Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Since When Did Justice Become Anti-American?

In his recent editorial, Mark Hyman lambasts former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark for defending known terrorists and murderers. But, as usual, Hyman can’t see the big picture.

Hyman offers a slanted and unsubstantiated account of
Clark's career in government, then attacks him for taking on “loopy causes and deeply anti-American activities,” including (gasp!) being a “chief legal advisor to John Kerry and his fellow protestors.” Hyman neglects to say that before he soured on the Vietnam War, Clark was instrumental in the prosecution of war protestors such as Dr. Benjamin Spock. One would think that would warm Hyman’s heart, but apparently not enough to merit a mention.

Hyman then catalogs the long and infamous list of thugs that Clark has defended in the international arena, culminating with Saddam Hussein.

Now, I don’t agree with all of Ramsey Clark’s politics, but I do agree that for justice to be done, everyone who is accused of a crime, no matter how heinous, must be defended. That’s a sentiment that the Founding Fathers also seemed to share.

Whatever Clark’s motivation for taking on the thankless task of defending the great criminals of the world, it’s a task that needs to be done. Those Clark defends are almost certainly guilty of unimaginable atrocities, but if we do not prosecute these crimes in a way that reveres the very sense of justice these accused have violated, we become unwitting accomplices to the depravity. Kangaroo courts are the tools of dictators and criminals. For justice to be done, we must give justice its due, and that means a thorough, vigorous defense.

The fact that it is a well-known American doing the defending is, I would argue, a plus. It contributes, however slightly, to the portrayal of America as a country devoted to ideals of justice—a country that sees the rule of law as a good in and of itself and not simply a tool to be invoked when it happens to be advantageous.

Criminal trials are not just about the guilt or innocence of the particular individual who stands accused. They are enactments of the beliefs in justice and fairness that we claim to be hallmarks of a democratic government ruled by laws created by the people. Given this, if we’re actually serious about wanting to spread democratic values around the world, it is essential that we show reverence to these ideals ourselves. To not do so would be to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Even those who think talk about the ideals of justice are smarmy nonsense when applied to the likes of a Hussein must acknowledge the practical benefits of having him (and others like him) defended vigorously; carrying out these prosecutions in a transparent and fair manner is the only way of demonstrating the advantages of those values we claim to be spreading.

I don’t know or care about Clark’s motivations in taking on these cases. I’m just glad someone’s willing to play this indispensable role in the process of justice. Otherwise, whatever might happen to people like Hussein and his fellow global villains will not have truly been done in the name of justice, and that puts us uncomfortably close to being in their company.

And that’s The Counterpoint.

Hyman Index: 4.35


At 4:05 PM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

Saddam didn't need Clark to go running to his defense. Saddam is a sworn enemy of this country. Saddam's Iraqi representation are more than up to the task. It is simply wrong of Clark to go 'in the name of justice' to defend the thug, no ifs, ands, or buts. Period, end of story.

And while we're on the topic of terrorism and liberal hypocrisy, here's a nice little tidbit:

From Byron York's piece at National Review Online: "Clinton claimed authority to order no-warrant searches." Does anyone remember that? "In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has, quote, 'inherent authority,' unquote, to order physical searches, including break-ins at the homes of US citizens for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body, even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress' decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court," that's FISA, "President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own. Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate intelligence committee July 14th, '94." She said, again, "'The Department of Justice believes and the case law supports that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes, and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the attorney general. It's important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities. Executive Order 12333 signed by Ronald Reagan in '81 provides for such warrantless searches directed against, quote, 'a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power,' unquote."

liberal hypocrisy at its finest.

Today's liberals - party before country.

At 4:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sick Smear-o-Meter: THIRTEEN!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This is now at least the THIRTEENTH time Sick of Spin has refused to provide any evidence for his smear against Ted Remington (Sick claimed the Ted abused his academic position by politicizing his work.)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Sick talks about hypocrisy? Sick, what do you call an individual who smears without data? A coward? A hypocrite?

Sick, I'm not going to blame the Republicans or Conservatives for your lack of fair play or civility. I blame you.

