or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Lawyer agrees to defend Sadaam
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lawyer agrees to defend Sadaam

post #1 of 30
Thread Starter 
Read all about here

I wish that Lawyer all the luck in the world.
post #2 of 30
Interesting article with very interesting reporting. I wouldn't say this guy has a good track record with his previous defendents - Carlos the Jackal and Nazi commanders. I do believe they were all convicted.... But, someone does have to defend Saddam or else it wouldn't be a fair trial.

The interesting part of the article is that it says "US Officials" will try Saddam, and that isn't true. Iraqi courts will try him.
post #3 of 30
I seen this on the News,i guess somebody has to do it
post #4 of 30
Well, somebody has to represent the guy, as Heidi said, it would not be a fair trial.

Although I disagree with the idea of putting him on Iraqi courts or much less tried by US officials. I would rather have him tried by the UN and NO death penalty.
post #5 of 30
Originally posted by yoviher
NO death penalty.
Maybe they could just clone him and hope for a better version the 2nd time around.
post #6 of 30
Since the majority of his crimes were committed against the Iraqi people, THEY are the ones who should try him.

IMO, a tribunal composed of Iraqis, Kurds, Iranians, Saudis and Kuwaitis would be ideal. He committed unprovoked acts against all of them.

How any lawyer will be able to justify rapes, murders, torture, gassings and invasion of a neighboring country is beyond me. The evidence is overwhelming: eyewitness testimony, backed up by videotapes, mass graves, survivors' accounts, official records and confiscated instruments of torture.
post #7 of 30
Even the biggest scumbag in the world deserves a defense before they take him out and hopefully kill him in just as humane a manner that he killed all those people. Shooting or hanging is too good for him.
post #8 of 30
He does deserve a fair trial but when he is found guilty, he will be put to death. The crimes were against the iraqis so they are the ones he gets to be the jurors. why should the UN be the jurors?

I definitely would not like this guy to be my lawyer, after all those cases he has lost.
post #9 of 30
Originally posted by yoviher
Although I disagree with the idea of putting him on Iraqi courts or much less tried by US officials. I would rather have him tried by the UN and NO death penalty.
So having him tried by people other than the ones who were affected by his attrocities is somehow more "fair" in your mind? Just what has the UN done thus far with regards to Saddam? Besides allowing him to remain in power, torture, rape and kill his own people by the thousands.....hmmmm, let's see....NOTHING! Saddam is already an expert at playing the UN to be able to do whatever he wants. You think he wouldn't be able to do it again?

No death penalty? I'm afraid there are a few MILLION Iraqis who would disagree with you on that one.
post #10 of 30
Originally posted by Kiwideus
He does deserve a fair trial but when he is found guilty, he will be put to death. The crimes were against the iraqis so they are the ones he gets to be the jurors. why should the UN be the jurors?
Reason no. 1: It will be a more civilized trial as the UN has abolished the death penalty.

Reason no. 2: It will not seem as a unilateral thing of the US being prosecutor, judge and jury.

Reason no. 3: It will bring the rift made so foolishly by Bush in going after the war a bit more together, while a US or Iraqi trial will do the opposite.

Reason no. 4: It will make the US look better worldwide, while trying it by themselves or by exiled opposition iraqis will have the US's international reputation going down the drain (As if it hadn't already).

Reason no. 5: Internationalized is ALWAYS better than from a single nation. In the UN he would be tried by jurors from all over the world, and so will be the lawyers. Not only you are letting it to all of the international community but the more internationalized the better.

Heidi: Don't get it heated, please. I believe the international war crimes court in The Hague (Netherlands) will find him guilty. All you need to do is check their track record. We are talking of some of the foremost minds on the WORLD in law. They are not stupid.

Second, he is a human being. Regardless of what he did, all we would be doing by killing him would be murder. I would rather have him on a dungeon on bread and water. Since that is not possible I guess we can just put him on solitary confinement on a 8x10 ft. cell for the rest of his life. With luck he may go insane.

BTW, if you people need a dungeon there are a few vintage ones in the old military forts the Spaniards made here.
post #11 of 30
I disagree with you yoviher.

