[Marxism] Ramsey Clark and Saddam

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

NY Observer, Jan. 5, 2005
Ramsey Clark: Why I?m Taking Saddam?s Case
by Lizzy Ratner

"You can?t be sure of how the trial will go," said longtime Manhattan 
civil-rights attorney Ramsey Clark, wagging a long, slender forefinger. 
"But you could say that if it?s properly done, it will be the biggest trial 
of this century."

Mr. Clark was talking about the trial of Saddam Hussein, whom he recently 
signed on to represent before a special tribunal in Baghdad. For the man 
who has represented Leonard Peltier, the Harrisburg Seven and the Attica 
Brothers, but also prosecuted war resisters in the Johnson 
administration?indeed, for the man who, as a young Marine Corps courier, 
witnessed the Nuremberg trials after World War II?calling it the "trial of 
the century" was no small thing.

Ramsey Clark was in his office, in a loft on East 12th Street in the East 
Village, speaking like a law professor across a large slab of a wooden 
table. He?d just returned a few days before from a visit to Jordan, where 
he met with other members of Mr. Hussein?s legal team as well as the 
families of both Mr. Hussein and former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. 
In the room hung an Salvadoran solidarity poster and a painting by Mr. 
Peltier. The painting is of an old Native American woman with a single tear 
running down her cheek; it?s called Big Lady Mountain.

By Mr. Clark?s own telling, his interest in representing the deposed Iraqi 
leader was inflamed when media reports started coming in of Mr. Hussein?s 
arrest in a spider-hole hideout in the desert. He said he was "shocked" by 
the images he saw.

"The savage presentation of [Mr. Hussein], disheveled, with his mouth open, 
people probing in his mouth, the dehumanization," he said. "I represented 
Indian peoples for many years, and I can?t tell you how many Indians I?ve 
worked with called after they saw the picture and said, ?That?s exactly the 
way they treated us.? And this is hardly the road to peace if you want 
respect for human dignity.

"I wrote to him a year ago in December, shortly after he was arrested," he 
continued. "I?d also written to Tariq Aziz right after he turned himself in 
April of ?03, because I thought it was essential that they have independent 
contact immediately to assure their proper treatment. And I was repeatedly 
turned down as to both.

"I did it because, obviously, these cases are extremely important in terms 
of history and in terms of reconciliation of peoples, and in terms of 
belief in truth and justice as a priority over force and violence," Mr. 
Clark said. "It?s about addressing the concept of victor?s justice, which 
is only the exercise of power. If you really want peace, you have to 
satisfy people about the honor of your purpose."

Mr. Clark has not been able to meet with Mr. Hussein since he sent his letter.

"There has not been anything approaching adequate contact with him," he 
said. "None of his family has seen him; only one lawyer has seen him, and 
that was in the first half of December?a full year after his arrest. It was 
by a single person, with soldiers standing by, hearing, with whatever other 
type of surveillance there might have been.

"And there?s not adequate contact with that lawyer, who?s an Iraqi. So for 
a defense to be developed, there has to be extensive communication with the 
principal person whose life it involves.

"He is a decisive, knowledgeable person," Mr. Clark said, "and has to play 
a major role in every aspect of choosing a defense team and preparing a 
defense. The lack of access to him is a major violation. Our Supreme Court 
has thrown cases out where a person wasn?t given access to independent 
non-police parties within 48 hours of arrest, within less than 12 hours. 
Here you?ve got 12 months. That sounds technical, but it?s not technical at 
all?it?s the essential beginning."

It?s not that he?s never met Mr. Hussein.

Mr. Clark?s history with the former Iraqi leader dates back to the first 
Gulf War, when Mr. Clark traveled to Iraq to protest the U.S.-led 
coalition?s bombing campaign. He spent 14 days chronicling the destruction 
and later defied sanctions by returning on dozens of aid missions. He met 
with Mr. Hussein on at least four of these occasions, including a 
month-long visit just before the March 2003 invasion.

"I?ve met with him I think four times, probably averaged two to three hours 
at a time," he said. "In presence he is reserved, quiet, 
thoughtful?dignified, you might say, in the old-fashioned sense. I?m not a 
big fan of dignity in the old-fashioned sense of stuffiness or posture."

Could he see how that might be praising with faint damnation a man who is 
said to have ordered the deaths of some 300,000 of his own citizens?

"I have long believed that one of the greatest barriers to peace is 
demonization," Mr. Clark said. "It has always been necessary in war for 
soldiers to demonize the enemy. Now, with the mass media saturating the 
public with perceptions that come from very slim contact with actuality and 
are heavily influenced by desire and prejudice, we demonize."

