Clark Responds
Previous | TOC | Print | Next
Clark confirmed in an interview that he had spoken about the LaRouche
case in Europe at the CSCE conference, but said he had not seen the transcript
of his speech that appeared in LaRouche's New Federalist, and
said his speech was not written in advance so he had no copy. If the
report of Clark's comments in New Federalist are accurate--and
to a large degree they reflect wording in the appeals brief he signed--then
there are serious questions as to what he thinks of the LaRouchians.
Clark seems to discount as propaganda the charges that the LaRouchians
are fascists, anti-Semites, or neo-Nazis. Other critics question Mr.
Clark's decision to appear at the CSCE-related meeting at all, pointing
out that such appearances go beyond legal representation.
Clark said he had not seen any materials suggesting the LaRouche people
were using his name to organize students and others into their antiwar
work but he would like to see that material or any other related information.
But Clark seemed relatively unconcerned that the LaRouchians might be
using or abusing his name in their political work. "That's a risk
you always have," as a defense counsel, said Clark.
Clark said that the somewhat glowing description of the LaRouche political
movement in the appeals brief he signed reflected the right of any defendant
to portray itself in a positive light.
According to Clark, the prosecution of LaRouche in Virginia was a travesty
of procedure and a clear violation of the Constitutional right to a fair
trial. Clark said the issue was not whether or not the LaRouche people
were guilty of crimes, but whether or not they had received a fair trial.
On the question of representation of controversial clients on legal appeals,
Clark said:
It's a question of rights, not a question of facts. I remain focused
on the legal rights and not the nature of the person involved. I oppose
the death penalty on principle, I assume many of the people who I represent
on death penalty appeals are in fact guilty, but that is not the point.
If you have to apologize first you have a done a disservice to the
case. I resist government abuses of people's rights. The government
demonizes people...once you have conceded the demon you have lost the
principle involved in the defense. By prefacing a defense by first
saying `of course, he is a terrible person' it disables people from
considering the matter fairly.
Clark said the government had demonized people like Saddam Hussein and
Lyndon LaRouche and that he felt it was not appropriate to give in to
the pejorative labeling of such persons when discussing their activities.
This is the same rationale used by Clark in 1986 when he was criticized
for not distancing himself from his client Karl Linnas, a Nazi collaborator
who was eventually deported because he had lied about his past to gain
entrance to the U.S. after World War II. Clark represented Linnas in
an appeal which objected to the procedures followed in the deportation.
Critics of Clark, including Daniel Levitas of the Center for Democratic
Renewal, said Clark was insensitive to the fact that anti-Semitic and
pro-Nazi groups were using Clark's appeal to buttress their claims that
Linnas was innocent or that the Holocaust was a hoax.24
Previous | TOC | Print | Next
|