Read what Heidi has said.
post #12 of 30
Heidi and I were posting at the same time... I had to edit my post to answer to her. It happens.
post #13 of 30
Keep up with the news, Victor. The US is NOT going to try him. The Iraqi people and courts will try him. And it being more "civilized" because the UN abolished the death penalty is purely your opinion. I think the UN is an ineffectual beaurocracy that would drag this out for years to come. Come on, the Milosovich (sp) trial is still going on because he knows how to play the system. The Iraqi people deserve better than that.

Now, tell me this: The international community and UN are crying for Iraqi rule to be turned over to the Iraqis, which I agree with. So now, because you still somehow consider Saddam a human being, because it fits your agenda more to not have the death penalty, you want an international court???? Which is it? Are the Iraqi's competent to rule themselves and have their own courts and system of justice or not?
post #14 of 30
Whoa! Time out! I never asserted that the US would try him. When I say "US/Iraqi" I mean that either one of them, not both. Don't accuse me of something I did not say.

And what tells you that the Iraqi trial will not drag for years? That it will be a show trial just to be able to say "we gave him a trial"? No, the Milosevic trial has dragged on, because it is a real trial, not a Public Relations circus. If you look at ALL trials of that nature, ALL have lasted long amounts of time.
post #15 of 30
Second, he is a human being. Regardless of what he did, all we would be doing by killing him would be murder. I would rather have him on a dungeon on bread and water. Since that is not possible I guess we can just put him on solitary confinement on a 8x10 ft. cell for the rest of his life. With luck he may go insane.
Saddam is not human. He is a meglomaniac. He is already insane.

I don't think Heidi is making it heated, on the contrary, I think you are, Victor.
post #16 of 30
And do not accuse me of putting such stuff because of my agenda on anyyhing, as it is starting to get offensive on the personal level.
post #17 of 30
When I said of heated. All I meant is that let's avoid using strong words. If I am the one who is making it heated then it is totally unintentional, and I apologize in advance.
post #18 of 30
Reason no. 2: It will not seem as a unilateral thing of the US being prosecutor, judge and jury.
That's not putting words in your mouth. That's what you said. Since we cannot read minds, we must go by what was written, not by whatever you meant.

I would rather have him tried by the UN and NO death penalty.
Victor, you have stated many times in the past that you are against the death penalty in any way, shape or form. That IS your agenda, that is what you would like to see happen.

Try not to take people disagreeing with you so personally, Victor. It happens when you express strong opinions, happens to me all the time.
post #19 of 30
Hussein should be tried by the Iraqis. Period. Truthfully, leaving out Kuwait, his crimes have been against other Iraqis, or at least people living within the borders of Iraq.

I believe that the Milosevic trial has dragged on for reasons having nothing to do with 'fairness'. There have been all sorts of delays, not years of testimony and fact finding. The longest delays related to him being 'ill'. Plus, he was the first major person tried by the World Court.

I don't recall there being huge criticisms of the Nuremberg trials post WW2. Many of the Nazi ringleaders were executed; some judged not as culpable, were given extensive prison terms.

Yohiver, you would have spared Adolf Hitler the death penalty. I think that's the idealism of youth speaking.He would not have reformed or repented. He would have continued to have a life that 50 million others did not have because of his actions. God help us: he may even have made it to CNN. He would have continued to inspire more crazy people alive than dead. You think that is the correct moral view. Many would disagree with you.
post #20 of 30
Let's take a look at how the UN handles things: 800,000 people murdered in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, political dissidents locked away and murdered without trials in China, while the UN wrangles, wrings its collective hands and passes toothless resolutions.

Oh yes - the one REALLY constructive action by the UN: installing Qaddafi's Libya as chair of the UN Human Rights Commission.

As for how the US is regarded by other countries: how many people are risking their lives, crossing hot deserts or floating in leaky boats, to get OUT of the US?

BTW: there was an AP story in this morning's paper, detailing how European countries are beginning to deport asylum-seekers. The Netherlands, in particular, is setting up holding centers preparatory to returning people to such places as Algeria and Somalia. If their home countries won't take them back, these people will be turned loose on the streets, with no access to jobs, housing or health care. It seems that the Dutch people resent that their tax-supported social safety net is being utilized by foreigners.

