Talk:Ramsey Clark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

It seems that this article is being slashed left and right to remove any and all information about Clark's political affiliations and any and all quotes/specific cases, etc... I should say that it is NOT POV to include these cited references, and not doing so excludes information that is germane to the article. It IS POV to whitewash and sanitize this article, however.

Contents

[edit] Removed from the article

As Attorney General, Clark also opposed the government's use of wiretaps.

This is ridiculously vague and is unsupported by cite or evidence.

Dec 30, 2004

[edit] Removed from the article

Ramsey also represented Charles M. Taylor, who escaped from a Somerville, Mass., prison in 1985 where is was incarcerated for embezzling $900,000, and went on to become dictator and international war crimnal in Liberia.

? -- sannse 16:03 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The New Yorker and the Somerville Journal agree. Don't know if it's true, though. Also, it seems odd to talk about Taylor's later life in an article on Clark, as if the purpose is to smear Clark through Taylor's later actions. DanKeshet 17:12 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Humm, yes. It seems a valid addition that Clark represented Taylor, but I'm sure we can do so without the implications. How about something like: "Ramsey also represented Charles Taylor during his 1985 fight against extradition from the United States to Liberia". The rest of the story, if true, should be in the Charles Taylor article rather than here. -- sannse 19:26 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Didn't Clark also represent Slobodan Milosevic in his current war crimes trial, at least for awhile?


The quote at the end is not attributed to anyone or any group. Please add an attribution if it is put back in.128.101.191.246 17:26, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I removed this:

Most Legal professionals agree that Clark uses these high profile trials to draw attention to his causes while neglecting his actual responsibility as a defense attorney.

I don't think we can say that "most" legals professional agree to that; most legal professionals couldn't care less about Ramsey Clark, one way or the other. If the poster, or anyone else, wants to put it back in, it should go something like this:

Many prominent legal professionals, including [X], argue that Clark uses high-profile trials to... [etc.]

If you can't fill in anything for X, then it probably shouldn't be in the article. --Chowbok 19:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Leonard Peltier is certainly considered to be a political prisoner by some; that is indisputible. So is the fact that some of those who claim this are well-known international groups such as Amnesty International. But also indisputible is the fact that he is a convicted killer. Whether this conviction is justifiable or not is the point of contention. However, I think that saying in the article "political prisoner Leonard Peltier" without qualfication is no better than saying "convicted killer Leonard Peltier" without further qualfication would be. In fact, arguably it would be worse, as the conviction is a fact, although its validity is disputed. "Political prisoner" status is merely an allegation, but one that should be noted, especially in the light of the status of the groups alledging it.

Rlquall 12:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I regard JillandJack's category change to be inappropriate. As I stated on the talk page for the Lynne Stewart article, JillandJack is apparently a user whose previous account was banned. This user is apparently moving to have the "Radical lawyers" category removed. Rather than letting the category status depend on that outcome, the user has chosen to empty out several articles in violation of the request on the deletion proposal flag.


"Clark believed since Coffin and Dr. Spock were respected, if controversial, public figures who could afford legal counsel to fight back for them, their cases would take a long time and would “focus attention on the problems of the draft.” Clark says that he hoped to show Johnson that opposition to the war wasn’t limited to "draft-dodging longhairs" but included the most admired pediatrician in America, a prominent and revered patrician minister, and a respected former Kennedy Administration official (Marcus Raskin, who had been a special staff member on the National Security Council)." Can we have a source on this, please?

This addition is inappropriate as it was only publicised after Clark left govrernment service and by sources that are questionable. It appears as a self serving way to rationalize Clark's prosecution of the named anti-Vietnam War activists with his later advocacy of radical causes.

[edit] POV

The entire section describing Clark's activities after leaving government carries a political bias against those activities. I edited the caption of this section, which previously had been "Controversial activities", but the entire section needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view.

[edit] Milosevic at ICTY, not ICC

Milosevic is at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), not at the ICC. I've edited this.

