Milosovic, I'll grant, is off the charts on the radioactivity scale. But presumably, at least with respect to Milo, Clark's idea is that the US and NATO don't have the right to cynically depose and put on trial evil pets that become inconvenient -- a principle that has some application to current events.
Anyway, I thought you _were_ a liberal. What part of (1) universal sufferage, (2) competitive elections, and (3) extensive civil and political rights (the defining tenets of political liberalism) do you disagree with?
jks
--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> >Doug produces some curiously illiberal statements
> >below about very bad guys not being entitled to
> good
> >defenses by lawyers on the political left.
>
> What can I say? I'm not a liberal. I don't think it
> does the cause of
> fighting U.S. imperialism - which I assume is
> Clark's cause - any
> good by being associated with the Rwandan genocide.
> That's a
> political judgment, not a legal opinion. I don't
> have the same
> feeling at all about, say, Tigar defending Nichols
> or Stewart
> defending the sheik or Counselor X defending a
> career mugger. Their
> histories are different, and the cases far less
radioactive.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/