Replies

I am amazed at the idea that a vigorous defense of someone accused of a crime is now deemed treasonous. I suspect the founders would be rolling in their graves at the notion.

You've managed to miss the entire point. We don't consider Ramsey Clark a traitor for offering to represent Saddam. We've thought of old Ramsey as a lying treasonous America-hating communist bastard for years. This development doesn't even rate as the cherry on the sundae. If he had NOT offered to defend Saddam (which was utterly predictable), his sentiments on this occasion would still have provoked the same reaction on our part.

If a spirited defense is only acceptable for those deemed "worthy" of defense then we are making a mockery of justice.

Well, again, you're addressing the wrong group of people. Ramsey Clark knows all about "mockeries of justice", he's directly participated in many. If his offer is accepted, Saddam's trial will be Theatre of the Absurd.

It all depends on what you call treason. If you mean some subjective, ad hoc definition of treason that bears no resemblance to the legal definition of treason then...OKAY! But if you mean the actual legal definition of treason then you are going to run into difficulties. If dissent and opposition to policy, however sparky, annoying and vociferous were treason, then Democrats would have had us in prison long ago. While Ramsay Clarke is misguided, wrong, gullible, and cantankerous those elements do not constitute legal treason. I would caution that words have meaning. Clarke is Unamerican. However even being unamerican is not treason.