User 209.86.3.233 : Good edit. Gives us good insight into the mind and reasoning of Ramsey Clark. Clark prosecuted the case "to focus attention on the problems of the draft", kinda like that other famous dictum out of the same era: "destroyed the village in order to save it". At least the posting makes clear Clark didn't prosecute them because they violated the law or any such nonsense (like upholding the sworn duties of his office) but to pursue some other ends. How do I nominate you for seeing a good edit in progress? Nobs 18:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gandhi Peace Award

Should the Gandhi Peace Award really be mentioned in the lead paragraph? It doesn't seem to be very notable. I searched for it on Google and there were only 1,550 hits, and many of them seemed to be unrelated to the award described in the Gandhi Peace Award article. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 20:09, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Does the reference diminish the significance of the Gandhi Peace Award? Nobs 20:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The refererence to a non-notable award diminishes the quality of this article. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 20:52, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
While it's no Nobel Peace Prize, it's still pretty notable. Google isn't the be-all and end-all of everything. (I would imagine that the bulk of your hits were for the official Gandhi Award offered by the Indian govt.) I say let's leave it. Rlquall 23:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The Gandhi Peace Award is far too easily confused with the much more significant Gandhi Award offered by the Indian goverment. The American Gandhi Peace Award is offered to the most Anti American "Progressive" of the year. :-)
So Eleanor Roosevelt was "anti american"? In any case, it's a fact that Clark received the award, and opinions of how notable it is, what it might be confused with, and what sort of people it is awarded to are irrelevant. -- Jibal 06:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein

I read somewhere that he currently is involved (as lawyer?) in the trial against Saddam Hussein, anyone who can confirm this? Wouter Lievens 11:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC) duh, nevermind, it's in the article Wouter Lievens 11:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More NPOV

I think I'm going to go ahead and take out "making him a traitor to his country", since it's not even written correctly, let alone a fair assertion in any way, since he's a lawyer. MMZach 19:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Jeez. Very funny about the lawyer remark, but the entry you removed is non NPOV in the extreme.

Well, he has committed treason, by giving aid and comfort to the enemy (Saddam Hussain, Milosovic). Treason is punishable by death, and he is well deserving. It's not POV, it's just fact.

He was a lawyer defending his clients before legitimate international tribunals. Every defendant has a right to the counsel of his/her choosing. Ever read the 6th Amendment?

Every American defendent. Radovan Karadžić, Charles Taylor, Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milošević are foreigners who the U.S. government has the right to declare enemies and thus declare the giving of [legal] aid consitutes treason. —VolatileChemical

This may be rather late, but technically, Clark is guilty of treason as defined under the US Constitution and interpreted by the federal courts. During the Nuremberg trials, military lawyers were under professional obligation to defend the nazi war criminals (as in, they had been ordered to do so by a superior officer). Otherwise, it must be considered aid and comfort to provide any professional services or material support to an enemy of the United States. Practicing law must reasonably be considered a professional service. Ergo, representing the enemies of the United States in foreign courts is by definition treasonous. That the federal government has opted not to act on the fact doesn't change it. *** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.241.110 (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Like most of the anti-war liberals from the '60's, he demoralized the troops and cost American lives. Plus, peole like Ramsay Clark never came to terms with the fact that there were evil people in North Vietnam, and they killed more people after we left than we killed while we were there. He is a liberal idealist that doesn't realize the world has evil people in it. The great irony is that in the name of peace, he has repeatedly gone to countries that we in conflict with and said that America is at fault, and by doing so, has ultimately demoralized the US and cost the lives of American troops. Clark will die with blood on his hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.239.130 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.239.130 (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] His father Tom

Could someone please explain WHY Truman said what he said about Clark's father? Without this information what we have up to now is not worth a lot. 84.59.84.81 14:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe because it was true? Anyway, it really didn't belong here; I've moved it to Tom C. Clark. --Chowbok 03:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More recently, Clark has become notorious for his outspoken political views

To some he may be notorious, wouldn't a better word be "controversial"? (This is my first ever Wikipedia post, so I'm not sure of the procedure for changing things.

