Former US attorney general joins Saddam defence team

[cal04]

Former US attorney general and left-wing activist Ramsey Clark is to join the defence team of Saddam Hussein , a spokesman for the toppled Iraqi president's lawyers said. The former top US justice official, who arrived Tuesday in Jordan where the defence team is based, has become known as a left-wing lawyer and firm critic of US foreign policy since leaving office.

He visited Saddam Hussein in Baghdad in February 2003 just before the US-lead invasion and has also been involved with the defence of former Yugoslav leader Solbodan Milosevic, on trial for war crimes at a UN court in the Hague. Clark told reporters in the Jordanian capital that his principle concern was protecting the rights of Saddam, who only saw a lawyer for the first time this month, a year after his capture.

"In international law, anyone accused of crime has the right to be tried by a confident, independent and impartial court, and there can be no fair trail without those qualities," said Clark. "The special court in Iraq was created by the Iraqi governing council, which is nothing more than a creation of the US military occupation and has no authority in law as a criminal court," he said.

Clark also said the United States itself must be tried for the November assault on Fallujah, destruction of houses, torture in prisons and its role in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis in the war.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041229/ts_alt_afp/iraqussaddamjustice_041229142108

[Cocoa]

1. incredible!

talk about a bombshell development.

Let me make some prediction about media coverage of Clark. There will be ample speculation about his mental state, the tag "left-wing activist" will always be present, and we will very rarely if ever hear from Clark himself, especially on TV.

[LynnTheDem]

2. If you haven't yet, Clark's "Fire & Ice" is a MUST MUST MUST read.

essays on war and sanctions

the devastation of iraq by war and sanctions

http://www.iacenter.org/fireice.htm

[NNN0LHI]

3. Ohhhhhhh shit. Reagan and Bush 1's ties to Saddam are coming right up

Who's next? Johnny Cochran?

Don

[StaggerLee]

4. remember SNL's skits on the O.J. case?

I have a feeling that they are firing off some scripts now...

[Sara Beverley]

29. American ties to Saddam have to be exposed in his trial

That's why Saddam will never make it to a FAIR trial. He'll be drugged if he appears in court.

[gratuitous]

5. While I hold no brief for Saddam

I want him to get the best possible legal representation. Let there be no doubt about his guilt, and no avenue for his erstwhile supporters to say later that he was railroaded.

With Ramsey Clark on his defense team, I look forward to a full airing of the entirety of Saddam's brutal regime, including exposure of all those elements that installed him in power and kept him in power. Particularly those elements that have the letters b, u, s, and h in their last names.

[NNN0LHI]

7. Check this out. CNN had better get back to the tsunami and Ukraine quick

<snip>The Iraq Special Tribunal was established by the US-led coalition last December to try members of the former regime of Saddam.

Clark also said the United States itself must be tried for the November assault on Fallujah, destruction of houses, torture in prisons and its role in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis in the war.

[LiberalFighter]

11. Isn't that amazing??

Here in the United States if a law was created it could not be used for crimes committed prior to the effective date. And in some situations the change in law would allow individuals to be grandfathered into the law so they could continue what was legal prior to the law.

But the U.S. decides that Saddam and his cohorts will be convicted of anything that they consider a crime. Doesn't make any difference if it was 2 years or 20 years ago. Technically Iraqi law did not change until Saddam was illegally removed from office. It would be different if Saddam had committed illegal actions against another country and that would fall under international law.

That is my opinion.

[toopers]

16. What about the invasion of Kuwait?

I guess that would fall under your "international law" theory?

[NNN0LHI]

23. If it can be shown that US oil companies in Kuwait were slant drilling...

...into Iraq's oil fields would that make any difference?

Don

[LiberalFighter]

44. Are you aware of the basis for Iraq invading Kuwait?

[geek tragedy]

66. There was no legal justification.

Anyone who says there was is a complete ignoramus.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LiberalFighter]

82. Anyone with the wrong motive will attempt to use any excuse to justify...

their actions as done there.

