Talk:Ramsey Clark

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed from the article[edit]

Ramsey also represented Charles M. Taylor, who escaped from a Somerville, Mass., prison in 1985 where is was incarcerated for embezzling $900,000, and went on to become dictator and international war crimnal in Liberia.

Is this silliness? Or can someone verify it? -- sannse 16:03 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The New Yorker and the Somerville Journal agree. Don't know if it's true, though. Also, it seems odd to talk about Taylor's later life in an article on Clark, as if the purpose is to smear Clark through Taylor's later actions. DanKeshet 17:12 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Humm, yes. It seems a valid addition that Clark represented Taylor, but I'm sure we can do so without the implications. How about something like: "Ramsey also represented Charles Taylor during his 1985 fight against extradition from the United States to Liberia". The rest of the story, if true, should be in the Charles Taylor article rather than here. -- sannse 19:26 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Didn't Clark also represent Slobodan Milosevic in his current war crimes trial, at least for awhile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:38, 6 November 2003 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The quote at the end is not attributed to anyone or any group. Please add an attribution if it is put back in. 17:26, 13 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed this:

Most Legal professionals agree that Clark uses these high profile trials to draw attention to his causes while neglecting his actual responsibility as a defense attorney.

I don't think we can say that "most" legals professional agree to that; most legal professionals couldn't care less about Ramsey Clark, one way or the other. If the poster, or anyone else, wants to put it back in, it should go something like this:

Many prominent legal professionals, including [X], argue that Clark uses high-profile trials to... [etc.]

If you can't fill in anything for X, then it probably shouldn't be in the article. --Chowbok 19:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)

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 (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I regard JillandJack's category change to be inappropriate. As I stated on the talk page for the Lynne Stewart article, JillandJack is apparently a user whose previous account was banned. This user is apparently moving to have the "Radical lawyers" category removed. Rather than letting the category status depend on that outcome, the user has chosen to empty out several articles in violation of the request on the deletion proposal flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jules7484 (talkcontribs) 09:13, 20 February 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Clark believed since Coffin and Dr. Spock were respected, if controversial, public figures who could afford legal counsel to fight back for them, their cases would take a long time and would “focus attention on the problems of the draft.” Clark says that he hoped to show Johnson that opposition to the war wasn’t limited to "draft-dodging longhairs" but included the most admired pediatrician in America, a prominent and revered patrician minister, and a respected former Kennedy Administration official (Marcus Raskin, who had been a special staff member on the National Security Council)." Can we have a source on this, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This addition is inappropriate as it was only publicised after Clark left govrernment service and by sources that are questionable. It appears as a self serving way to rationalize Clark's prosecution of the named anti-Vietnam War activists with his later advocacy of radical causes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsirvine (talkcontribs) 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed from the article 2[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 03:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Milosevic at ICTY, not ICC[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 23:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In March 2016 and November 2017, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia concluded in the Karadzic Judgment and the Mladic Judgment that Slobodan Milošević was not guilty of the war crimes he was accused of committing — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 17:59, 24 April 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User : Good edit. Gives us good insight into the mind and reasoning of Ramsey Clark. Clark prosecuted the case "to focus attention on the problems of the draft", kinda like that other famous dictum out of the same era: "destroyed the village in order to save it". At least the posting makes clear Clark didn't prosecute them because they violated the law or any such nonsense (like upholding the sworn duties of his office) but to pursue some other ends. How do I nominate you for seeing a good edit in progress? Nobs 18:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gandhi Peace Award[edit]

Should the Gandhi Peace Award really be mentioned in the lead paragraph? It doesn't seem to be very notable. I searched for it on Google and there were only 1,550 hits, and many of them seemed to be unrelated to the award described in the Gandhi Peace Award article. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 20:09, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Does the reference diminish the significance of the Gandhi Peace Award? Nobs 20:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The refererence to a non-notable award diminishes the quality of this article. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 20:52, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
While it's no Nobel Peace Prize, it's still pretty notable. Google isn't the be-all and end-all of everything. (I would imagine that the bulk of your hits were for the official Gandhi Award offered by the Indian govt.) I say let's leave it. Rlquall 23:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Gandhi Peace Award is far too easily confused with the much more significant Gandhi Award offered by the Indian goverment. The American Gandhi Peace Award is offered to the most Anti American "Progressive" of the year. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsirvine (talkcontribs) 03:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So Eleanor Roosevelt was "anti american"? In any case, it's a fact that Clark received the award, and opinions of how notable it is, what it might be confused with, and what sort of people it is awarded to are irrelevant. -- Jibal 06:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saddam Hussein[edit]

