I, for one, was thrilled when I heard UFPJ had split from ANSWER. I had vowed never to go to another anti-war demonstration if ANSWER was part of the organizing body. They clearly have a different ideology and methodology from UFPJ. I found myself very uncomfortable with positions and tactics employed by ANSWER, which were well laid out in Bill Weinberg's April 2006 Peacework article [5] (reprinted from The Nonviolent Activist).

However, I don't get how Ramsey Clark's defense of anyone should be part of the discussion. I have been very grateful that Ramsey was willing to come to New England on multiple occasions in defense of the Raytheon Peacemakers and other nonviolent actions I have been a part of or at trials involving friends of mine in the peace movement.

I have also been grateful for his willingness to travel great distances to defend people like Mordechai Vanunu. He is tireless in his willingness to help the voiceless have a fair trial, usually charging nothing for his services. He is a humble, brilliant person who does his best to help those in need. Don't we agree that everyone should have a fair trial and good representation? Is this antithetical to the peace movement? I applaud Ramsey and congratulate UFPJ on their clarity and strength as they adhere to their convictions.

Sam Diener, Peacework Co-Editor, responds:

I appreciate that Ramsey Clark has participated in the defense of many nonviolent activists. I agree that everyone deserves a vigorous legal defense. Yet Ramsey Clark and the Workers World Party has denied that dictators and others were responsible for massacres, torture, ethnic cleansing, and in Milosevic's and Karadzic's case, mass rape. Even worse, their political stance excused these crimes as "anti-imperialist."

See, for example, www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/21/clark/print.html [6].