Not sure myself, actually. Saddam's right to council should be a given, but who should provide it is a legit subject of debate. Clark wouldn't simply represent Saddam in court; he would represent the anti-war movement. No eloquent plea to respect the right to council will change that, even assuming (and I'm not sure you can) that Saddam is in danger of being denied council. Furthermore, with the Free Milosevic! campaign that Clark headed before, the issue wasn't merely providing council, but stopping the trial, and even setting the tyrant free.
marc rodrigues wrote:
> the reason why i even made the original post was because i
> saw it as a huge *tactical* mistake on the part of one of the
> figureheads/celebrity spokespersons for (sadly) one of the
> largest "anti-war" groups out there to basically fall into the
> hands of critics of "the movement" by volunteering to defend
> saddam. if ramsey clark was just some random, weird former
> attorney general as opposed to one associated with
> IAC/ANSWER then i wouldn't give a fuck.
Indeed, but it's not a tactical mistake for authentic supporters of Saddam Hussein. As Doug noted, when the Ba'ath regime fell, ANSWER wasn't able to reach their contacts in Iraq because they'd all gone underground. As much as these yellow-billed, webbed-footed fowl waddle and quack, it's not jingoist bs to call them ducks.
-- Shane
________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!