Talk:Ramsey Clark

message: 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)
replies: text: Referring to Leonard Peltier as an "American Indian prisoner" without mentioning why he is imprisoned is absolutely pathetic.  It is the only instance on Wikipedia that I have seen in which the crime for which the person is imprisoned is not even mentioned.  The notion that Peltier is a political prisoner is highly debatable to say the least, but what is not debatable is the fact he was convicted of a double murder.   Failing to mention that he is a convicted murderer is an absolute joke.  I am adding it to the article.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.159.129 (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: :As Attorney General, Clark also opposed the government's use of wiretaps.
This is ridiculously vague and is unsupported by cite or evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsirvine (talk • contribs) 03:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from the article 2

message: Milosevic is at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), not at the ICC.  I've edited this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnp99999 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Milosevic at ICTY, not ICC

message: 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)
thread_title: Saddam Hussein

message: 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)
replies: text: Jeez.  Very funny about the lawyer remark, but the entry you removed is non NPOV in the extreme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsirvine (talk • contribs) 03:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Karadzic, Taylor, Hussein, and Milosevic had already been captured. It's insane to argue that Americans giving legal aid to these defendants in organizations and tribunals the US largely set up is a form of treason. If the US is going to declare giving legal aid to these people treason, why even hold the show trial? Not that the US has declared this to be treason. It's only treason in the minds of some incredibly paranoid and stupid people on the internet, who have zero legal sway.65.0.180.91 (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I realize this is late and arguing idiocy is pointless, but here goes.  First, Clark is not guilty of anything until a court says he is.  Since he's never been tried or convicted for treason, he isn't guilty of it.  Second, treason, in the US, would consist of "making war on the United States, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort".  In the context of the statement, aid and comfort is material aid or assistance to an active enemy of the United States, during war or warlike situations. Clearly Milošević, Hussein, Taylor, etc. were no longer in a position to be enemies of the United States in that way by the time they were captured, imprisoned, and on trial.  They were not then directing any kind of war on the United States, and Clark was not assisting them when they were.  Further, even outside of the US world of jurisprudence, as defendants in an international court they would be entitled to an adequate defense.  Saying that their attorney becomes treasonous merely by assisting with the trial pre-supposes their guilt, and that providing necessary legal advice is somehow a crime. --Wolfram.Tungsten (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More NPOV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: His father Tom

message: 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polizeros (talk • contribs) 00:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: More recently, Clark has become notorious for his outspoken political views

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Clark's Professionalism

message: Could some one please explain why this piece of S**t is involved with the Hussian trial?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.153.153.186 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.249.163.216 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.3.167 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmoloney (talk • contribs) 22:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Involvement with Saddam Hussein trial

message: 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.158.112 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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:
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)
thread_title: Ramsey Clark Interview

message: I've made this a bit more specific - Clark was referring to a retaliatory massacre that followed the assassination attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rostov (talk • contribs) 01:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your statement. Dogru144 14:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Specificity with his quote about necessity of Saddam's actions

message: 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)
thread_title: Moment and nature of Clark's transformation from conventional liberal government office-holder to radical

message: 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberterubin (talk • contribs) 17:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: 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)
thread_title: Expanded International Activism section

message: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality dispute

message: The following paragraph needs to be fixed or deleted:
"Former Attorney General and peace and social justice activist for his commitment to civil rights, his opposition to war and military spending and his dedication to providing legal representation to the peace movement, particularly, his efforts to free Leonard Peltier. He was awarded the Peace Abbey Courage of Conscience on October 15, 1992."
The first sentence is not gramatically correct. And it contains opinion. Notably:
"...peace and social justice activist for his commitment to civil rights, his opposition to war and military spending and his dedication to providing legal representation to the peace movement..."
contains opinion.  It is dubious, to put it mildly, to claim that Clark is a "peace and social justice activist" "providing legal representation to the peace movement" as a vocal supporter of Slobodan Milosovik, Saddam Hussein, and  
Omar al-Bashir, indicted president of Sudan, and other tyrants.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.44.230 (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph needs to be fixed

message: "Echoing and supporting Al-Qaeda and Taliban propaganda claims,..."
There is no proof in the statement or in the quoted news article that the point of view taken by Clark is in support or because of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Therefore the statement can not be upheld. One can have a similar or the same position than somebody else but on totally different grounds and without agreeing with the other person or group of persons.
To give an example, Walt and Mearsheimer claim in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy that the "Israel Lobby" is excessively controlling USA politics. They were almost immediately acclaimed and quoted by anti-Semitic groups, among others. This, however, cannot be construed as proof that Walt and Mearsheimer are anti-Semitic. They made their point on the basis not of anti-Semitic feelings, but a socio-political study of the importance of the Jewish population in the USA and their influence on the politics of the country compared to other religious or ethnic groups. Even if somebody does not agree with their conclusion, or the data they used, their position does still not qualify as anti-Semitic. 
The same applies here with Clark, at least from the evidence presented. If the author wants to maintain the deleted passage, he should provide concrete evidence of Clark not only having the same point of view but actively supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.63.103 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Echoing and supporting Al Qaeda - removed

