The New York Post has a doozy of a story about Amal Clooney this week. This isn’t some puff piece about how she’s the smartest, most fashionable unicorn in the world. It’s not that kind of story because… it came from sources close to Iraq’s mission to the United Nations. Amal Clooney was working at the UN a few weeks ago to work on behalf of her latest client, Nadia Murad, a Yazidi Iraqi who was kidnapped, held, raped and tortured by ISIS. Amal did a lot of press on behalf of her client last month, and apparently she took her love of the cameras too far when she brought an unauthorized camera crew into what was supposed to be a private meeting with the Iraqi mission. And that’s not all! The NY Post says Amal “threw a tantrum.”
George Clooney’s human rights lawyer wife nearly caused an international incident at the Iraqi UN Mission of Iraq in Manhattan when she lectured the ambassador on ISIS and showed up with an unauthorized camera crew, The Post has learned. Lebanese-born attorney Amal Clooney originally demanded to meet with the prime minister at the mission during the UN General Assembly, but that was rejected and she settled for the country’s UN Ambassador Mohamed Ali Alhakim, two Iraqi officials confirmed.
She arrived with Yazidi refugee and Noble Peace Prize nominee Nadia Murad on Sept 15, and, right from the get-go, she used a “dismissive, lecturing tone” with Alhakim while discussing how to bring captured ISIS fighters to justice, one official said. When the conversation turned to the Yazidi people, Clooney made it seem as if they were the only religious sect in Iraq being slaughtered by ISIS, the official said.
The ambassador and his staff tried to offer her a “full picture” outlining each group targeted by ISIS, but Clooney was “completely uninterested” and “tone deaf to the whole thing,” the official said, noting, “It was highly offensive. I have had cousins decapitated.”
Alhakim, who had 65 of his own family members exterminated by Saddam Hussein’s ruthless regime, became infuriated with Clooney and, at one point, turned to her, stating, “This is highly insulting. This is very unacceptable,” the official said. Despite Clooney’s “obnoxious” behavior, the tense meeting lasted about an hour and 20 minutes because the Iraqi diplomats wanted “to be respectful to Nadia,” the official noted.
When the meeting finally ended, the parties went downstairs to the lobby, where Clooney’s “media team” carrying film equipment had shown up unannounced – a violation of standard protocols that required pre-approval by the mission, the official said. Clooney requested an on-camera interview with the ambassador, but was quickly shut down and escorted outside with her posse.
“The main issue is what she did and how she did it is absolutely outrageous and using a victim of war crimes as an accessory and political currency. That makes my blood boil,” the official said. Clooney’s personal assistant did not return an email request for comment and efforts to reach the attorney by phone were unsuccessful. The Mission of Iraq declined to comment.
It’s perfectly possible that there is an innocent explanation for this. It’s possible this is an incomplete story, it’s possible that it’s completely fabricated, and it’s possible that Amal has simply done something to piss off the Iraqi mission to the UN and they pushed this story to the Post. It’s possible that Amal was simply carried with passionately defending a survivor who endured unspeakable torture. It’s possible that the men of the Iraqi mission would have found it “rude” to speak about military and political situations with any woman. But isn’t it also possible that Amal is kind of a tantrum-throwing a—hole? Maybe.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.
all the above?
That’s what I was thinking. It sounds like the meeting went bad on the part of everyone.
Also I hate that the article starts with “George Clooney’s wife”. She has a name and a career of her own for god’s sake!
For real. To me, that opening line threw the whe article into serious question. “George Clooneys property” had the termerity to be an accomished female power figure in a male dominated culture. HOW DARE SHE!!!
No, no. They specifically said “George Clooney’s HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER wife”… So that helps, right?! Lest we think she’s a laze-a-bout.
***HEAVY DOSE OF SARCASM***
She was an obscure junior barrister when she met and married Clooney. She wouldn’t have anywhere near the career and fame she has if it weren’t for him.
Thank you, Robin,
I had no clue who she was before their faux fairytale romance was splashed all over the tabloids. It was cringe inducing being force fed that nauseating story.
BTW, I freely admit that I do not care for her or her politics, barring this particular case. She has “defended” some real shady, evil people. The “Human Rights” tag in those cases is questionable, at best.
No one would be talking about her if she weren’t married to Clooney.
Yes, but she makes the news because she is Clooney’s wife. If she wasn’t married to Clooney, she’d be one of the many, MANY lawyers in the world, and this story would most probably not have made the news.
She was Assange’s lawyer when she met Clooney. She was not a junior barrister.
She was at the UN meeting to represent her client, not to hear about other groups who are being persecuted by ISIS. Since she is Lebanese and a Druze she is well aware of the situation on the ground and the perils of religious minorities. Let her do her job and don’t patronize her and she won’t go all shirty on you.
She was one of many on the Assange team and certainly not lead counsel. She has less than ten years at the UK bar and a bit over ten with the NY bar. That is still considered junior when most senior lawyers are 30 to 40 years out.
No one outside of the UK, and certainly outside of London legal circles knew who she was until she started dating Clooney.
She is absolutely a junior barrister. I will be convinced she is a legal star when she becomes a QC. Not holding my breath on that one – in any event, were she to be in next year’s intake it would not be so early as to suggest a meteoric rise (though still an amazingly achievement).
She is absolutely a junior barrister. I will be convinced she is a legal star when she becomes a QC. Not holding my breath on that one – in any event, were she to be in next year’s intake it would not be so early as to suggest a meteoric rise (though still an amazing achievement).
She is absolutely a junior barrister. I will be convinced she is a legal star when she becomes a QC. Not holding my breath on that one.
QCs are not the easiest designations to come by. In most professions, including my own, the “senior” designation came after just a few years.
I’m not suggesting she’s a legal genius, but at 10 years, she is seasoned. If she hadn’t met and married George, she would have continued working at her profession.
It’s not her fault she’s rich, beautiful, and now famous. I respect her for not taking it easier than she does.
If you check the Doughty Chambers website, you will find the following:
“Amal has defended clients in extradition proceedings involving European Arrest Warrants as well as “Part II” extradition requests. This has included representing (with Geoffrey Robertson QC and John Jones) the head of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, in extradition proceedings in the UK.”
She is still listed as a junior counsel at her firm.
She still is a junior barrister.
That’s a lie. She was a low level junior and was listed as such on her law firm’s ( Doughty) website. She never led or won a case in her career and the record still holds.
Amal Allahmuddin ‘s a stunt lawyer and opportunist who “married” George Clooney – Period
Assange’s lawyer was (still is?) Australian Jennifer Robinson, introduced to him by Geoffrey Robertson years ago. I guess Alamuddin and other lawyers also helped with different parts of his (Assange) case.
Why asked on camera interview an official? If she wants to help her client she should interview actual victims these politicians are not the victims, ask their cooperation in help capture ISIS that it she doesn’t need camera
A private meet is good but coming with camera crew is just over the top
Well there is some value of having them tell people on camera that they understand the situation and are going to help by doing x,y, and z. It holds them more accountable than a behind the scenes meetings and brings international media attention to the Yazidi people and their plight. It sounds like this was handled poorly. I sincerely hope that her ego doesn’t get in the way of helping these women. They need someone to advocate for them for their sake.
Her client is one of the victims. This group of women were apparently (I’ve only skimmed articles) being targeted and put into sex slavery. It sounds like Iraqi officials reacted with “other people get hurt too”. (Aka “all lives matter”)
The horror this tribe has sufferred at the hands of IS has been reported extensively yet they’ve been left to their fate.
