WILD CHOICE
I have been disappointed in recent weeks since the newest lawyer named to defend Saddam Hussein has been named.
The name of a well-known American lawyer and former U.S. Attorney General under two of our Presidents has set forth before the Christmas holidays as a American voice named to speak to the world lauding the innocence of the fallen Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
I expected to see, hear and possibly even feel the heat from a large group of American citizens in a burst of anger and contempt for he man who would gloss over evil with his legal services to Saddam. There has been only a slight rustle in the Media which, is once again, getting ready, it appears to allow itself to be sucked into a frothy whirlwind of wrath and condemnation, over failure to set forth a worthy story because of what appears to be political bias.
Even now, with the New Year well underway, you can mention the name “Ramsey Clark” in public and find few people who recognize the name, much less know that he has signed- on as one of the lawyers to defend Saddam Hussein.
Ramsey Clark, to jog our mutual memories a bit, was Lyndon Johnson's Attorney-General. The fact that he was the son of Tom C. Clark the Texan who had been appointed as Attorney-General and then as a member of the Supreme Court by President Harry S. Truman. Young Ramsey worked for a time at the county District Attorney's office in Dallas, then attended the University of Chicago. With a law degree, he returned to Dallas to set up a private practice specializing in antitrust matters. He had various partners, and one who lasted five years at it, left because he found it to be “financially unviable”. That ex-partner is quoted as having said that Ramsey Clark was “on the surface very congenial, but actually was quite unforthcoming.” A Kennedy Administration official said Ramsey Clark was “a pretty laconic fellow.”
I judge that official to have been a lawyer as well because I find most people I talk with seem to make use of a variety of all fifteen choices the thesaurus agrees exist – each with synonyms aplenty which can be used to make the
current term “laconic” either a praiseworthy trait or an insult. How the term was used by the quoted “Kennedy official” we cannot say, but judging by Clark's arena
actions in subsequent years the application may well have been a critical one.
Ziad Khasawna, spokesman for the ousted Iraqi president's stable of lawyers on December 29, 2004 when Ramsey Clark arrived in Jordan where the Saddam defense
team will be based, said that Ramsey Clark “had honored and inspired “ the legal team by agreeing to help defend Saddam.
The Iraq Special Tribunal was established by US-led officials to try former government members. Clark said that the United States must also be tried for the November assault on Falluja, destruction of houses, torture in prisons and its role in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis in the war. That gives us an idea of a few of the topics Ramsey Clark will be “laconic” about once the trials begin.
Right now is the proper time for the average American citizen and for the media to make an effort to become aware of information on this man before he begins
his wholesale harangue of accusations. To some his “uninhibited idealism and fervent defense of civil liberties” endeared him to some activists. He was known – both in praise and in censure, as ”The Preacher” when, at age 33,he was on Robert F. Kennedy's Justice Department staff. Robert Kennedy was thirty-five at the time.
He made unauthorized visits to Viet Nam 1972 and to Iran during hostage crisis of 1980. He defended the Harrisburg “Seven” led by Berrigan. He defended the Boston ”Five.” He served as counsel for former Nazi camp guards; for Milosevic, the ex-president of Serbia; worked with Gaddafi, in Libya on a failed attempt to sue Great Britain and the U.S. on behalf of school children allegedly killed in a bomb attack. He filed a motion against the U.S. in the Waco,Texas “Branch Davidians” Showdown. And such a list goes on-and-on seemingly without end
Ramsey Clark also insists the current tribunal is illegal.
Now is the time for our media groups to form public opinion to inform the citizens of this nation, and of the world, lest we be caught up in yet another “Strike Boat” situation which hit most people at election time in spite
of the fact that the films have been shown on C-Span as early as April of that election year and ignored by the media in line with wishful thinking in many areas of
the complex network.
Let's make an effort to stop that from happening again.
A.L.M. January 6, 2005 [c830 wds]