Another problem is that too many Americans believe that what the majority vote for or support should and must happen. They don't know how our Constitution and government is set up.

Unfortunately the process only works if and when the Supreme Court operates the way it is suppose to operate. The SC is suppose to overrule any legislation or government action that is unconstitutional even if it was passed by Congress with a 435-0 and 100-0 vote. The President is suppose to veto any legislation that is contrary to the policy of the United States (that means all of the citizens).

[ButterflyBlood]

38. So if Hitler simply slaughtered Jews in Germany...

and didn't invade anywhere else he shouldn't have been tried for anything if he was toppled.

I was against the invasion, but there's no reason to defend Saddam. I don't give a shit what happens to that bastard.

[LiberalFighter]

43. I don't recall genocide being the reason that US invaded Iraq.

There are other countries that would be best if their leaders had lost power. But it is not for us to dictate who will be their leaders or the laws they will enact and enforce. That is called sovereignty which gw* knows nothing about. China, North Korea are examples of countries with leaders that many do not approve as well as others in the recent past.

[ButterflyBlood]

50. It wasn't, but I wasn't for the invasion anyway

look at this way: Should Pinochet get off? The courts recently ruled he could be tried, but his actions legal while he was in power, he only dealt within his own country, and even stepped down demanding immunity as the conditions. supposedly a trial of him would be illegal. But it should happen. I just think here Saddam should be tried at The Hague or some international court rather than the US or the new puppet regime.

[LiberalFighter]

83. That is the only place he should be tried Hague or other intl court.

I wouldn't want another country or outside court coming into the United States and dictating what we can or can't do within our borders. gw* has set a precedent that other countries will now have although not justified.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LiberalFighter]

86. How about everyone of them that get pissed off enough that they all

[Bouncy Ball]

46. We were told we had to invade Iraq

because they had TONS of weapons of mass destruction and they were a threat to our safety.

Ahem.

[ButterflyBlood]

54. Yes and that was a lie, and the invasion was a sham

and I opposed it. But Saddam is still a thug regardless.

[Bouncy Ball]

57. And he doesn't deserve any legal representation?

Aren't we supposed to be better than that? As I told you below, this news story and this thread is NOT about absolving Hussein. NO ONE is suggesting absolution for the man as you seem to think. Where in the world did you get that idea, anyway?

[ButterflyBlood]

61. read post #11

The logic there is similar to Freeper defenses I've seen of Pinochet.

[NNN0LHI]

71. You aren't old enough to remember when Saddam was Americas guy

Yea. He used to kill Iranians by the tens of thousands with the help of America. He couldn't have done it without Americas help. It was a bloody mess. You would have really liked the Saddam that was Americas best friend as he slaughtered them Iranians. The liberal media had all of America thinking he was the greatest guy in the world. Shit he even fired two Exocet missiles into the USS Stark killing a bunch of American sailors, and he was such good friends with the US that just an apology from Saddam was enough for America to forgive him. Like no harm, no foul. Shame you missed it all. You would have been proud of America.

Don

[SOS]

74. He should have been tried

with assistance of counsel.
The question here is not whether a trial should take place, but rather whether the accused has a right to be represented.

The sixth Amendment is clear on this:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[northzax]

77. that was before the Patriot Act

anti-terrorism laws allow for the reassessment of past activities to see if they are now 'terrorist' The best example is that, according to the letter of the law, upon arrival in the US, Nelson Mandela would have to be arrested for links to terrorist groups (the ANC) and held until his deportation. There are many groups who have been reclassified as terrorist groups, and association with any of them, even before they were terrorsits, is illegal. technically, if you went off to fight for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets, you are a terrorist. (unless you worked for the Agency, of course)

welcome to the war on terror.

[Wilms]

10. Really. Who cares if Saddam fries.

As long as the co-conspiritors go down with him.

[VegasWolf]

14. Like the nazi's running this country that are invading Iraq. Who are

the bad guys?