Just remember, when you point a finger, there are three others pointing back at you.
post #21 of 30
Yes, yes... thanks Heidi, thanks for that. I think I've just made an idiot out of myself here by snapping so much, but I guess that's what I get when I try to get here having a bad day. Today I have been feeling depressed for no reason at all, I have been having more disagreements with my parents than I can even count and Vicky seems to be out of cell phone area reach, so I haven't been able to vent it out with her. If I could only have an answer to why is my life such a mess at times and why I feel depressed so often for no reason at all. My apologies.

Back to the thread.

What I meant by judge, jury and prosecutor was that with a government installed by the US and a country occupated by the US it would seem like that. You understood it wrongly.

And yes, I am anti death penalty, so it is like 80 or 90 percent of people here. Not many places can claim to be so anti death penalty that if a politician speaks in favor of it, it's public lynching.
post #22 of 30
I was anti death penalty, but now my views have changed since I have had my son. There are some mad mad mad people in this world, keeping them in prisons for the rest of their lives is ridiculous.

But what I would love to see those people be used for is research, instead of a "humane" way to die - say for example - AIDS research. Unfortunately, that would be termed as cruel and unusual punishment.

Saddam will never repent nor be remorseful for his actions. When he dies, it will be just one less madman on this earth. Millions are looking forward to this day.

And like Lucia said, it is just your youthful idealism, I was the same way once - I simply got older.
post #23 of 30
I saw a documentary a few months ago on Saddam and his sons. They were known to take their prisoners into their home, feed them well. They would then walk them outside to the back of the palace and force them into the tigers pit where the tigers would feed on them while they were still alive.! I wonder what kind of trial those condemned to die in such horrific ways had prior to their *sentence*
post #24 of 30
The government that will try Saddam will be the one elected by the Iraqi people. That's not a US appointed government. And as of June we are handing over power to the Iraqis, per the UN agreement.

US occupied, huh? Would you consider Germany to be a US occupied nation? How about Iceland, Greenland, most of Europe except France, many countries in the Middle East, Africa, Japan, South Korea, Guam, etc.? Because we do have peacekeeping troops in all of those places.

It seems that there is nothing that we or Iraq can do that will appease people. No matter how soon we hand over power to the people, it won't be soon enough. No matter who tries Saddam, it won't be a fair trial. No matter what the sentence, it won't be the right one. I'm not speaking to any particular person, but about world opinion.
post #25 of 30
Youthful idealism.... boy I do hope I never get old!

Kellye, your mention remembers me of a thing of my mother. She is even more anti death penalty than me. But I do remember one person she has always said doesn't even deserve to be alive and you can see her rage everytime she remembers him - Augusto Pinochet. The day Chilean authorities decided that he cannot be tried because his health was so delicate that he cannot stand a trial she said "Well speed up the trial so he dies faster". The day that sack of dirt dies, I guess the champagne will flood the house... but I guess I will be the most drunken one.
post #26 of 30
Heidi, it is the circunstances of the event. Anyway, I did not say it would be like that, I said how it would look.

You made one small mistake in your geography. You see, there are no peacekeepers in those places, except perhaps S. Korea. It's military bases for their own day to day operations. Some of them from the cold war.

And Guam is a U.S. territorry, in case you don't know. Very peaceful place. It was handed over by Spain in 1898 along with Puerto Rico and Philippines. It has a big military base because of it's strategic position in the pacific.

If you knew, here we are partying because most of the US military bases they had here are closing down.
post #27 of 30
Define Peacekeeping forces. Every military base has a reason to be there. Hence examples like Germany which to some still, is an “occupational†or “peacekeeping†force since we entered their borders in 1944. As a person who lived in Germany as an American citizen for 4 years with a parent who was in the armed forces, I even experienced the magnitude might of the US military and other allies in Europe as a whole. Was it a peacekeeping force or a occupational force? Depends, but the outcome was peacekeeping since it help win the Cold War If you define peacekeeping, there are quite a few deployments across the nation regarding us and allied troops (including the French and the Canadians imagine that! -- no offense to France and Canada, btw, I have friends and business partners there also) who are on peacekeeping duties. I would need to further find out where they are all at, if that’s even possibly, but the list would be VERY lengthy. The U.S. military isn’t they only ones also deploying peacekeeping troops either.