Yeah, that's probably a more neutral way of wording it; I'll go ahead and change it. For future reference, you can usually go ahead and make changes directly. If they're large, or potentially controversial, it makes sense to also put a note on the talk page explaining why you made the changes. If they're really controversial or large, or on an issue that has already been debated/argued, it might make sense to put the note first ("I plan to change [x] to [y]; thoughts?"), but for most things you can just go ahead and be bold. --Delirium 13:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clark's Professionalism

Could someone please reference the claim "There is a near consensus among legal professionals that Clark uses these high profile trials to draw attention to his causes while neglecting his actual responsibility as a defense attorney." Paulleake 14:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I generally don't like claims like this as they tend to "pick sides" in controversies are are extremely difficult to prove. If no good reference can be cited, I think the statement needs to be softened. "Legal professionals have claimed Clark uses these high profile trials to draw attention to his causes while neglecting his actual responsibility as a defense attorney." Any objection to this? Taft 18:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
It was added about 20 hours ago by User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, without edit comment. I don't doubt that some people have made this allegation (it would be surprising if nobody had, given how controversial his high-profile trials combined with activism have been), but a stronger statement would need to be sourced. --Delirium 19:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

My intention was not to "pick sides", my source was a cnn segment discussing Clark's career, but I suppose it is difficult to reference a television program. Until I can find a written source I have no problem if someone adds wording that downplays the claim, but I still feel somthing should be written about it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Involvement with Saddam Hussein trial

Could some one please explain why this piece of S**t is involved with the Hussian trial??

I asked some people I know the same question, and they answered because another piece of S**t invaded Iraq, and like you, can't even spell Hussein after three years of criminality in the region.

Actually, although Clark has done many dispicable things, defending Saddam is not one of them. The right to defense counsel is a basic human right, which means that everyone's entitled to it—even somebody as evil as Hussein. --Chowbok 18:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I cannot for the life of me think of anything MORE dispicable than defending Saddam Hussein. Humor us with details here, please. What exactly has Ramsey Clark done that is more dispicable than standing up for a man as purely evil as Saddam Hussein? I know everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense but I should think that any ethical lawyer would steer clear of Hussein as a matter of course unless there is no personal objection to what Hussein did.
How can "everyone" get a vigorous defense if "ethical" lawyers are to "steer clear" of particularly odious defendants? What exactly does "everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense" even mean, if the people providing said vigorous defense are to be vilified? --Chowbok 06:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That said, this man clearly goes out of his way to bash the United States. He has said "the worst thing to happen since WWII has been American Foreign Policy". As a Advocate for world freedom and a student of history, i would argue the liberation of Eastern Europe (my ethnic homeland) and other nations almost worldwide makes America a clear force of good. Yes, the United States is not an angelic state, but we should not allow mistakes of the past to cloud the overall trends. For every Chile there is a Poland. In that regard i would easily regester this man as a overt enemy of world freedom, bassed solely on his blind contempt for the foreign policy of the United States. --Brandon Warzybok 23:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said. I'm no fan of Clark. But it's a pet peeve of mine when people argue, or imply, that accused criminals aren't entitled to defense counsel, or that lawyers that provide said counsel are somehow acting dishonorably. --Chowbok 19:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please explain why people are posting their personal opinions about Clark, Hussein, and the ethics of lawyers, opinions that have nothing to do with the purpose of WP talk pages? I suggest [re]reading Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and the rest of WP policies to get a better idea of what this encyclopedia is about. -- Jibal 06:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"On November 28 in a BBC interview, Clark offered the opinion that the massacre of 148 Iraqi Shi'ite men and boys in 1982 during the Iraq-Iran War was justified, as: 'He [Saddam] had this huge war going on, and you have to act firmly when you have an assassination attempt'[1]".

-As much as I dislike Ramsey Clark's opinions I think the preceding quote is unecessarily specific in light of his entire "career" and "crimes" and also unecessarily inflammatory. Most mainstream readers have already concluded that Clark is a delusional far left extremist, there is no need to rub everyone's nose in it.