message: "Clark drew criticism for defending some of the worst dictators of the last 25 years, such as Saddam Hussein, Radovan Karadzic and Bernard Coard.[5] He has called for war crimes against American, British, and other world leaders for human rights abuses, while ignoring and even justifying the murders and war crimes his clients have committed."
CALLED for WAR CRIMES? changed to war crimes trials, added fact, anyway clearly POV, no cites, just slander, edit it or it's removed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.43.236 (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV 2

message: The lead paragraph mentions that he was a defense attorney for Slobodan Milosevic, but the International activism section only mentions his remarks at Milošević's funeral. Was he more involved than that, or is the lead a gross exaggeration? 58.147.58.28 (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Milošević info?

message: *In June, 2006, Clark wrote an article criticizing US foreign policy in general, containing a list of 17 US "major aggressions" introduced by "Both branches of our One Party system, Democrat and Republican, favor the use of force to have their way." (the list includes the Clinton years) and followed by "The United States government may have been able to outspend the Soviet Union into economic collapse in the Cold War arms race, injuring the entire planet in the process. Now Bush has entered a new arms race and is provoking a Second Cold War..."
**The People vs. George Bush : Iraq War Crimes Tribunal
Where was this article published? It looks more like an email than an article. The website that hosts it, http://www.goodworksonearth.org/ , does not look reliable. I'm also concerned that we include a large chunk of the "article" in a collapsed section. Unless we can find a better source for this I propose it be removed.   Will Beback  talk   02:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Support removal. It appears to be a fundraising letter or e-mail. If his list was picked-up and reported on by reliable, non-biased sources, then I would likely be OK with it.  Location (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  17 US "major aggressions" 

message: Someone wrote, "For the duration of Bush's terms in office, Clark sought, unsuccessfully, to bring Bush to stand trial for impeachment."  What an appalling display of ignorance. An official does not "stand trial for impeachment."  I changed it to "For the duration of Bush's terms in office, Clark sought, unsuccessfully, for the House of Representatives to bring articles of impeachment against Bush."
Jonball52 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efforts to impeach George W. Bush 

message: Substituted at 03:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Ramsey Clark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindu.com/2007/12/17/stories/2007121754781100.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070903114253/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=86051 to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=86051
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070115083651/http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0124-26.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0124-26.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090901002813/http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Anniversary/Ramsey-Clark-bio.html to http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Anniversary/Ramsey-Clark-bio.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226073556/http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html to http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060101133842/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/624/profile.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/624/profile.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051220094929/http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/11388BFC-9290-4141-B0E1-BEA75A1B20F8.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/11388BFC-9290-4141-B0E1-BEA75A1B20F8.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226074741/http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/21/clark/ to http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/21/clark/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050303201853/http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/oralhistory.hom/ClarkR/ClarkR.asp to http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/oralhistory.hom/ClarkR/ClarkR.asp
*Added  tag to http://www.names-search.org/people/Ramsey-Clark.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070115083651/http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0124-26.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0124-26.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070718110133/http://shadow.autono.net/sin001/clark.htm to http://shadow.autono.net/sin001/clark.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On Friday, 09-April-2021, some reports appeared on Twitter that Mr. Clark had died.
I noticed that this had been added to the Wikipedia article, and then removed
due to lack of citations.
Here's _one_, but clearly it's limited.  My Spanish is about as solid as ethics
in government so I can't use this as a jumping board to look for others, but
maybe it'll help someone else. 
http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2021/04/09/fallecio-ramsey-clark-ex-fiscal-general-de-eeuu-y-amigo-de-cuba/
wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reports of his death 

message: According to the article, his father was also U.S. attorney general some twenty years earlier. Would that make them the first and/or only father and son attorneys general? Editrite! (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not find anything specific that says they are the only father and son attorneys general. The NY Times article cited this (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/10/us/politics/ramsey-clark-dead.html) but did not say they were the only ones. That being said, I could find no reference of any other father/son combos in U.S. history. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. As he was only the 66th U.S. Attorney General (infobox), the chances of there being any other father/son combos appear to be very slim. Editrite! (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father and son attorneys general