Clark might not be the best counsel, but if he is not not it is not because he was associated with the anti-war movement. You might as well say that, for example, it would be better for unionists not to be represented by someone like Maurice Sugar or Clarence Darrow, who were closely associated with the union movement. Personally, if I were in SH's shoe's I'd rather be represented by Michael Tigar -- who has a long time record of representing political prisoners from Huey Newton to Terry Nichols (and I do not here imply that Nichols was merely a political prisoner, or was not guilty of a real and terrible crime). Tigar is a great lawyer who would do a bang up job. I guess Clark must have been at least pretty good once -- you normally don't get to be AG unless you are at least pretty damn good, even if your dad was an S.Ct Justice (Tom Clark, a conservative Truman apptee), but I don't know whether Clark has actually been litigating cases the way Tigar has for yea these many years. Politically, I agree with Tom S that there seem something off about Clark representing Saddam, but it is hard to say what it is. jks
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/