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) duh, nevermind, it's in the article Wouter Lievens 11:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More NPOV[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Jeez. Very funny about the lawyer remark, but the entry you removed is non NPOV in the extreme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsirvine (talkcontribs) 03:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, he has committed treason, by giving aid and comfort to the enemy (Saddam Hussain, Milosovic). Treason is punishable by death, and he is well deserving. It's not POV, it's just fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He was a lawyer defending his clients before legitimate international tribunals. Every defendant has a right to the counsel of his/her choosing. Ever read the 6th Amendment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Every American defendent. Radovan Karadžić, Charles Taylor, Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milošević are foreigners who the U.S. government has the right to declare enemies and thus declare the giving of [legal] aid consitutes treason. —VolatileChemical — Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This may be rather late, but technically, Clark is guilty of treason as defined under the US Constitution and interpreted by the federal courts. During the Nuremberg trials, military lawyers were under professional obligation to defend the nazi war criminals (as in, they had been ordered to do so by a superior officer). Otherwise, it must be considered aid and comfort to provide any professional services or material support to an enemy of the United States. Practicing law must reasonably be considered a professional service. Ergo, representing the enemies of the United States in foreign courts is by definition treasonous. That the federal government has opted not to act on the fact doesn't change it. *** —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Like most of the anti-war liberals from the '60's, he demoralized the troops and cost American lives. Plus, peole like Ramsay Clark never came to terms with the fact that there were evil people in North Vietnam, and they killed more people after we left than we killed while we were there. He is a liberal idealist that doesn't realize the world has evil people in it. The great irony is that in the name of peace, he has repeatedly gone to countries that we in conflict with and said that America is at fault, and by doing so, has ultimately demoralized the US and cost the lives of American troops. Clark will die with blood on his hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

His father Tom[edit]

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. 14:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

More recently, Clark has become notorious for his outspoken political views[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 00:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Clark's Professionalism[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

My intention was not to "pick sides", my source was a cnn segment discussing Clark's career, but I suppose it is difficult to reference a television program. Until I can find a written source I have no problem if someone adds wording that downplays the claim, but I still feel somthing should be written about it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involvement with Saddam Hussein trial[edit]

Could some one please explain why this piece of S**t is involved with the Hussian trial?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 01:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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 (talkcontribs) 17:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

That said, this man clearly goes out of his way to bash the United States. He has said "the worst thing to happen since WWII has been American Foreign Policy". As a Advocate for world freedom and a student of history, i would argue the liberation of Eastern Europe (my ethnic homeland) and other nations almost worldwide makes America a clear force of good. Yes, the United States is not an angelic state, but we should not allow mistakes of the past to cloud the overall trends. For every Chile there is a Poland. In that regard i would easily regester this man as a overt enemy of world freedom, bassed solely on his blind contempt for the foreign policy of the United States. --Brandon Warzybok 23:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Could someone please explain why people are posting their personal opinions about Clark, Hussein, and the ethics of lawyers, opinions that have nothing to do with the purpose of WP talk pages? I suggest [re]reading Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and the rest of WP policies to get a better idea of what this encyclopedia is about. -- Jibal 06:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"On November 28 in a BBC interview, Clark offered the opinion that the massacre of 148 Iraqi Shi'ite men and boys in 1982 during the Iraq-Iran War was justified, as: 'He [Saddam] had this huge war going on, and you have to act firmly when you have an assassination attempt'[1]".

-As much as I dislike Ramsey Clark's opinions I think the preceding quote is unecessarily specific in light of his entire "career" and "crimes" and also unecessarily inflammatory. Most mainstream readers have already concluded that Clark is a delusional far left extremist, there is no need to rub everyone's nose in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsirvine (talkcontribs) 03:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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 (talkcontribs) 22:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for wording change: "He later achieved significant notoriety as an advocate for left-wing political causes." You want wording more neutral here. Left wing causes are only automatically notorious to right wingers. Notoriety does not mean the same as fame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever one thinks or feels about Clark, a Wikipedia article is not the place in which to vent those feelings or views. As for Clark's defense of Saddam Hussein, keep in mind that Nazi war criminals were offered a vigorous defense by reputable and respected lawyers at the Nuremberg trials, none of whom were branded traitors for having done so. In addition, Clarence Darrow defended the notorious and despicable murderers Leopold and Loeb, to his credit. There are many more examples.