But as for US Military bases across the globe, they aren’t sitting there doing nothing. And what is the military designed to do? To keep the peace, Hence the word peacekeeping. My job when I was in the military was in the middle of the U.S., but was it Peacekeeping? You betcha. The weapon I maintained could be used and delivered a big boom (or booms to several targets). Heck, one of the weapon systems I maintained was called the Peacekeeper. Even though it currently is in deactivation status, the weapon did it’s a job as a “Peacekeeper.†Granted it is a play on words but nearly the same thing. You can also define a cop or any person of law enforcement a peacekeeper. Any military for that matter is a peacekeeping force or occupational force. It’s just a play on words.

And as for the bases in Puerto Rico, you have to be dead in the world not to know about the US Military moving out of there considering it was plastered all over the press. Besides all we did to island (and surrounding islands and other islands around the world, especially in the south pacific) is use the island for target practice anyways.

You also quoted this:

“No, the Milosevic trial has dragged on, because it is a real trial, not a Public Relations circus.â€

You must not be following the trial day by day, if not by month by month, the only reason why its taking forever is the fact that Milosevic is making the trial into a circus, since he has considered the trial in his eyes “illegal†and there have been many times when the trial has stopped when Milosevic made several outbursts while witnesses were in the stand, Just ask General Wesley Clarke on that one. Infact, just ask the judges, they are disgusted with him and how he is treating the trial.

But back to the subject regarding the trial of Saddam, that trial will certainly be a circus, even if done by the Iraqi people. Interrogators of the US have already said that’s atmosphere, a circus, if not a sideshow attraction, which to many, he is a sideshow freak. He’s enjoying it. That trial is going to be a big top circus that even the “whole family†will enjoy. It’ll be worse then any trial in public record. Heck to some, the Nuremburg trials were a “show trial.†You should read the transcripts of that one. Meaning, if the US, the UN or the Iraqi government tried him, it will STILL be a show trial by any aspect since Saddamn won't care, just like Milosevic is doing currently or even the defendents of the The Nuremburg trials, or the war crimes trials in Japan.
post #28 of 30
Excuse me? Only target practice? There is at least about 3 million Puerto Ricans willing to disagree. Counting me.

Napalm was used there, Orange agent (I am translating the name from Spanish, dunno if it's correct name), depleted uranium bullets, Napalm was used as part of those practices. As if all that was not enough they were doing training bombing missions from the Air Force a stone's throw away from a town of 9,000 inhabitants where an error in the trainee pilot could have had a bomb dropped on mid town. The town of Vieques has the highest index of cancer in Puerto Rico, and there are still tons of undenotated bombs in the nearby sea, (a potential hazard, taking into account it's a fishing town) as well as the old terrain. And they are still arguing who should be responsible for cleaning all the contamination that 60 years of target practice has brought to the place.

And I don't mind that the US makes those practices, what I do mind (and greatly) is in such a populated region! (In the same isle there is the town of 9,000 people, it's about ten miles from the mainland with Humacao of 100,000 people, 16 from the isle of culebra with 5,000 people and I am not counting the Virgin Islands).
post #29 of 30
Right, Target Practice. You said it yourself. We shelled and bombed the island. Just like we still do in the south pacific. Granted I don't know more about the main operations about the base(s) are used for there but that is one of the aspect I have heard and seen while I was in the military. Your Island isn't the only one that has been thru this. As for the incidents, I can't speak for the US Military and its contractors for what they do. Btw, there was a hint of sarcasm and history in what I said, but I guess you missed it. One thing I did notice you say is that they used Agent Orange? What if, if they used it at all, for and where? I'm very curious since it was never was used as a weapon. It was used as a Defoliant in Vietnam.
post #30 of 30
The forces, which were deployed in Europe, after WWII, kept the Soviet Union from overrunning the entire continent.

Any discussion of military forces, stationed in foreign countries, must also include Soviet troops in Cuba, Cuban troops in Angola, a French naval base in Tahiti, Chinese military in North Korea and that's just within the last 60 years.

All major powers have always maintained forces, in strategic locations, as far back as the Babylonians and Phoenicians. These locations are vital for resupplying and refueling forces, as well as for training and rapid deployment to hot spots.

Those foreign bases also provide an economic boost for most of the places, where they're located.

The harsh reality is this: The world is NOT a safe place. There are EVIL people out there and they don't care who or how many they kill. You cannot reason or negotiate with terrorists, fanatics and madmen. They must be permanently removed.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Lawyer agrees to defend Sadaam