I disagree. I mean, he said it. How can it be unnecessarily inflammatory? I think it's important to show his opinions about the man he's defending, and the argument he's making. Maybe in the long run it should be taken out—it's just one blip in a long history of worshipping tyrants—but for now, it should be left in, since the main reason he's in the news these days is because of his involvement with the Saddam trial. (By the way, you should sign your posts.)--Chowbok 18:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
How can it be unnecessarily inflammatory? Because the quote above, reporting Clark's statement, is from Christopher Hitchens, a highly opinionated but expert rhetorician. His expertise can be seen in the way he characterizes what Clark's statement referred to, and then folks accept his characterization without question. But there's no particular reason to think that Hitchens' (highly inflammatory) characterization is accurate. In fact, the quote may not even be accurate, since Hitchens seems to be the only person on earth who witnessed this BBC interview; every instance I can find is of someone quoting Hitchens quoting Clark. -- Jibal 06:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I know exactly what you're talking about, but if we included every wack job quote this washed out delusional far left extremist made this article could run to hundreds of pages. He has made outlandish statements in support of every single one of his causes. --Bsirvine 18:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but noone else has included _any_ quotes from him, you might have a point. But they haven't, so you don't. It's quite a famous quote by him, so I'm going to reinstate it.

Request for wording change: "He later achieved significant notoriety as an advocate for left-wing political causes." You want wording more neutral here. Left wing causes are only automatically notorious to right wingers. Notoriety does not mean the same as fame.


Whatever one thinks or feels about Clark, a Wikipedia article is not the place in which to vent those feelings or views. As for Clark's defense of Saddam Hussein, keep in mind that Nazi war criminals were offered a vigorous defense by reputable and respected lawyers at the Nuremberg trials, none of whom were branded traitors for having done so. In addition, Clarence Darrow defended the notorious and despicable murderers Leopold and Loeb, to his credit. There are many more examples.

As for Clark's criticisms of the USA, he has a right to express whatever views he has. That right, presumably, is one thing that makes our country great. Again, your personal opposition to his opinions does not give you the right to negatively characterize him for having them in a article that purports to be factual and politically neutral. This is Wikipedia, not Stalinpedia.

[edit] Ramsey Clark Interview

I've seen a lot of negativity on the guy and this article doesn't really deal with what Clark has to say about why he does these court cases. I found a website that shows an interview that William Morrison did. William Morrison was the guitar player for Skinny Puppy and he made a short documentary found on the latest Skinny Puppy DVD. You can view the video here: [1] I hope that these details can be added to the article if you find it useful. --69.40.118.240 21:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specificity with his quote about necessity of Saddam's actions

I've made this a bit more specific - Clark was referring to a retaliatory massacre that followed the assassination attempt.

Please sign your statement. Dogru144 14:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moment and nature of Clark's transformation from conventional liberal government office-holder to radical

One of the most curious things about Clark is that he was a conventional government lawyer in his early political years. Those of us of a certain age recall hearing his name in the news as an officer in the Johnson administration.

By the late 1980s he reemerged from political obscurity as someone that identified with radical causes.

The article ought to address this change in his political personality. Dogru144 14:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expanded International Activism section

I am trying to fix some of the POV in this article. I expanded the Activism section to provide more context for the Hitchens allegation and expulsion by the Iraqi judge . It is POV to stick in these criticisms without providing context. I also added several citations. And I changed the lawyer to one much better known who also has taken very controversial cases (Dershowitz has more than five times the google hits of the French lawyer). I also marked some quotes to fact check that I couldn't find. I notably couldn't find the Hitchens quote reportedly from the BBC, so I couldn't find context for that and left it as is. It is not in the BBC article from this date - does anyone know how to find BBC audio interviews or transcripts? Thanks, Jgui 20:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality dispute

It seems to me the neutrality of only one paragraph is in dispute, the International Activism section. It seems to me that instead of labeling the whole article as disputed why not just the one section? Xtrump 23:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)