It’s the stuff of nightmares out of the 7th century that these people want to live in. It makes Boko Horum seem just.
Yeah, I caught that part too. The way that article came off, it sounds like she was trying to bring up her client’s cause, and the Iraqi team spent the whole time explaining that “well everyone has had people get hurt” – but Amal was hired to represent someone speficcally. Shouldn’t she be lazered in on representing her client’s interests
@Fa, One of those politicians “lost 65 of his own family members to ISIS” He’s a victim, too.
@LAK, I agree with you. What the Yazidi have suffered is beyond barbaric and nobody is helping them. Same with the girls kidnapped by the Boko Haram, and if by the grace of God these girls escape, they are exposed to shame and ridicule by their family. I used to be worried about animals species becoming extinct.
The official lost 65 of his own family members because they were exterminated by Saddam Hussein’s regime, not because of ISIS. But you’re right, the point made here is that he comes from the place of a victim as well.
Absolutely right. What’s happening to the Yazidis is genocide-a systematic attempt to eliminate their people, their religion and their culture..
You are right, A. Thanks for fixing that.
As another female attorney, I promise you that some people think a woman not arriving on her knees with her mouth open is being “disrespectful” and “rude”? You haven’t had a decent career until someone calls you an uppity bitch.
I find it hard to believe that someone with her experience could behave so unprofessionally.
Ellie, I’m not a lawyer (though I studied to be one) and having worked with many female attorneys, that’s actually what I think happened. If you read his complaints in this very article and read between the lines, all I get is that they thought she was an uppity bitch who’s had an easy life and then went on to marry an American movie star.
Exactly @Ellie. As much as people want to hate on the Clooneys, this story sounds prejudicial towards working women. Whenever we make a stand and have an opinion as working women we are called bitches and impatient brats, while men are called strong minded professionals who get things done. This story sounds like any other story about Anna Wintour, presenting something that would be called an advantage in a working men as disadvantage in a working woman.
Ellie, could you shed some light on the whole on camera interview thing? Seems like a strange thing for an attorney to request (it does have PR value, I guess, but then, wouldn’t it be handled by a media person?) and I don’t think I’ve ever seen any interview by her before. That aspect of the story makes no sense to me, and does make me wonder if this is some sort of hit piece by people who didn’t like that she was pushing hard for her client and were trying to use her celebrity against her.
Notice that her name isn’t used until the second sentence. Before that, she’s referred to in relation to her husband — “George Clooney’s wife.” Pathetic.
Bingo. When it’s the first thing said, it’s hard to take the rest of the information seriously.
That’s exactly what I got out of this story, too.
Yeah I got the same vibe too.
Also a female attorney and this was my thought too- I doubt he would be as offended of a man did the same thing. She was there to advocate for her client, not all victims. Not saying she’s perfect here, but who is?
I am not an attorney but face this type of double standard everyday in my male dominated profession.
I am referred to as “emotional and angry” when a man with the exact same response is considered “passionate and motivated”. I get placated with pats on the head, he gets high-fives and promotions.
I agree with the Middle-Eastern men’s attitude toward Western women but there’s no denying that bringing camera crews in unannounced is a violation of standard protocol. She could have attempted to obtain pre-approval by the mission, but she did not. The motivation behind that doesn’t matter. It comes off entitled and untrustworthy.
You ‘agree with Middle Eastern men’s attitude towards western women’?!?!!
Please tell me this is a typo.
You know I didn’t mean it that way. poor choice of words. I agree that Middle Eastern men can have a resentful attitude toward Western women. Better?
I think if you are following us politics you could scratch out middle eastern men and put many men. Let’s not pretend this is just a problem in the middle east.
Yup. Strong tough outspoken woman with opinions = ball-busting bitch.
Ditto Ellie, from another female attorney. I read this as the men being offended by her presence from the outset. It’s possible the tone she took from the outset (if the reports bear any truth) was preemptive. I think she’s amazing.
I’m in complete agreement on this one. God forbid the woman stands her ground and doesn’t get ass-kissy.
I don’t even like her, but I kind of do now!!
Thank you Ellie, and thank you, ladies. Another female attorney, here, and your comments warm my heart.
I find it pretty sexist to say a grown professional woman had a ‘tantrum’. If a man behaved the same way, would he be a ‘go-getter who knows what he wants’ ?
I’m also missing the tantrum in this tantrum. All she seems to have done was talking and not giving in – that’s a tantrum? Oh, and she brought a camera crew. Still no tantrum.
As others here, I rolled my eyes at the very first sentence. I don’t care if anyone knew who she was before she met George Clooney. She had her career before and she is having one now. Amal is her own person with her own career. Say her name in the first sentence!
And yes, the ambassador has gone through terrible stuff as well, but this meeting was not about him! That’s basically telling a victim of rape “yeah, that’s awful, but my family struggled too. let me tell you about it…”
This was about Nadia Murad’s case. And now, because George Clooney’s wife (haha), doesn’t want to talk about the ambassador’s struggles she through a tantrum?
Well, we often see celebrities getting slammed in pieces that are obviously professional fanfic, but I’m not sure what to think about this. Dates given, very specific allegations, and all in all it’s painting a very unflattering picture of Amal. Obviously ‘arrogant’ is quite a pointed buzzword for women in the public eye, and she is dealing with a very controversial topic, but if this stuff is true, I would think arrogant is a fine word for that form of behaviour at a UN meeting about a hateful, genocidal group. The Clooneys aren’t usually my gossip of choice, so I don’t know if this is unbelievably out of character for the way Amal normally behaves, or if she’s the kind of person that could be so unprofessional and insensitive in that kind of intense environment. If it were true, she could have done herself some major reputational damage, which is the last thing that Nadia needs for her lawyer – but then again, it’s quite possible that, as a woman that’s very passionate about getting justice for a rape victim, Amal merely merely ruffled some feathers that are too quick to slur women for behaviour that men are praised for (though that wouldn’t explain the camera crew issue). Can any of the more in-depth Clooney-watchers weigh in?
How are the allegations “specific”? What’s specific about “tone deaf”, “obnoxious”, and “dismissive”? It’s nothing but perceptions. It’s all about what she supposedly tried to do, but not about what she has actually done. We also have no idea how the Ambassador behaved, and, having grown up roughly in that part of the world, I can VERY easily see a male top diplomat (and they usually send the most senior ones to DC) getting upset just because a woman spoke to him as an equal.
As for the date and location being specific – well, I’m sure that the meeting did happen.
She’s not even a real lawyer/barrister, correct? Someone let her out of the corral and now regrets it. We’ve heard about her prejudices in the past. I believe the Post.
She is a barrister, but she is very junior. She tends to accompany her superior, Geoffrey Robertson QC. On her own though, I doubt she takes on enough work. What, in between gallivanting around the world, walking red carpets, etc.
She’s a real barrister at a top ranking chambers. The US equivalent of the people who work there would probably be Harvard Law grads at one of the top 10 law firms in the US. Bearing in mind her age, the fact she isn’t a QC isn’t surprising.
She may not work a lot and I’m sure she spends more than her yearly income (since she probably works the equivalent of part time) on clothes on her husband’s bank account but that doesn’t mean her accomplishments before she met him aren’t genuine.
She’s done absolutely zippo to qualify to be a QC. She was a very junior barrister of very recent call, who was a second of almost all if not all of “her” cases, and since she married Clooney she seems to be more concerned with fame than with actual work.
