Ramsey Clark: Justifier of Massacres

Many in the anti-war movement already disapprove of Ramsey Clark, Lyndon Johnson's attorney-general-turned-Stalinist.  This is largely because of his role in the Worker's World Party and its front groups, the International Action Center, ANSWER, and the Troops Out Now Coalition.  Not only are their politics messed up, but they have successfully driven the anti-war movement into the ground. 

Another reason to dislike headline-hungry Clark was after he announced he would defend Saddam Hussein.  Not that Hussein doesn't deserve a fair trial, but why is Clark - a "notable" anti-war figure - defending a war criminal?  What message does that send about the stance of the "anti-war movement"?

But yesterday's New York Times story on Hussein's trial was too much to bear.  At the end of it, Clark is quoted justifying the massacre of 148 members of a village after an attempt on Hussein's life occurred there in 1982.

"[Hussein] had this huge war going on, and you have to act firmly when you have an assassination attempt," [Clark] said.

Wow, Ramsey, that's a pretty damn audacious thing to say. You sound an apologist for a tyrannical leader.  Maybe indicted Bush administration members can hire you after you're done in Iraq. 

Regardless, it's time for you to pack it in.  We already didn't like you, but now you've crossed the line and in my book you're never welcome at an anti-war event again.  (Thanks to Jeff Blankfort for info on this.)

Comments

[Ed Marshall]

We already didn't like you, but now you've crossed the line and in my book you're never welcome at an anti-war event again.

He'll probably have the permit in his hand before anything is even thought up. Well, not him but the WWP machinery will.

I'm all for some theorizing about "why the hell get a permit at all", but outside theory there is a very concrete problem of making a mass demonstration that by definition has to include liberals who would have a problem with that, as cowardly as it is.