As for Clark's criticisms of the USA, he has a right to express whatever views he has. That right, presumably, is one thing that makes our country great. Again, your personal opposition to his opinions does not give you the right to negatively characterize him for having them in a article that purports to be factual and politically neutral. This is Wikipedia, not Stalinpedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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 (talkcontribs) 17:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ramsey Clark Interview[edit]

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: [1] I hope that these details can be added to the article if you find it useful. -- 21:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Specificity with his quote about necessity of Saddam's actions[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 01:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please sign your statement. Dogru144 14:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moment and nature of Clark's transformation from conventional liberal government office-holder to radical[edit]

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)Reply[reply]


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 (talkcontribs) 17:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expanded International Activism section[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Neutrality dispute[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Paragraph needs to be fixed[edit]

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 (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Echoing and supporting Al Qaeda - removed[edit]

"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 (talkcontribs) 20:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most people would be suspicious of anyone just having the same point of view as Al Queada while not actively supporting them. Providing support, at least matterial, would land him in prison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV 2[edit]

"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 (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Clark drew criticism for defending some of the worst dictators" I'm sorry, this whole article is so terrible, I'm going to clean a lot of it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is an absolute joke, to say the least. It is akin to a biography with about half the chapters ripped out. There are so many glaring omissions, one wonders why someone even bothered to write an article about Clark. For instance, there is no mention of Clark's International Action Center, its involvement with ANSWER, its so-called fact-finding missions in North Korea and its predictable praise of the Kim Jong Il and the living conditions present in North Korea. Clark is a modern day Walter Duranty with a law degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing Milošević info?[edit]

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? (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17 US "major aggressions"[edit]

  • 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..."

Where was this article published? It looks more like an email than an article. The website that hosts it, , 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Efforts to impeach George W. Bush[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ramsey Clark/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Just curious about the time line - Clark received both an MA and a JD in a year from U of Chicago? Sounds amazing to me.

Last edited at 23:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 03:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reports of his death[edit]

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.

wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • I saw that link in the Recent Deaths section, and went looking for an English-language link; but haven't found one that would be reliable so far (my other tab at the moment was from a site called InsideEko; but definitely am not considering them reliable due to links claiming the deaths of Tom Hanks and Goldie Hawn as well as a link for an obituary of Prince Philip dating to February (whereas Prince Philip had passed away only yesterday). Still on the lookout for anything definite. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • And I see a definite confirmation has been added per the New York Times. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, I am a personal friend and collaborator with Ramsey, who died yesterday and I admit I am mourning and hope someone will read this and consider what I am saying. The section of this article on Clark's international activism and analysis by sociologists is obviously biased again him and follows the reasoning and characterizations of those who opposed the U.S. attempts at taking away a nation's sovereignty. The "evil dictators" touted by the U.S. state department is repeated with no regard to facts. I'm surprised this article doesn't also include the lies about the babies being thrown from incubators - the justification for the Iraq war - and the media and government officials who said those lies are still used as legitimate sources for the people like Milosovich who is thrown in as an example of Clark's mistakes for defending him. Does anyone know that Milosovich was exonerated in the criminal court - after his death? But this article still cites him to take away from Clark's legacy.

Maybe you should consider this point of view that I wrote about Clark's life:

Today a dear friend and inspiration of mine died. I traveled with him to the many targets of U.S. imperialism and met heads of state with this person who had the clout to go anywhere and who didn't mind being vilified by the corporate media that slavishly toed the line of the U.S. state department regarding his integrity, simply because he refused to go along with the lies of U.S. imperialism when they wanted to go to war, either overtly or covertly, against countries that insisted on their sovereignty and their usage of varying aspects of socialism. This person was, and will be remembered throughout human history, as a person of principle who turned his back on his privilege and connections to the ruling class when, during the Johnson Administration he refused to go along with the bombing of Cambodia and the Vietnam War. He turned his back on Johnson's cabinet position and instead put his body in harms way to stop the U.S. war drive whether it was in Sudan or in Vietnam or Syria or Iraq or anywhere he felt he could use his status to stop his country, which he quoted Martin Luther King Jr as saying, was the greatest purveyor of violence today. And he wanted to save children's lives. He assisted and led legal battles that were instrumental in helping to expose and hamper the FBI, CIA and State Department in their attacks against the democratic rights of workers and oppressed people here and abroad. And, still remained approachable, comforting and gentle to me and anyone he deemed working for the good of the planet. On our trips, in spite of his notoriety, he refused to fly first class and carried with him one outfit only, a modest jacket and tie and pants to match. Two week ago I gave him a call, probably one of the best decisions I made in life. I needed to see about an endorsement for an anti-imperialist webinar but mainly wanted to touch base and make sure he knew how important and loved he was to our movement even while he was 93 years old. He mainly wanted to talk about the right wing riot at the Capitol so I didn't want to bring up the endorsement and just enjoyed hearing his reflections on it. When the call ended I made damn sure he knew how important he was to all of us in the movement and to human history - one of the best decisions i made in life. Ramsey Clark - presente! John Thompson Parker - Harriet Tubman Center for Social Justice and Socialist Unity Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnp99999 (talkcontribs) 23:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Father and son attorneys general[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

I could not find anything specific that says they are the only father and son attorneys general. The NY Times article cited this ( 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]