, who usurped state power by an unlawful coup, from persons who were themselves beneficiaries of an unlawful revolution ? Try again Mr. Clark. The government which will be installed next week, Mr. Clark, will be the only legitimate government Iraq has had since 1958, and the only government ever created in that country by the ballot. You should be ashamed.
10). “Finally, any court that considers criminal charges against Saddam Hussein must have the power…to consider charges against leaders and military personnel of the U.S., Britain and the other nations that participated in the aggression against Iraq.” Wow, that’s just breathtaking Mr. Clark. Saddam’s Information Ministry could really have used you. You’re so much better educated then Baghdad Bob, and I bet you’d have looked spiffier in that silly uniform he wore too. If it wasn’t for that U.S. “aggression,” Saddam and his minions would be killing and plotting to this day, which would apparently suit you just fine. Perhaps if similar “aggression” had taken place in 1936 against Nazi Germany, lots of trouble, say, millions dead, might have been avoided. Do you really believe what you’re saying, or is what galls you the fact that the US had the effrontery to, for once, shoot trouble first ? Had somebody removed a pro-US regime, why is it that I doubt you would care?
Finally, you tell us that the “. . .defense of such a case is a challenge of great importance to truth, the rule of law and peace.” I don’t know about that, but making Saddam stone-cold dead is certainly of importance to truth, the rule of law and peace. It will certainly make his victims rest a little easier. I hope the Iraqi judges run you right out of there on a rail.
2 comments:
I agree with you 100%. Saddam like the other heinous dictators you mentioned should reap what they sow.
If you do more research on Ramsey Clark, you'll probably find that he lobbies for free HDTV cable on 60-inch plasmas, time off for all expenses paid SuperBowl trip for male inmates and free manicures/pedicures and shopping sprees for female inmates, in his spare time when not defending these depraved-heart dictators!
As far as OUR Constitution, I'm thinking that it must be a big EXCEL spreadsheet with hidden columns (that we normal people don't see) that add in all these rights?
Hmmmmm. No wonder the Dems don't have a problem with WJ Clinton and all his civil issues, when they are used to defending criminals at this level.
Post a Comment