Doug wrote:
> 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
-I think there's a real tension here--yes, someone needed to be their lawyer, -but whoever that someone turns out to be is contemptible.
This is one reason why many classic political cases sought lawyers who obviously and publicly disagreed with the views of their client but, in the Voltairian sense, would die for their right to have those views.
The problem is that Ramsey so clearly picks the same odious defendants who are linked to his odious general politics-- dismissing genocide himself in Bosnia AND defending Milosevic. His legal practice is clearly an adjunct to his political partisanship.
Which I have no problem with, but when you link your legal cases to your general politics, others have the right to judge you by your clients.
Lou Paulsen raised the issue that Clark's purpose here is to challenge "the legitimacy of the court itself", which I agree is his motivation, which makes his choice of clients all the more reflective of his politics, since the purpose of these courts is to address the acts of just such people who have escaped any court jurisdiction who Ramsey defends politically in many cases. You know, I actually am a bit skeptical myself of these international courts that have little legsislative grounding-- too much judge power which most folks know I don't like -- so I might actually appreciate some international lawyer with no stake in the politics of Milosevic jumping into the case.
But then, such a case would have the lawyer in question taking Milosevic as one of many other clients, most of whom would not fit the profile of genocidal dictators that Ramsey seems to favor.
To amend my statement, a lawyer is never known by one client, but a lawyer is definately known by his clientele.
-- nathan newman