She’s old enough to become a QC if she had become a barrister straight out of university, but she didn’t, she qualified in the US initially. Her year of call as a barrister is 2010 and you need 15 years’ call to become a QC. She won’t be eligible until 2025.
Tina:
Am I correct in that other criteria for QC consideration includes a review of cases and that would be cases on which the applicant is the primary? If this is true, then Amal is very many years away from consideration.
Hi Amelie, the criteria for QC consideration are that you have to provide an overview of 12 recent cases which demonstrate excellence across the competencies, which are: Understanding and using the law; Written and oral advocacy; Working with others; Diversity; and Integrity. The applicant does not necessarily have to be the sole primary lawyer on these cases, but it’s difficult to demonstrate excellence if you’re acting as the junior. I have no idea where Amal falls within that distinction.
Thank you for the information Tina. I live in the U.S. and find these differences very interesting.
She is an azz.
The whole rhetoric around this reeks of misogyny. Human rights lawyers don’t “throw a tantrum”, regardless of their public profile. Maybe she wanted to publicize her case and maybe that didn’t suit the Iraqi officials agenda, maybe she overstepped or maybe not. By most accounts she is an intelligent, competent woman so these men casting her as a tantrum throwing diva really offends me.
I don’t think lawyers are generally docile people…
It depends. When one of my law school professors saw a student or another attorney behaving rudely or making personal attacks instead of keeping things civil, he would give him or her a small bottle of honey with a label that read, “You get more flies with honey than with vinegar.” The problem I see here is that the UN and the its diplomats typically tout collaboration and cooperation and avoid public displays of aggression or argumentative behaviour. If Amal Clooney went into this meeting guns a-blazing and volubly criticizing the Iraqi government for its handling of ISIS, I have no doubt that the Iraqi officials found her rude and were insulted.
The courtroom is a different story. Lawyers have duties to zealously advocate for their clients and protect their interests. Even so, I have never found it particularly helpful or necessary to act like an @$$#*]% to get my points across. One can vigorously and competently represent a client without being rude or making things personal. Plus, judges will never get upset with a lawyer who is courteous and humble, but they have been known to unleash holy hell on lawyers who act like whiny, obnoxious toddlers!
Regardless, very good lawyers always know their audiences and have prepared multiple strategies to persuade them. Personally, I would have expected a certain degree of chauvinistic or sexist behaviour from male Iraqi diplomats. God knows that as an immigration lawyer I have been subject to similar treatment too many times to count – often by my own clients who supposedly WANT me to help them despite the fact that I am a woman! I choose to beat men like that at their own games instead of getting offended or complaining or demanding apologies. If I had been repping Nadia in that meeting, I would have asked the Iraqi officials for their ideas about how to topple ISIS through diplomatic and legal means. I would have pointed out that Nadia is not just a symbol of the suffering of the Yazidi but also an example of the brutality ISIS inflicts upon *all* Iraqis who do not subscribe to their sick worldview. I would have asked them to publicly support Nadia’s fight for justice and would detail the many positive PR benefits that could flow to them if they did so. Even if they were totally uninterested or unwilling to help, I would have remained polite but firm in our requests and concerns and would wrap up the meeting as quickly as possible. But I am not Amal Clooney, Unicorn Lawyer…
Thank you, @BearcatLawyer, for adding your thoughts. I was hoping you’d shed some light, because the stereotypes abound in this story and they can make it difficult for someone who doesn’t know all the layers of lawyering to suss out how it went wrong and what could have been handled better.
That’s just standard attorney stereotypes. Definitely not true for me. I’m generally pretty accommodating. I have been called honey/ sweetie/ darlin’ / sweetheart by opposing male counsel more times than I can count. Or I am mistaken as the paralegal or secretary when I’m on phone calls. I’ve learned to lean into those prejudices though – if I play along, they usually are 1,000x more helpful for this poor little woman
If the camera crew portion of the story is true, then Amal Clooney is truly stupid. She should know that photographing or filming in or near a diplomatic mission will ALWAYS require formal pre-approval. It is a major security risk to allow unfettered pictures or videos of these buildings and their employees to be taken and disseminated. U.S. consulates and embassies go a step further – no cell phones or cameras are allowed in AT ALL unless preapproval has been obtained. Even then, U.S. diplomatic security usually reserves the right to review any footage or audio recorded and to delete anything that exceeds the scope of the original approved request.
More importantly, for whom was the media team there? I want to believe they were present to document Nadia’s story and efforts at the UN, but I fear they were really there to document Amal and George’s a Excellent UN Adventure.
Omg. The Yazidi are probably the most persecuted religious group in the world. In that region they are targeted by both extremist Sunnis and Shias, so of course they are outraged when a government official tries to minimize their hell. When ISIL began the most recent Yazidi genocide, the international community agreed that the Iraqi government was intentionally turning a blind eye to the massacres because the Yazidi are not considered worth the effort. Last I heard, there are thousands of Yazidi currently trapped in ISIL territory, slowly being picked off, one family at a time. The girls are used as sex slaves. This has been going on two years, while everyone from the Iraqi government which couldn’t care less about this tribe of “infidels” and the international community engage in “diplomacy”. All decent people should be outraged!!!!!
Judging from the cameras, it sounds like Amal and the Yazidis are making a documentary to show the worlds indifference. Its about time. I know the favorite female humanitarian is suffering major PR challenges but that doesnt mean you should tear down every other woman who is doing something meaningful in the world. I know who the real aholes are here.
I would suggest before making any assumption and essy about whose the most hurt in the whole iraq misery. Please Google how many iraqi died since the US invasion.
Thanks
To say Yazidi are the most hurt is ridiculous and extremely insulting to all other iraqi who were killed or tortured too. Please read more.
No, I think you need to enlighten yorself on the plight of the Yazidi. Yes, many Iraqis died since the US invasion, but the US is gone now and the Iraqi government has an obligation to protect its citizens and they’re not doing the best they can when it comes to the Yazidi.
There’s always an “all lives matter” comment. Sigh. Completely missing the point that whatever everyone else is facing, it’s immeasurably worse for some groups.
The Yazidi are especially vulnerable because other Muslim sects consider them Satanists. Literally. That makes them worse than Christians or Jews or rival Muslim sects.
They were targeted under Sadam. They were overlooked after his overthrow and now they are being wiped out by ISIL. There are even reports that local Sunnis are collaborating with ISIL to eliminate this common enemy. The Yazidi are so marginalized, they have no voice and no way to fight a successful insurgency. What’s worse is that even if ISIL was eliminated, there’s no guarantee that the winners wouldn’t just keep wiping them out.
Yazidi really isn’t a Muslim sect. Therein lies the biggest problem. Yazidism is a blend of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Zoastrianism. They don’t use the Koran, they don’t pray facing Mecca (they prayer towards the sun for all prayers but noon, where they prayer towards Lalish.) They are targeted as Red mentioned, because one of their primary angels, Melek Taus, is identified with Satan (even though they don’t see him that way) and because the whole goal of the Islamic sects is to rid the area of non-Muslims. And these poor people are being left out like lambs to the slaughter. No one is helping them. No one is protecting them. No one is trying to get them to safety somewhere… anywhere. They are basically being chained out on a mountain to be picked off by ISIS. I can understand Amal Clooney’s passion for this cause. It’s very real and very scary and very heartbreaking.
Wasn’t sure what to make of this whole report but thank you for your perspective. I’m no Amal fan but this smacks of a take down piece.
