Dershowitz on the UN

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-dersh27aug27,1,5509947.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

An excerpt:
For more than a quarter of a century, the U.N. has actively encouraged terrorism by rewarding its primary practitioners, legitimating it as a tactic, condemning its victims when they try to defend themselves and describing the murderers of innocent children as "freedom fighters." No organization in the world today has accorded so much legitimacy to terrorism as has the U.N.

can f***ing go to hell.

His moral credibility has vanished to zero in the wake of his heartfelt embrace of torture warrants.

with that piece of utter insanity.

After all they were terrorists as well--guess that as they were part of groups that bombed the British mandatory powers, Arab villages and market places--that's OK

I agree w/ the earlier poster-- he can go to hell.

so who cares?

alan dershowit is a stupid selfish man, like dennis miller, john malkovitz, jleno and james woods....
there should be a list posted somewhere, for local mediawhores and limbaugh pigs, to keep track of the enemy, cuz that's what al dershowitz etc has revealed they are (mind you, dershowitz maybe is crazed by fear over the suicide bomb attacks on israel, which horrify even palestinian sympathisers(?)
btw is dennis miller jewish?

Wow. I rememebr when he spent a year sititng next to Geraldo every night red in the face literally spitting as he defended Bill Clinton from " limball's crowd ".

Sure , but what have you done for me lately Alan.

Rely not on the gratitude of kings, nor of progressives. Or so it would seem.

It is the epitome of hypocrisy, narcissism and at the very least a tremendous lack of empathy.

It would seem to me that if any person could and would comprehend a needless power-mongering blame game, it would be someone of Jewish heritage. Of course many Jewish individuals see the extremist actions for the truth, but like any religious group, there are those fundamentalists motivated by their own fear, rage and hatred of someone less fortunate. Its seems to be a pecking order of wrong doing and inflicting rage onto an easier target.

What astounds and baffles me is how often anyone offering an opposing opinion is immediately qualified as an anti-semite. Astounding and tragic. Thus, the cycle of genocide and massacre repeats itself.

Perhaps it reveals how longlasting tragic injustices on a race or religious culture last, and thus continue on to the more vulnerable faction. This has nothing to do with religion like they would like to portray: this has to do with blatant abuse.

. . . while Dershowitz defends torture and condemns the UN, one can't help but to observe that he has become very wealthy defending against overwhelming evidence accused murderers with deep pockets.

all this animosity for the UN expressed by the RW, give some life to the UN bombing being the result of irancontra cronism along with some help from all allies on the team. Perle now Dershowitz. You make a good point regarding Dershowitz's choice of clients. However, morality does seem to be selective. The ends always seem to justify the means with no one taking responsibility for the blow back. Oh wait in some cases the blowback is terrorism, isn't it all of it. Not cause and effect, but terrorism. I guess I have my moral imperatives confused.

Klaus von Bulow, OJ.... whatever it takes for Dershowitz to get rich and famous. I agree with you completely.

During the Monica thing, both he and Geraldo Rivera defended Bill from the repukes, but now they have both gone over to the dark side and have lost all credibility.

"Supreme Injustice" concluded that the filthy
five who selected Bush over the elected President
should be retained, not impeached.

Whereas Bugliosi got it right in "Betrayal of America."

My remarks had nothing to do with merits or demerits of Dershowitz' case against the UN (which I find faulty, but I digress).

Dershowitz believes that it is necessary to defend the likes of Simpson and von Bulow (personally, I believe both were guilty as charged) because if the system is not there even for those against whom there is overwhelming evidence of guilt then it will not be there for those who really are wrongfully accused. I agree with Dershowitz, at least insofar as he states this case. However, I would be more impressed if instead of defending wealthy thugs he were to defend some anonymous inner-city youth accused of a crime. It is for that kind of defendedant that the system is absent.

The system that Dershowitz champions purports to be democratic. If it were, the system would indeed be there for all accused. Yet the fact is that Simpson and von Bulow can afford the services of an attorney like Dershowitz and the inner-city youth cannot. As a result, a wealthy person charged with murder and with mountains of evidence to support the charge is less likely to be convicted then the inner-city youth, even if the evidence against him is less convincing than it was against Simpson and von Bulow. The system is there for those who can afford to purshase it and not for others. Held up agaisnt any truly democratic ideals, the system is corrupt. Dershowitz, in allowing his services to be purchased by the highest bidder, is part of the corruption.

Now let's try to tie this to the subject at hand.

Dershoitz is right to point out that there is something corrupt in the the present international system that takes up the Palestinian cause but does little or nothing for other national groups, such as TIbetans and Kurds.

It is interesting that Dershowitz faults the UN for taking up the cause of Palestinian statehood while he regards Palestinians having "invented and perfected modern international terrorism". Are the Palestinian people as a whole less worthy of statehood because their leaders adopted bloody and often revolting tactics in their fight for independence? Is there to be no system for the Palestinian people? Are they to be condemned to perennial occupation? Dershowitz complains that the system isn't there for other groups seeking sovereigty. However, would he say that for this reason it should not be there for the Palestinians?

If he does believe that, perhaps he would like to argue that because the system is not there for inner-city youth accused of crime that it should not be there for Simpson or von Bulow. Of course, he doesn't argue that.

The real solution to the moral dilemma that Dershowitz examines is not for the UN to abandon the Palestinians, but to take up the cause of other groups such as Tibetans, Kurds and Basques (who also employ terrorist tactics and whom Dershowitz did not name). Of course, the UN should also do something for the Iraqi people, whose rights it has done an abysmal job of protecting in recent weeks.

The fact that the international system, imperfect as it is, does more for the Palestinians than for Tibetans or Kurds is no reason to abandon the system any more than the fact that the American system of justice works for O. J. Simpson and Klaus von Bulow but not for countless poor people accused of crimes is a reason to abandon it. The fact that Palestinians have adopted violent tactics that often target innocent people is no reason to dismiss their national aspirations out of hand and, again, abandon the international framework any more than the fact that the victims of Simpson and von Bulow were denied justice is a reason to either deny them the right to a fair trial or to cast aside a system that seeks to assure a fair trial for all accused of a crime.

What points Dershowitz makes should be used to advocate using the system to a greater rather than a lesser degree. On in that way can the system be purged of its corruption.