>Can you spell out your reasoning a bit? "Everyone needs a lawyer, but these
>guys really don't deserve one"? Or should they have gotten a court-appointed
>lawyer who would sleep through the trial? Did they deserve a trial at all?
>Please tell the lawyers on this list who else they should not defend on pain
>of losing all credibility. This reminds me of how some people talked about
>Johnnie Cochrane.
Cochrane's a defense lawyer who's basically in it for the money. Clark is supposed to be a principled political lawyer. Defending Milosevic is pretty questionable (though I didn't support the NATO war, and I don't think he was uniquely awful), but this gang has oceans of blood on their hands. He didn't have to take the case - he chose to.
Yes, of course they deserve a trial. And if there's a trial, someone has to be their lawyer. I just don't get why Clark volunteered for the job - especially if he wants to preserve his political credibility. As far as I'm concerned, it's all gone now.
Doug