At 12:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah yes, I see that Sick is back to his old cut-and-paste activities.
What's this -
"Executive Order 12333 signed by Ronald Reagan in '81 provides for such warrantless searches directed against, quote, 'a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."
Reagan is another conservative criminal who escaped justice and should have spent his incoherent golden years in prison, along with his vice-criminal George H. W. Bush.

At 1:24 AM, Anonymous hyman's turtle said...

dear sick,
just a thought. while clinton may or may not have argued in favor of warrantless searches, the question remains, did he actually authorize them as we know bush did when it came to warrantless wiretaps? it's one thing to argue for a power, it's another to utilize it. did clinton in fact circumvent the fisa court, and with it the law, as bush may have done? clearly, when it comes to cutting-and-pasting someone else's work, you're the best that ever lived, but do you have any evidence clinton practiced what he preached? i'll give you some time to find an answer to plagerize.
on a related note, i love how the righties villify clinton every chance they get, except when it appears he and bush may have been on the same page. then suddenly clinton is a genius. i guess even the greatest liar in history can get it right here and there.
also, sick, you dismiss ted's argument on behalf of justice and the rule of law completely out-of-hand, saying only that it's simply wrong to defend hussein. that's not much of an argument. if you need more time though, feel free to cut-and-paste something at your leisure. and as far as saddam's representatives being up to the task goes, you may have noticed they are dropping like flies. in america, i suspect that would be grounds for a mistrial. seems to me, a lot of law-and-order republicans are only for law-and-order when it comes to bill clinton. along those lines, your use of quotes around the phrase "in the name of justice" suggests a real contempt for even the slightest appearance of fairness. i agree saddam was a sick bastard and deserves the same fate as the thousands or even millions of iraqis he tortured and murdered. but when we stoop to his level and adopt the same disdain for fairness, justice, and the law, how are we any better? i'm sure rush limbaugh has an answer. let me know when you find it.
p.s. ted kicks ass!
hyman's turtle

At 1:14 AM, Anonymous hyman's turtle said...

dear sick,
i was hoping to hear back from you by now but i guess rush was on to other topics today so let me answer my own question about your cut-and-paste job of byron york's impressive example of selective quoting.
yes, the clinton administration did argue in 1994 that it had the authority to conduct warrantless searches. but first off, warrantless *searches are different from the warrantless *wiretaps that bush approved, in apparant violation of fisa rules. second, at the time in 1994, those searches were not covered by fisa. so in that respect, yes, clinton did have the authority since fisa did not.
york's article, as you quote it, also says gorelick continued to argue for warrantless searches in 1994 after the authority was granted to fisa, but that authority wasn't granted until 1995. that would make york's account chronologically impossible, and in fact, once fisa was granted authority over searches, clinton never said the authority still rested with him. york is wrong either way.
i tried to warn you before. this is what happens when you let liars do your thinking for you.
for those of you keeping score at home, that's:
ted and friends- 152
sick-of-spin- 0

At 1:22 AM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

Your (as in this mind-numbed group of tjr kool-aid-drinkers) hypocrisy is clear.

It's ok for Clinton to have inherent authority, but it's not ok for Bush to have it.

Pathetically amazing.....

At 9:48 AM, Anonymous hyman's turtle said...

it's not hypocrisy, it's fact and it's really quite simple.
searches not covered by fisa- ergo- clinton has authority.
wiretaps are covered by fisa- ergo- bush does not have authority.
score- ted and co. 153
sick 0

the shutout remains intact

At 12:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sick Smear-o-Meter: FOURTEEN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This is now at least the FOURTEENTH time Sick of Spin has refused to provide any evidence for his smear against Ted Remington (Sick claimed the Ted abused his academic position by politicizing his work.)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Look up above on this thread and you'll see how sick rants, accuses, etc., but STILL fails to come clean. He doesn't understand "Put up or shut up".

Sick calls us bloggers hypocrites? The evidence of Sick's ill-will and hypocrisy are seen on these pages.

His own posts are his own worst enemy.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.