Ramsey Clark and Milosevicz

David Quarter davidquarter at sympatico.ca
Sat May 17 17:15:47 MDT 2003


I'm normally don't agree with Jared Israel's statements (I don't like
him as a person either!), but in this instance I think he is spot on.

See  "Exhibit B":  http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/ramsey1.htm

The key point here is that Clark WAS APPOINTED BY the  so-
called "Hague Tribunal" -- an illegal court, controlled and funded by
western governments and bankers. Mr Milosevic does not
recognize the court, and therefore rejects any lawyers it appoints
to "represent him in the proceedings". The Hague officials (not
least, the government and corporate interests that controls this
"court") would like nothing better for Milosevic and the other
"defendents"  to recognize the legitimacy of the proccedings.
Which is why, when some individual or another charged with "war
crimes" by the Hague turn his or herself in "to stand trial before the
court", in their own words, to "prove their innocence", you''ll hear
statements to the effects by the court-appointed spokespeople that
 "we laud the "cooperation of [so and so] and urges all other
fugitives at large to follow this path". Milosevic  has refused to play
into this trap by instead continually insisting that the court has NO
legimitacy, while refuting the charges leveleved against him.
Therefore, can you criticize J. Israel for being a little suspicious (to
say the least) when Clark then goes against Milosevic's wishes
and decides to speak on his behalf?  I would be to.  Perhaps,  it is
a bit farfetched (though I happen to think otherwise) to  make the
leap from Clark going against Milosevic's wishes to Clark being a
patsy of the court. But, it is not a fair to criticize Clark for at the
very least inadvertently doing the bidding of the so-called "Hague
Tribunal"  (and its sponsor -- western imperialism)?


<<<<<Next, Jared Israel relies on the word of the United Nations
that Milosevic
"rejected" Clark as a lawyer or adviser. But in the very text that he
relies upon to draw this conclusion, you can find the following:
has previously refused to appoint a defense team because he does
recognize the tribunal's authority." In other words, he is rejecting
lawyers, not just Clark. Furthermore, he objects to relying on them
advisers since this might have the effect of limiting his contact with
other people. In other words, no implication can be drawn that
Clark is

More information about the Marxism mailing list