When the conversation turned to the Yazidi people, Clooney made it seem as if they were the only religious sect in Iraq being slaughtered by ISIS, the official said.
The ambassador and his staff tried to offer her a “full picture” outlining each group targeted by ISIS, but Clooney was “completely uninterested” and “tone deaf to the whole thing,” the official said, noting, “It was highly offensive. I have had cousins decapitated.”
Re-reading that I think it’s not Amal who was tone deaf. Seems to me like she was being a very passionate advocate for her client and was treated to a round of ‘but what about?’ That could frustrate anyone.
I think someone above described this as an #all lives matter response and I think they’re right
Supposedly represents victims of war crimes, yet easily wears $5000 dresses. That says it all, no?
No it doesn’t.
Yes, it does. Not to mention all of her plastic surgery.
Oops, sorry, I meant no, it doesn’t. She is least humble “human rights” lawyer I have ever seen. It seems like it is all about her.
Why does it matter how much her dress costs? She’s not there to talk about her outfit, would she be better at representing them if she wore something cheap from …I don’t know ..H&M maybe?
When she decides to actually be a proper barrister, rather than a wannabe model, then I’ll take her seriously.
@EM Why liking expensive clothes and clothes in general makes her a less proper barrister? When she is in job meetings I haven’t seen her wearing inappropriate clothes and the clothes being very expensive is not something that makes them inappropriate. Do you have solid evidence that she’s not good at her job? Do any of us here REALLY HAVE SOLID RECEIPTS for that other than speculating from what we see in the media? I don’t get why she should dress with a cheap and nondescript way, she is not trotting around dressed like the Kardashians, maybe then we could have that conversation but now I still don’t get it.
Yeah, that’s not really a fair statement. I’m a psychiatrist. Am I less of a doctor if I wear an expensive pair of shoes for office hours? Or if I wear a nice, pricey, tailored suit for a conference?
There is some middle ground here. I have no problem with expensive clothes conflicting with a professional reputation, but rather, an issue of different outfits every single time. Optics matter, and these are not good.
So? Can’t she like high fashion and be a good human rights lawyer? Does she pay the dresses out of your pocket? She comes from a wealthy family, she’s doing a prestigious job that probably pays well and she has an even wealthier husband. I read many negative comments about Allamudin and a lot of them sound like the people who dislike her feel envy for her. I mean she’s beautiful, educated, cultured, successful, rich and married to a movie star so…
As for the NY Post’s post well considering they ‘re saying that the info came from the Iraqi’s camp I would take it maybe with a grain of salt because Amal is a woman and Iraqis don’t particularly care about the Yazidi.
Her family are middle class and the DM had some story on her wearing “average” high street stuff (45 pound bag and 200 pound trench) at work before her ascent to Kloondashianism. I think it’s more about appropriateness. For example, who wears a flowery dress with see-through and up-to-the-crotch lace slits to a meeting with UN reps? She couldn’t keep it real for business meetings and stop playing up for the paps for just a few days.
@Spongecake Can I have a link for that, to be honest I haven’t seen it
Anthi, it’s the ‘ how Mrs kloondashian spent £34000 of clothes in 14 days while grandstanding as champion of the downtrodden ‘ article. If you scroll right down there is a pic of her walking behind Assange and they note the trench she’s is wearing is a Jaeger rrp £250. I will try to find the article on the £45 handbag, but yes Mrs kloondashian definitely carried a £45 bag pre George at some stage . But you can see from even during their dating pre engagement period she wore high Street style stuff.
@Anthi, it’s in the same article in the text above the same pic with Assange. As DM notes, “Back in February 2011, singleton Amal’s work staples were more likely to be drab High Street odds and ends such as this £250 Jaeger trenchcoat, £175 Russell & Bromley heels and £45 bag — from none other than Marks & Spencer.”
No, it doesn’t, EM. If she’s competent in her work and dress appropriately for her professional role in a given environment, then the cost of her dress is irrelevant. Besides, most clients do not like their attorneys to look cheap.
Yeah, I’m not going to believe the Iraqi government on this one. The government that left thousands of yezidis stranded on a mountain waiting to be massacred by Isis. The ones who abandoned every military post allowing Isis to roll through Iraq unhindered by any defense. The ones who let thousands of yezidi women and children be sold and used as sex slaves.
The clue is in the “yezidis aren’t they only ones targeted by Isis” quote. She’s there to talk about the Yezidi minority and doing more to protect them. This “official” is basically saying “all lives matter.” and he probably doesn’t want to be given the facts by a woman about how his government let it happen.
This. 100%
+1
+1
Exactly. Like the Iraqi government is credible on this issue.
It is also possible that she is pushing her way into areas that she has not established herself in. She gets a lot of excuses. I don’t know what great accomplishment she has actually done.
Err, none at all, her crew did try to claim that the Al Jazeera journalist was freed because of her efforts but he was actually pardoned, photos did emerge of Amal in the Egyptian courthouse but she was in the observation gallery not defending at all. People do need to realise she is a junior barrister and she follows the big guns around while they do the actual work, at this stage in her career she is an info and data gatherer, she was only put out front when she married the Clooney guy, it is good PR for her chambers or so they thought, it doesn’t seem to be working in their favour. You won’t get any excuses from me, she really is not a prestigious human rights lawyer and she is despised in the UK for the fact that she helped represent the Lockerbie bomber and also the fact that her uncle is in prison for illegal arms trading, he supplied the Taliban and rumour has it his network are still supplying Daesh. Her uncle also allegedly paid for the whole wedding bonanza, George certainly didn’t pay for all those private jets and accommodation.
.
I don’t know, something about this doesn’t pass the sniff test. The power structures in Iraq are such a mess and there is a weird situation between politicians, the military & police, and ISIS, depending on who is Sunni and who isn’t. Perhaps they had a valid reason for wanting the meeting on camera, although it seems bizarre not to arrange this with all parties ahead of time.
If I was a Yazidi, I’d probably be pissed off that it took a bunch of Kurds with crap weapons in pick-up trucks to rescue me, and not the highly-trained and US-armed Iraqi army. (How awesome are the Kurds in this context, by the way?)
I don’t know, the whole thing is awful. There was probably a lot of blame and suspicion going around leading up to this meeting.
Having briefly met her, I find this to be bullsh**. Whatever you think of her (being junior, papp happy, whatever) she struck me as very sweet and genuine, I liked her.
Thanks for those posting some context regarding the Yezidis. This whole article reeks of sexism. I’d also thought that there was something suspect in the accusation that other communities are being left out. It makes sense now that people have posted information about the religious and social hierarchies in Iraq. Alhakim may have had some role in failing to protect this community. I see that he is referred to as an Iraqi politician on wikipedia. As long as we are all speculating about what occurred in the meeting, maybe Amal and the young woman confronted him on this.
I honestly don’t get the bias toward Amal. Do people really think that Anjelina Jolie who is worth 200 million and is outfitted by designers, wears clothes from Target when she goes to refugee camps? Why aren’t we equally outraged by her wealth while engaging in humanitarian acts?
When Amal defends despots, people accuse her of not practicing real human rights law and when she advocates for this girl, she gets equally criticized. Let’s not forget she is advocating for a woman who suffered horrendous sexual assault. I thought people cared about that kind of thing here.
My thoughts exactly. Both the politicians and the armed forces in Iraq smell to high heaven when it comes to ISIS and tit-for-tat Sunni/Shia power games. The Yazidis got caught in the middle in the most horrible way.
If Amal truly tries to seek justice for Nadia, then more power to them both. But the litigation strategy Amal seems inclined to pursue on Nadia’s behalf – prosecution of ISIS leaders by the International Criminal Court – is unlikely to ever happen. Neither Iraq nor Syria are parties to the Rome Statute, and ISIS is darn sure not to going to consent to ICC jurisdiction. So while it is good that Amal is using her celebrity to call attention to the atrocities committed against Yazidi women and girls, justice requires results, not just PR.
I feel it is fair to question and, yes, criticize Amal’s behaviour and outfits while she was allegedly attending serious events at the UN. I have no issue with how much she spends on clothes; that is her business. But many of her UN outfits seemed calculated to call attention to Amal (as opposed to her client) and inappropriate for the occasions. I also thought her PDAs with George during work meetings were unprofessional and reeked of thirst. There is nothing wrong with lawyers being fashionable, but I feel she wants to be known more as a clothes horse instead of a workhorse.
What legal strategy do you think would work?
As for her outfits and what you consider to be her attention seeking behaviour, I think you overestimate its negative impact. She is in a completely different realm than other lawyers due to her celebrity status and I would imagine the some of the rules of professional conduct would deviate from the norm. I think that this probably has advantages and disadvantages. I also think Amal is aware of this and uses it strategically to benefit her clients and herself.
The rules of professional conduct apply to all lawyers equally regardless of whether or not one is married to a celebrity. She can play up her status in a non legal setting, but I can assure you that once she gets before a judge, that judge will not give two shits about who she is married to.
I don’t know if her behaviour being called a tantrum is fair, but I do question bringing a camera crew in a diplomatic setting. Those things get negotiated even prior to the first meeting.
Well said, Sanders. I don’t get the hate for this woman at all.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who saw a red flag when a male ambassador is accusing a female lawyer of “throwing a tantrum”. The situation has been all around awful in Iraq, and I could see that some official who was targeted for horrendous abuses under Hussein’s regime might be defensive of atrocities the current government has some responsibility for (although I don’t know enough to say what they could have done differently re: ISIS and the Yazidis).
You show me a woman wielding power, and I’ll show you a man calling her a b*tch.
Exactly this. (And a lot of women calling her that, too.)
You’re damn right
Having read Amal’s recent ‘speech’ to the UN re: the Yazidi’s, it is believable to me that she used both a “lecturing” and “dismissive” tone in her interaction with Iraqi officials because that is exactly what she did in her speech.
Her attempt to meet with high level government officials-despite her lack of official standing and post journeyman status-is also believable to me.
Since cameras “happen” to be everywhere she is, I can also believe that they were present.
Have you read the previous posts about how the Yazidi community was abandoned by the Iraqi government and the resulting outcome? I think Amal’s tone is the least of my worries in this situation.
I read about the Yazidis long before Amal took on this case.
Per my professional work, I have had first hand experience with victims of torture. I have also read about war and examples of torture that have occurred over the millenia. Does anyone want to compare for example operating on twin children without benefit of anesthesia,removing their organs and blood as Josef Mengele, Hitler’s physician did, as part of Hitler’s numerous medical experiments with what has happened to the Yazidis? I don’t think it makes sense to do so as it is all horrible.
I happen to agree with the report of how UN Ambassador Mohamed Ali Alhakim responded. If he has personally experienced the loss of 65 relatives, imagine how he feels and what his perspective is when “reportedly” confronted by Amal with cameras running…
Per Mr. Alhakim’s bio, he is an experienced diplomat. There are numerous citations of his advocating for victims on the web. His taking the meeting in what I suspect is a busy schedule, shows his readiness to listen.
I have followed Amal for several years and I think that this report* is still another example of how her ambitions are ahead of her professional readiness. I am not doubting her motivation to help, but I think she has a lot to learn in order to do so. Just my opinion…
*two Iraqi sources were quoted for the story.
Reportedly, he lost his relatives to Saddam’s regime. Not ISIL.
@Amelie: Agree. She shouldn’t lecture anyone who’s obviously well-informed about the situation already if she wants results. She lacks diplomatic skills, or perhaps even social ones. And cameras in a diplomatic mission are always subject of upfront approval. In general, my impression is she starts believing the hype about her. Same thing happened with Mohamed Fahmy, she put herself front and center, but it was others finally getting him released.
Hi Siri:
First, I am very surprised that the government of Iraq granted any meeting at all….
with the offensive planned in Mosul and with Iraq in such a shambles in general, their plate is full. I am also wondering if Amal understands that diplomats play the’ long game’ and that that her request would probably be seen as not of immediate importance given all that is going on with their country.
When an entire religious culture is left to die off by a government, I can probably understand being dismissive to said government. They, after all, have been dismissive towards the plight of the Yazidi.
Ameile, as it turns out, I am a mental health professional and I’ve worked with individuals from three different communities who survived civil war, torture and rape, all with PTSD. Regardless, I don’t think one needs this experience to be empathetic or concerned about this issue. There have been calls to name what happened to the Yazidis a genocide. The attacks by ISIS is happening to a minority community that has faced discrimination from the Iraqi government. This makes them less safe and with fewer resources to defend themselves and therefore more vulnerable. I’m not sure why you invoked the holocaust.
When a group of people, cultural, ethnic, religious, or any combination thereof, is being systematically eradicated, it is genocide. You can’t compare and contrast the suffering of any group. It’s not a fair comparison. As a fellow mental health professional, I know that you cannot compare degrees of suffering.
Whatever the truth is, she undermines any credibility she has with her obvious and perpetual thirst. Yes, yes, accomplished women can be attractive, dress well and marry movie stars. But if she wants to be the Jackie O or Carolyn B with a briefcase that she so desperately seems to want to be, she should take a page out of their playbook and just do her damn thing, whatever it is, and just be glimpsed doing it in the natural course of events. And by natural I mean whatever is the opposite of staged pap walks, mugging, posing and otherwise grasping for media attention like Icarus flying to the sun.
Amen to that! When all the talk is about the fact that someone spends 100K for a weeks worth of clothing, one needs to reevaluate what they are trying to put out there. If you want to be taken seriously then stop it with this running in and out of buildings, carrying nothing but a tote bag in the middle of the day, every day.
I agree with both of you!
What was her goal? Why did she go to the Iraqi UN Mission? She knew they would not talk to a woman, why did she not send a man as maine contact? If they don’t negotiate with women, what’s the point for her to go there? You can’t change their way of thinking within a short period, that will take time. If I want to make the Iraqi government to take action against IS and rescue the Yesidi people, I would play according to their rules and not force my opinion on them and document this with a TV crew.
I don’t have strong feelings about Amal one way or another, but this story sounds like bull.
1. Amal met with Ambassador on behalf of her client, who is Yazdi, that is, a Kurd.
2. The ambassador sought to minimize her client’s suffering by suggesting others (non-Kurds) have suffered MORE. Bearing in mind the treatment Kurds suffer even in the best times and I get the definite feeling what offended the ambassador was the suggestion that a Kurdish woman’s suffering could possibly be on a par with that of other Iraqi’s.
3. Do they seriously expect us to believe the mission allowed the media team even to wait in the lobby without permission? These missions have heavy security. Again, more bull.
While I can easily imagine Amal having a gargantuan ego, still it seems to me the ambassador didn’t consider Amal’s behavior, as a WOMAN, sufficiently deferential on top of prejudice against Yazdis, despite whatever the ambassador says to the contrary. IMO they are trying to lay the blame for their own inaction on Nadia’s case on Amal’s behavior. Classy.
I agree with your take, Frosty.
Yezidis are not Kurds.
@Pyritedigger, yes you are correct. I’d assumed since they share a language the two groups are related but they are not. However, both are minorities with very little if any voice and if the idea is that there will be no justice for anyone until there is justice for everyone, then these minorities have a long wait indeed because they are at the bottom of the totem pole.
I am with Kaiser on this, who knows what is true. I do find it funny though that people find it hard to believe that a woman who was brought up in wealth and privilege marries a movie star and seems to enjoy the celebrity and certainly the clothes that come along with it wouldn’t be a bit uppity. Seriously, it is more than plausible, but who knows.
The important point, and one I believe it likely the Iraqi Ambassador was trying to make, is that Amal Clooney’s chosen approach is flawed in International Law. In this instance it is a case of ‘all lives matter’ or nothing.
AC is asking that the ICC are called to investigate IS crimes against Yazidis only. There is no existing mechanism for this.
The ICC can only investigate under two conditions: 1/ at the request of the nation(s) concerned – in this case Iraq and Syria; or 2/ at the request of the United Nations Security Council.
On #1 – neither Iraq nor Syria are party to the Rome Statute. This means that they couldn’t, even if they wanted to, request that the ICC investigate IS, or any other protagonists’, crimes against humanity.
On #2 – the UNSC can only request an investigation based around a clearly defined geographic territory, it cannot delineate specific groupings to be investigated or ringfence specific groups who may or may not be perceived as victims.
Any investigation would have to cover alleged crimes by/against ALL actors within the defined locale/nation (Syria and/or Iraq). The ‘all lives matter’ bit.
The UN is currently maintaining a balance between many actors/’allies’ in the region and would jeopardise that balance if they were to call an investigation over those nations, where IS atrocities would only form one part of a much wider scope for investigation. The UNSC will not risk destabilising relations with ‘allies’ in this way at this juncture. Russia, if not others, would veto.
So there can be no investigation solely targeted towards IS and their treatment of Yazidis. Amal Clooney must know this, which makes her media splurge at the UN tantamount to grandstanding. That she seemed ‘tone-deaf’ to more sober and fact driven dialogue doesn’t surprise me in the least. Nor does her throwing a tantrum; she has form for insisting on inserting herself based on her own ‘celebrity’ and sense of entitlement. She is not the exemplar of professional woman some above seem to think of her as. Her reported behaviour is both believable and unprofessional; as is her positioning of Nadia as her passport to media coverage.
And once again Dippit you nailed it, why people cannot understand these obvious facts is beyond my comprehension, they are constantly making excuses for her and her behaviour with the ever hollering ‘it’s because she’s a woman and a top human rights laywer’. Err no she isn’t the second statement and I am still unsure about the first!
Thanks, Dippit, for laying out the facts so well.
I find her incredibly self-serving and far more interested in self-promotion, often at the expense of the clients and causes she claims to be passionate about.
I hear what you’re saying: she’s using the UN as an avenue for legal action that won’t work, because in essence, ‘all lives matter’. It is, in so many words, a stunt, Keep in mind, I don’t hugely have an opinion on Amal Clooney aside from finding other people’s reactions to her to be the most interesting thing about her. But what I’d like to know is, how do you think the interests of Nadia and the Yezidis would be best represented? Personally, I don’t think the UNSC would ever move in their favor without immense pressure, which just isn’t happening, so grandstanding doesn’t bug me. Obviously, the question is whether or not its grandstanding for her case, or grandstanding for her public image.
Sure, they can. Only the Yazidis have been targeted for genocide.
See as outlined above the provisions and terms permitted to UN/ICC under international law.
Thank you for all the information from a strictly legal point of view. Reading this, I’m wondering if Amal’s actions are of any help to Nadia, and her people. Hopefully, they don’t turn out to be counterproductive in the long run.
Men are passionate. Insistant! Women throw tantrums.
I’m with Amal on this. I have no problem believe the men in this situation were highly offended by a strong woman and huffed and puffed this story out.
A strong person doesn’t go into the arena with a weak, impossible to execute, ‘case’ and then wilfully choose to appear oblivious to valid counters. A strong person remains professional and doesn’t play fast and loose with protocol.
I’m just curious, are you assuming she played fast and loose because that’s what the ambassador told the Post, or are there other sources you are also relying on for how it went down?
There were rumours. With the delay in reporting/it emerging I thought it had been made to go away. My only surprise is that it’s surfaced now weeks on tbh.
I think I alluded to it in a comment around the time.
She is not taking well to the flaws in her proposition being pointed out… and not just by the Iraqi Ambassador either.
See my above for why she is in error.
Also, per a photo that I saw around the time of her UN speech, I began wondering about blowback to the speech…the photo showed Amal and an African man in the UN chamber. He was shaking his pointed finger at her and there was quite the look on her face. I believe the photo was on the Getty, but it is no longer there…
Dippit, so you are basing your opinion on rumours, that clarifies things.
Whatever you think of Amal, we are still left with the problem of what appears to be a genocide of the Yazhadis. I’m curious to hear what legal strategy you think should be used to help Nadia and her community as you’ve clearly spent a lot of time analyzing the uselessness of Amal’s strategy.
Sanders, by “rumours” I meant information from a number of sources I consider to be reliable due to connexions made through past work in the field. I’m not about to splurge on CB about such people/things but have heard enough to be satisfied, in a personal capacity, that this reporting is not inaccurate. I reiterate, I didn’t expect it to see the light of day and was surprised to find it had. I’ll be shocked if it doesn’t now quietly find itself disappeared again… it serves little purpose in the wider scheme of things.
As to Amal’s ‘strategy’, I merely thought this comments thread deserved some hard facts re: the mechanisms in place so thought I would assist in outlining the key aspects.
The “uselessness”, or otherwise, of Amal’s strategy can only be determined through knowledge of what *her* key aim is in propounding it; on that I can only surmise and did so above. Nonetheless, she currently stands flawed on her recommendations in international law and the scope of provisions afforded to the ICC/UN.
As to alternatives, do you really think CB is the place for such posting?
P.S. FTR, it didn’t take a lot of time.
Well, still rumours to me.
I’m confused as to why you brought up legal strategy in the first place and made such a detailed post,( which I read because I am interested in what avenues this community has to get justice) and when asked for details, you respond with CB is not the right place to discuss legal strategy. I myself would value those who have expertise in this area sharing their knowledge. Since when has CB been a place where it’s not appropriate to talk about politics and social justice?
Dippit, “I have sources”…sure, and my dog is a legal scholar.
Well founded “rumours” to me, now further informed by this particular article seeing the light of day. My knowledge of the ‘rumours’ reached me within the span of the GA taking place so such has not just been pulled out of the air this week. It’s clear you are disinclined to believe in any event; I feel no need to try and convince you otherwise.
As to my providing an outline of current provisions within the scope and purview of the UN/ICC, I’m sorry you are reluctant to accept that as fact, however fact it is. I considered it useful for this board to be aware that AC’s propositions are currently far outwith that which is achievable which is a point not just being made by the Iraqi Ambassador but many other familiar with the wheretofores of the situation. I did little editorialising, and that which I did, I have made clear is my own take on AC’s motivations.
As to other solutions, courses of redress, that is an extremely complex topic and not one I believe can be covered on a board such as this. I could spend two days alone typing thoughts on R2P and proposals surrounding Retraint of Veto and still be no further in explaining exhaustively why AC is significantly cart before the horse on this and at risk of giving false hope to Yazidis and not fulfilling the role of wise counsel but rather a, albeit perhaps impassioned, campaigner. The two role are not necessarily mutually compatible and I believe, for whatever reason, AC has lost sight of this and is succumbing to neither Arthur or Martha in her approach; this stands to the detriment of her client(s), UN diplomatic efforts, the furthering of real justice being meted out, and her own appearance of professionalism.
Props to your dog Lambda.
Well, I guess the conclusion to draw is that it’s a shame Nadia and her community don’t have someone of your caliber representing them
.
Cheers for the sarcasm, however that was not the intended take home from my postings… but I suspect you know that.
My dog recommends you to look into the definition of hearsay. And then genocide. He also advises you that “I have sources” is straight Tumblr nuttery and is not to be accepted in polite society. By all means, keep that George Clooney 1996 poster on your bedroom wall, though.
My apologies for the sarcasm, an old habit I’m trying to shake off.
Still, I think you are quite biased when it comes to Amal. I have nothing invested in her and am not approaching this article in a black/white manner. Perhaps her legal strategy is not sound but most certainly this article has a strong strain of misogyny as many others have noted, including women who are lawyers and have encountered this same dynamic. Additionally, she is drawing attention to this issue which is valuable and helpful. I am posting because I think this lack of objectivity when it comes to Amal, drowns out the fact there has been an attempted genocide of this community and the sexism she most assuredly experiences. I’m glad that Amal is using her celebrity and profession to draw attention to it.
Haha, Lambda, your dog sounds precious. Not terribly adept at reading character, but precious nonetheless.
Perhaps he might like to research Amal Clooney and the “Guardian” New Year 2015 and her tendency towards over inflated claims.
However, as I said earlier, this story is set to be disappeared.
Yeah, but no thanks. I’m not at all interested in doing research in the woman who married an old matinee idol. In other words, I don’t think you’re concerned in the proper legal strategy poor Nadia deserves, but in carping about the chick who spoiled your fantasy. (I’ll admit, I’m morbidly interested in this bizarre stance about the spouses of internet boyfriends.) Also, don’t present ‘rumors’ from ‘sources’ as fact.
No need to apologise Sanders, we all find ourselves there at times.
My key concern on this is that AC appears to be claiming to act as an counsel (using flawed, incomplete disclosure, of the actual achievable outcomes in law) when in reality she is more fulfilling the role of a ‘celebrity’ campaigner. I don’t believe it serves the best interests of Nadia or other Yazidi women for her to sit astride both horses; most particularly when her legal horse is lame.
I began by stating that I believe the tenor of her apparent discord with the Iraqi delegation stems from the Ambassador attempting to outline the flaws in the, at best, quasi-legal arguments she is making. It is an emotive subject, but a well prepared counsel does not, in such diplomatic setting, lead with the emotive.
I know you doubt my information on AC’s behaviour and the impression it left at the GA – fair play I’m only a pseudonym on what is largely a gossip blog – however many eyebrows to her professionalism were allegedly raised… not just on the Iraqi issue (which I reiterate is in all likelihood set to be disappeared).
I know, because I too have worked with, people in and around. I know people who’ve worked directly or adjacent to AC. She remains unseasoned in many ways.
I don’t think it inherently misogynistic to question a woman’s approach if that approach is counter-productive.
There is no question that the actions against Yazidis are regarded by most international bodies as that of genocide – quite correctly. However, the ‘strategy’ AC is recommending is not possible under current conditions. Even the France-Mexico proposals on Retraint of Veto have been kicked into the long grass, thereby further lengthening anticipated (or likely disallowing within a reasonable timeframe) unanimity on the part of the UNSC to enforce an ICC investigation.
I’m sorry, I could go on at length but don’t believe this is the fora for such.
I return to AC trying to ride two horses at once and those two horses diverge. That is not helpful and dilutes the focus of the Yazidi cause.
Bit of ‘rumoured’/alleged scuttlebutt – there were at least two other meetings AC took which left the room cold to her too. At best she is being naive, at worst she is being vainglorious. Perhaps a combination of both.
AND Nadia (Nobel nominee) needs to be more at the forefront not her lawyer.
But storm in a teacup I’m still surprised got brewed in public I will admit.
Lambda, I’m morbidly fascinated by people who leap to “your just jealous”; I always find it devoid of much by way of reasoning.
Oh yeah? Explain.
Did you care about Amal before she became Mrs Clooney? Did you use to follow her career? There might be a lot of wool over your eyes, but don’t pull it over mine. You can snark (as Spongebob does below), but don’t rationalize misogyny on account of your totally imaginary squeeze.
Lambda, you’re so determined in believing you ‘understand’ my motivations for posting I’m as well to leave you to it. Fruitless to continue otherwise.
Loquacious as you are, I’m sure you’d made sure to explain your motivations.
Yup, I’m gonna go to bed. Good morning in your hemisphere.
Thank you ladies, this part of the thread has been an interesting read.
Dippit, as a lawyer myself, I also agree with your assessment that the ICC is probably not the most effective route to deal with ISIS. The biggest difficulty with international law, in particular international criminal prosecutions is that all the participants need to accept the legitimacy of the ICC and not many countries do. In fact, the US is not a signatory to the ICC and neither is China.
Generally speaking, I avoid Amal topics here because I find some of the clear and obvious bias against her – on the part of some – deeply unpleasant and coming from a less than noble place.
HOWEVER, I don’t know Dippit’s real life identity nor she mine (and I suspect we both find life on message boards easier that way). But interactions over months hereabouts confirms to me that there is a good amount of overlap between our political and campaign interests and connection circles. This is by far from the first time she has spoken of her experience and work in this area.
She is a valuable commenter for this site on such topics and if she says she has some “word on the street” about an incident like this, she is totally credible.
Additionally, what she has said about the objective situation here is absolutely accurate. As things stand at present, there is no route for the Yazidis to obtain justice via the ICC. As a celebrity campaigner, Amal could do a lot of good highlighting the limitations of the ICC as it affects the Yazidis. However, as their lawyer, she is doing them no favours at all and may well be doing them actual damage by giving them false hope and everyone else a fatal misunderstanding of what the legal situation is.
Sixer, I wasn’t going to return to this post as I’d said my piece. However, I decided to give all the comments a read through as last night I got rather mired down near the bottom here. I’m glad I did.
Now you’ll understand I’m now feeling a ‘bit British’ and self-consciously awkward so I will simply say a heartfelt thank you for your post.
Much appreciated.
/I go back to a time active from the early nineties (both Balkans and the Iraqi Kurds) and have shed many tears and girded my loins for action – so I don’t take such matters lightly and to this day, although now largely a bystander, keep myself informed. Anyhow, enough for now.
Perhaps off to find a fun post to comment upon more casually.
As my final post on this topic I would add that one aspect of the legal work I understand AC to be doing is to establish the genocide as having a formal bearing for the rights of Yazidi women to be permitted to claim compensation from the ICC’s Victims’ Trust Fund – a worthy endeavour but one I still suspect fraught with some difficulty due to key actors not being party to the Rome Statute.
I understand her forthcoming presence at The Hague is to this ends.
Dippit/Other Attorneys
Dippit-I don’t know if you are still following this thread, but I would appreciate feedback from you and other attorneys re: my question.
Amal has been a topic on this blog since the engagement announcement (2014?) and there was significant discussion/review of her CV and professional work starting at that time. Does anyone know how many cases to date there are on which Amal has been the primary counsel? I am also curious if she has ever-as primary counsel- presented a case to the Hague.