And if other lawyers might blanch at the argument that it was the American 
media who demonized Saddam?wasn?t he something of a demon to begin with? If 
it were a simple referendum on Mr. Hussein?s treatment of the Kurds or 
political dissidents, who could possibly represent him in good faith? But 
what if the trial of Saddam Hussein is really a referendum on the American 
campaign in Iraq?

"Demonization is the most dangerous form of prejudice," Mr. Clark 
continued. "Once you call something evil, it?s easy to justify anything you 
might do to harm that evil. Evil has no rights, it has no human dignity, it 
has to be destroyed. That?s how you get your Fallujas, your Abu Ghraibs, 
your shock-and-awes."

And, like many civil-rights lawyers, Mr. Clark believes he?s representing a 
client in a court that is fundamentally flawed.

"A tribunal that doesn?t meet the standards of international law can do 
enormous harm. International law requires first that a tribunal be created 
by legal authority, by pre-existing legal authority," he argued. "That?s 
referred to as competence. After competence comes independence?it can?t be 
subject to political power. And finally, it has to be impartial. If it?s 
not impartial, what?s the point? Why don?t you just go ahead and say ?Hang 
him? instead of this ruse?

"Now, the present Iraqi court meets none of those standards. It was a 
creation of the U.S. military occupation, the so-called governing council, 
which was appointed by the U.S. And who becomes the first judge of the 
court? Chalabi?s nephew. I mean, suppose he?s the most honorable person in 
the world, this nephew? Is it really conceivable that that?s the person 
that ought to be judge in a world as big as this? So you don?t have 
independence, because everything depends on what the U.S. does for the 
court: financing, training, selection and everything else. You don?t have 
competence, because it?s not legal. And you don?t have impartiality, as far 
as can be told from the appearance.

"The only existing court that is competent and independent and impartial is 
the International Criminal Court, which came into existence July 1, 2002. 
It?s a court the U.S. opposed. It?s a court the U.S. tragically weakened, 
but it?s been approved by more than 120 countries.

"The judges were appointed not by the U.S., but the Iraqis, and after the 
new government comes to power, they will have to be reconfirmed," said 
Michael Scharf, a human-rights lawyer at Case Western Reserve who has 
helped train Iraqi judges, when Mr. Clark?s claims were put before him. 
"Not only that: The judges who I work with are extremely independent 
people. They have no particular love for the United States. These are 
people who were chosen for their expertise and independence."

Mr. Clark is 77 years old, stooped and slender. He was wearing New Balance 
sneakers and a worn blue button-down shirt tucked into a pair of wool or 
polyester pants that might have dated from his early political career. He 
has wide-set eyes, a bit like a crawfish. And to many, his movements are 
just as mysterious?sideways, quirky, puzzling.

"Ramsey is a mystery," said Melvin Wulf, an old colleague who shared a law 
practice with Mr. Clark during the late 1970?s and early 1980?s, in an 
earlier interview. "I saw him every day, but I didn?t know him any better 
at the end of five years than I knew him on the first day. He plays himself 
very close to the vest, consults with no one except for himself."

Outside the room, the office manager, Ben Cheney, brother of the slain 
civil-rights activist, typed at a keyboard. A few unlikely magazines?The 
New Yorker, Gourmet, Opera News?sat in a stack in the waiting room for 
visitors. Like some small-town doctor?s office, there were no visitors and 
the office was quiet?nothing that would suggest that this was the home away 
from home of one of the most controversial attorneys in the United States.

It all started in the last hoary week of 2004, when Mr. Clark jetted over 
to Jordan for a conference with 20 or so other attorneys on Dec. 28 to 
start forming their strategy.

Reaction to Mr. Clark?s trip was swift and certain across the political 
spectrum. On the right, bloggers for Web sites like RightNation declared 
that he should be "tried for sedition and treason." The New York Sun 
accused him of losing all "credibility when it comes to claiming to be for 
peace." Even some of his left-wing comrades rolled their eyes when they 
heard that he?d signed on to represent a man who had allegedly ordered 
300,000 political killings.

"I do think that Saddam, like anybody else, does have a right to a fair 
trial and a competent lawyer. I?m just not sure why Ramsey Clark needs to 
do that," said Leslie Cagan, a longtime peace and justice activist. 
"Personally, I wish he didn?t do some of those things, because he is one of 
the few public well-known leftists in this country, and it does make our 
work harder sometimes."

Conservatives loathe Mr. Clark, but even staunch progressives don?t always 
know what to make of him, and some of his closest friends say he can?t be 
easily defined: Is he a valiant "dissenter" in the tradition of Supreme 
Court Justice William O. Douglas, as his friend Victor Navasky suggested? 
Or is he an old ideologue, as others have charged, who is driven above all 
by his ties to a Communist splinter group called the Workers World Party? 
Is he a profile in courage, or a study in eccentricity?

full: http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/frontpage1.asp

--

www.marxmail.org


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism