Saddam's Lawyer

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 7,989

I heard recently on the news that Saddam Hussein's defense council was complaining that he wasn't being treated properly. Apparently he's refusing to eat full meals (but supposedly still eats rations now and again....lol), and the Americans don't seem to care. I say let him starve himself.

In any case what I heard is that his lawyer is....surprise.......French......

The French thing doesn't honestly surprise me that much, but what does is.......WHY WOULD ANYONE DEFEND THAT MONSTER?

Whether you agree with the war or not how could you honestly defend someone like that (I guess the same goes for people like Scott Peterson, Timothy McVeigh and others I'm sure you guys have had in your respective nations like those I listed), but SADDAM??

I just don't get it.

Original post

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,450

Seen from the "optimistic", humanist side: Because everybody deserves a defense,
maybe ?

Seen from a much more pragmatic side: Because it could pay a lot, and if not directly, at least because of the huge PR you get.

Note that the nationality isn't really important here... As he had lawyers in many countries...

We had a case here with a guy who adbucted, raped, and killed numerous girls. That guy did cost us a fortune in court trials, infrastructure, .... And many said he should have been shot on the spot. But if "you" (the state) do that: you get as criminal as he is. And you must not expect to learn the truth on all that happened, ever.

So, if you believe in your law system, you must also accept that even such people get a fair trial. Nothing to do with a lawyer being French, American, r Nepalese (to take an example)

And now on a moderator's note: I hope that this thread remains decent and fair too.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 690

I think he should have asked for O J Simpson's lawyer.

Seriously though, if he were not to be given a fair and honest trial then "our" actions would be no better than the regime that has cost thousands of Iraqi, British, American and other nationalities' lives to overthrow.

No matter what the actual or perceived actions of either side of the ongoing conflict are, this must not be allowed to become a show trial and lose the US and UK even more respect in the international community, and give terrorists even more cause to commit attrocities.

JC

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 7,989

I think the U.S. has lost enough respect in the international community for that to even matter.

Of course, I'm to the point now where I don't really care what anyone thinks outside of our borders. I'm tired of catering to the world's needs. I'm tired of being involved in the Middle East. This is a very broad generalization I'm about to make, but it's the truth it seems. They don't want peace, so why force it on them? I'm all for going back into the late 1910's trend of isolationism. In reality it's something that can simply never do, but some days I find myself wishing that was the case.

As far as Saddam is concerned, he needs to lose weight anyway. What better way then for him to starve himself. He loses weight, and hopefully comes that much closer to dying.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,450

I think the U.S. has lost enough respect in the international community for that to even matter.

That is exactly where the matter lies. Yes the US administration lost respect. Even within its closest allies. (For totally ignoring their opinion). And actually, a fair trial would be one of those ways to reverse this. Because it is possible.

The USA is still an close ally for many, and also a friend. Isolationnism won't help you, especially nowadays (economically, ... )

As for your Middle East comment, I guess you are quite right, they want to be left alone, and sort it out themselves (at least the warriors between them). But there is oil. And that is the reason for all those wars. Who controls the area controls oil. Without it, it would be a very unsignificant place for international politics. See Ethiopia: nobody gets involved because there is nothing to take.

All those wars aren't really about liberty and principles...

Member for

20 years 6 months

Posts: 1,464

If you think of American foreign policy as being there to help make it easier for MacDonalds to work abroad then you might understand the lack of respect America gets.

On the BBC yesterday the lawyer said that he hadn't seen nor communicated with his client, and only had what seeped out from the military.
Oh, and he is Jordanian, employed via Saddams daughters.
Thought Saddam was imprisoned in the UAE under guard by Iraqis (so probably they are under guard by Americans) too. - Nermal

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 7,877

In any case what I heard is that his lawyer is....surprise.......French.......

Oooooh! A confirmed prejudice! Rejoice!

In fact, Saddam has a number of lawyers, including a Dutch-American one. Also Jordanian (like Nermal said), Iraqi, American...

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,508

The Nazi's were allowed a defence, so why not Sadam?

Mind you I'd be interested to know under which law they are trying him, US, French or Iraqi. If it's Iraqi, I wonder how much of a hand he had in writing it ?????

If it's international law, what is this based on ? Common ir civil

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 10,160

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEFEND THAT MONSTER?
Because there's a difference between justice and the rule of law on the one hand, and mob rule and vengeance on the other.

It's not for his sake - it's for our sake.

So that we will always be better than the tyrants of this world, whether they are brought to justice or not.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,508

Because there's a difference between justice and the rule of law on the one hand, and mob rule and vengeance on the other.

It's not for his sake - it's for oursake.

So that we will always be better than the tyrants of this world, whether they are brought to justice or not.

Well put.

Member for

20 years 9 months

Posts: 7,755

The Nazi's were allowed a defence, so why not Sadam?

Mind you I'd be interested to know under which law they are trying him, US, French or Iraqi. If it's Iraqi, I wonder how much of a hand he had in writing it ?????

If it's international law, what is this based on ? Common ir civil


I believe there was something in a newspaper report, not long after Saddam was captured, that actually the laws in Iraq were as reliable and constitutional (I think) as any in any 'free' first world country - it was just the way the state used it that gave cause for concern.

Flood

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,671

Because everyone diserves a second chance ....

now that's what you expect that I tree hugging leftist European would say. In contrary, not giving him a lawyer would harm the US more than Saddam, really. It would mean the US constitution is just a peace of paper nobody cares about. Don't give him a lawyer to help him, but if America wants to stay a stable democratic constitutional republic it should not change laws just because there's on particular monster. We had similar discussion in Belgium a couple of years ago. Who could defend Dutroux, he's a monster. Indeed, he's a monster, but it would harm society more if we would just instantly kill him instead of giving him a trial. Belgium already had it's portion of killing so called "criminals" in the 60's in Congo. We still have to carry that burdon. So, Phantom II, don't care about Saddam, but care about your children.

BTW, I don't really believe in international law. In 1924 there was the Briand-Kellog pact which outlaws war. After that, war was something we only know from history books :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Saddam should be brought in front of an Iraqi trial. If they want to execute them, as much as I oppose death penalty, we should not interfere in that. International law is very utopic, I'm not against it, but it will never work. I however predict it will turn into a new Eichman trial. Interresting, as I'm just reading a paper called "the banality of evil" by Hannah Arendt. Some similarities ...

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 9,821

Oooooh! A confirmed prejudice! Rejoice!

In fact, Saddam has a number of lawyers, including a Dutch-American one. Also Jordanian (like Nermal said), Iraqi, American...

He has more than 20 lawyers....paid by the American government.

Member for

20 years 6 months

Posts: 1,464

He has more than 20 lawyers....paid by the American government.

Yes, I'd trust them to be unbiased and dedicated to fighting for their client...:rolleyes: - Nermal

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,508

Can you imagine the up roar in the unlikely event of his acquittal on all counts ????

Member for

20 years 9 months

Posts: 7,755

Saddam apparently met a lawyer for the first time today, according to a report I have just heard on the BBC. The lawyer was blindfolded and driven around Baghdad before meeting with the prisoner for four hours, who was said to be in good spirit with a high moral.

Flood

Member for

20 years 9 months

Posts: 7,755

Saddam sees lawyer for first time
Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has had his first meeting with a member of his defence team since he was captured just over a year ago.
The meeting took place in an undisclosed location in Baghdad.

He and 11 aides are in US custody awaiting trial on war crimes and genocide under an Iraqi tribunal.

A spokesman for the Jordan-based defence team said he believed the former Iraqi leader's trial would not begin for at least two years.

Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said on Tuesday that trials of some of his close associates would begin next week.

Western diplomats said the proceedings would not amount to more than preliminary hearings.

'Morale high'

Saddam Hussein's family recently dismissed the head of his defence team and appointed new lawyers.

The legal spokesman said Thursday's meeting was in Baghdad but the lawyer was taken to the location with a blindfold, the BBC's Jon Leyne reports.

Lawyer Ziad al-Khasawneh said Saddam Hussein looked much better than he did during a preliminary court appearance several months ago.

"He was in good health and his morale was high and very strong," he told the Associated Press.

Iraqi officials have said Saddam Hussein was being held at Camp Cropper, a US base near Baghdad.

The US military has never confirmed that the former president is being held there, but the detention centre is viewed as being the only site secure enough to hold him in Iraq.

'Imminent' trial

Iraqi's interim government has said Ali Hassan al-Majid, widely known as "Chemical Ali" , will be the first of Saddam Hussein's top aides to face trial, which could begin as early as next week.

Lawyers representing the members of the old regime have said their clients will not recognise the legitimacy of any courts established under US occupation.

Defence lawyers say they have had no chance to meet their clients, let alone prepare a defence, and they argue that to begin the trials now would be a miscarriage of justice.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/4102699.stm

Published: 2004/12/16 17:52:08 GMT

© BBC MMIV

Flood

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 9,821

Saddam apparently met a lawyer for the first time today, ...said to be in good spirit with a high moral.

Flood

That's the first time I heard Saddam called Moral! :)
Glad to see he's in good spirits though.

He should be thankful he's locked up...there seems to be a lot of Iraqis who would like to see him "strung-up".