Amelie – to my knowledge AC has not served as “primary counsel”/led on any cases, at the Hague or otherwise. In both her most high profile cases to date – Nasheed in the Maldives and Fahmy in Egypt – she did not have leave by the courts concerned to present as counsel and was merely in attendance as an observer. In the case of Perinçek she was led by Geoffrey Robertson QC.
She is a panel member of The UK Attorney General’s Civil Panels (London) alongside hundreds of others in her field. She sits available on Panel C which denotes her as a junior junior if that helps.
Now I am absenting myself from this thread before I say something intemperate to a particular CB-er.
I am not an Amal stan. I rarely get involved in back and forth arguments on here but this topic impacts me for a couple of reasons. Because of my professional identity, I have worked extensively with refugees and the lawyers who represent them so I’m actually interested in the rights of refugees and the legal strategy.
I also think that a lot of the negativity Amal receives is because she is a woman of colour who is in a high status profession and then had the audacity to marry a famous hollywood movie star and if all that was not enough…she likes to dress up in fancy, expensive clothes. The uppity woman of colour. It’s not any kind of stretch of the imagination to think that a woman of Lebanese origin would be treated with disdain by some of the English, a culture with a violent, and dehumanizing history of colonialism in the middle east. ( and yes I’m aware the French colonized Lebanon but I suspect those distinctions don’t matter to people who would engage in these biases) These attitudes stay embedded in a culture way past the actual events to the point where they are normalized and people are not even aware they have them. When I see bias coupled with a dogged determination to degrade her professionally, I wonder what is fueling the bias and it makes feel less inclined to accept anonymous sources and such. Also this is not the first time Dippit has criticized Amal’s legal strategy.
What I do know is that Amal and Nadia are women from a minority religion meeting with a Sunni Iraqi male official, an official who is the representative of the Iraqi government that failed to protect the Yazadhis. It’s not too hard to imagine that they were treated dismissively or that he leaked an unflattering account of the meeting. Why aren’t we holding these Iraqui male officials accountable for what they can do to help Nadia?
We don’t know if Amal is misleading Nadia with her legal strategy. Maybe Nadia is aware that this particular strategy will not work but thinks the media attention will be beneficial to their cause. None of us can know the details so we are only speculating.
Sanders, did you just imply I’m a racist?
This woman’s face is set in a perpetual sneer. Even when she smiles, she sneers. Anyone who doesn’t believe she is a tantrum-throwing asshole is clueless.
“George Clooney’s human rights lawyer wife”
FFS, really?
BINGO!
Maybe she got upset after she watched her husband’s acting in his last movie!
Amal IS Mrs George Clooney, and she plays the celebrity wife card so it shouldn’t be surprising that she is referred to as such in popular media. As much as she has an established career of her own, we can’t pretend as if the rest of the world would have ever known about her if she hadn’t married George. If this story was about any other human rights lawyer with equal credentials, it wouldn’t have made the press.
No one outside of very limited legal circles would know anything about her if she hadn’t married Clooney. She had very few credentials of her own before she married him, and she appears to love the fame that came with marrying him. Kind of hard to take her seriously.
This is a lie. The NY post is a tabloid rag, and they would not have any information about a diplomatic meeting. Stop dumbing down, and confusing your readers.
It sounds like someone in the UN Iraq mission really wanted to take her down a few notches. Probably some misogyny but her high-handed (and high-fashion) approach was probably over the top.
Everyone complains about the media when it doesn’t suit their needs, or fit their agenda.
As a person who has been born and bred in New York, the media has had been slanted, and has not been objective for years. It has been proven time and time again, and the illustrious Times, has become more of rag than the Post.
Don’t doubt there’s some misogyny in the leaked story but Mrs Kloondashian put up quite a performance during UN Fashion Week, and no surprise because obviously someone convinced her there WAS a UN Fashion Week and she was the CHOSEN ONE headline it.
There were a few legal professors who wrote a piece analysing the legalities of what she’s trying to do and they basically said there was no point, legally speaking (Huffington Post). It’s really just PR for her client and a kind of advocacy in the public space, and I believe Nadia understands this as well – and it’s probably important to raise awareness out there, hence the cameras.
However both Amal and Mr Kloondashian are massive fame-whatevers and I can’t take them seriously. Amal constantly looks drunk on the attention. A very narcissistic couple.
This reminds me of when I worked as an interpreter/fixer for a human rights organisation. I was trying to get my boss a meeting with someone from the Human Rights Ministry about child labour, and they were giving me a really hard time (didn’t want to meet us and speak to my boss because the a-holes didn’t want to care about the cause). I ended up breaking down to tears at 06:00 in the morning at a hotel lobby over a very frustrating phone call. I can’t even remember what the low-level staffer said, but it still makes my blood boil to this day…
There are several times I’ve almost thrown tantrums. Sleazy people making excuses for not caring about domestic workers can really set you off… The trouble with being an interpreter is that you’re there in person, meeting with these people, watching them talk (takes a lot of self-restraint—but I also had a supportive boss who encouraged me to ask questions too, not just interpret his questions). Now I mostly paper translate/edit and it’s far less emotional (plus, I’m chronically ill now and too sick to do field-work anymore).
I do not get the part where the official complained, “when the conversation turned to the Yazidi people, Clooney made it seem as if they were the only religious sect in Iraq being slaughtered by ISIS.” But she was there for the Yazidi people, of course that’s what she’s going to focus on. What is wrong with people?! If I come into your office to talk about domestic workers, I’m not going to start babbling about the migrant workers of Dubai or sweatshops in Cambodia too… It’s called being focused. FFS! And complaining about cameras just reeks of having something to hide (just saying).
Have you ever had the experience where you are talking to a friend about something horrible that happened to you or someone close to you and they say something like, “That’s nothing, I went through that and worst.” Afterwards, he or she becomes disinterested or dismissive towards you and your situation. You then feel like that person is thinking you have no right to feel what your feeling and no right to talk about your experience because their experience trumps yours.
I think this might be what happened to Amal. She was trying to explain the plight of Nadia Murad and the UN ambassador dismissed her because he believed he had been through much worse. Of course, this does not mean that Nadia’s story did not deserve his complete attention or time. Further, I think you are correct in that he may have taken them both more seriously if they were men. Perhaps UN Ambassador is the wrong job for him.
Also, lawyers are pushy. That is part of their job. If they were quiet and docile, then they would not have made it through law school.
I went to law school and have practiced for over a decade and can tell you that very few lawyers overall are actually pushy and the best ones never are. Listening is the most important skill a lawyer can have because if you don’t pay attention to what is going on you miss key information and clues provided by your client, opposing counsel and the adjudicator. The blowhards who are stupidly argumentative end up missing what is being said just to hear their own voice. They also tend to come off as insecure and don’t understand that if you aren’t civil to the other side karma will bite you in the ass sooner rather than later.
You have to know when to speak and when to shut up. And it’s not being pushy that works but being smart and knowing how to adapt to the situation you are in even if it wasn’t what you expected. Ego has to take a back seat if that is required to protect your client’s interests.
Re: attorneys…
My opinion is based on professional work with attorneys and also personal experience. I agree with Nic919’s post and would like to add that strategy is quite important in legal work. One needs to know what is possible based on the law and then use strategy (persuasion, specific tactics)to accomplish the goal. Also, professionals know that they work in a community of other professionals and that one doesn’t want to alienate them.