[Demeter]

6. John Adams Spirit Lives On

Adams defended the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre

[LiberalFighter]

12. I didn't care about it when I read about it...

but Adams did the right thing.

[bpilgrim]

8. WAR CRIMES

A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal

by Ramsey Clark and Others


(Photo Credit: © 1991 Kenneth Jarecke / Contact Press Images)





Incinerated body of an Iraqi soldier on the "Highway of Death," a name the press has given to the road from Mutlaa, Kuwait, to Basra, Iraq. U.S. planes immobilized the convoy by disabling vehicles at its front and rear, then bombing and straffing the resulting traffic jam for hours. More than 2,000 vehicles and tens of thousands of charred and dismembered bodies littered the sixty miles of highway. The clear rapid incineration of the human being suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incindiary bombs. These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols. This massive attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawl from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660. Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat." There are, in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending seige of Kuwait City and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces. No attempt was made by U.S. military command to distinguish between military personnel and civilians on the "highway of death." The whole intent of international law with regard to war is to prevent just this sort of indescriminate and excessive use of force.

"It has never happened in history that a nation that has won a war has been held accountable for atrocities committed in preparing for and waging that war. We intend to make this one different. What took place was the use of technological material to destroy a defenseless country. From 125,000 to 300,000 people were killed... We recognize our role in history is to bring the transgressors to justice." Ramsey Clark

Ramsey Clark served as U.S. Attorney General in the administration of Lyndon Johnson. He is the convener of the Commission of Inquiry and a human rights lawyer of world-wide respect. This report was given in New York, May 11, 1991.

more...
http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm

peace

[lostnfound]

13. That photo will give me nightmares.

I could have made it through the day today a little better without seeing that one.

[bpilgrim]

17. very sorry about that

i was rushing and didn't think. i can't edit it now but i did add a warning post just below.

again, very sorry.

peace

[bpilgrim]

15. WARNING ABOVE LINK CONTAINS GRAHIC PHOTO

of our deeds in iraq.

peace

[Judi Lynn]

35. What we don't know can't hurt us, apparently.....

Count me as one more DU'er who appreciates your sense of ethics. There is no reason in the world to pretend our country is NOT INVOLVED in these atrocities.

As soon as more people start paying attention, maybe we can hope for change.

[Just Me]

19. War,...

,...is absolutely horrible.

In addition to the horror, this war was absolutely unlawful & immoral in addition to having delivered the worst consequences. The neoCONimperialists should go down in infamy for their actions

[Bouncy Ball]

47. I remember hearing on the news

that shooting up that highway was "like shooting fish in a barrel."

[bpilgrim]

87. like humans in a traffic jam

:puke:

peace

[Chicago Democrat]

9. Ramsey Clark - American Hero

:)

Even the devil himself deserves an honest trial.

[VegasWolf]

18. and Michael Moore. American heroes. n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

20. Oh I bet this is going to piss off Prince George

Can't wait to see the freepers foaming at the mouth over this one.

[Bouncy Ball]

48. They might already BE

Ahem.

[truthisfreedom]

21. nothing like an old guy to point out our ills. makes it harder for mann

coltier and company to fit him into their "one-sized" hate-america-first jumper.

[Solly Mack]

22. If anyone balks about this just remind them that McCarthy defended German

soldiers after WWII for the war crimes at Melmedy. He used his senate bully pulpit to claim the Germans were set up and unfairly convicted.

Yes, there's a big difference... but it's a lot of fun to watch right wing faces turn purple when you let them know their Uber-American, "commie" chasing, hero defended the men who butchered American POWs.

[Just Me]

58. Grandpa Bush was Hitler's right-hand capitalist man, too. n/t

[SleeplessinSoCal]

84. Grandpa Bush must be very proud

Wherever his special brand of hell is

[geek tragedy]

24. Clark is a seditious old fool who whores himself to any anti-American

war criminal (Hussein, Kim Jong Il, Milosevic) who'll have him.

He serves as a front man for the Stalinoid assholes at the International Action Center.

To hell with him and those like him.

[EFerrari]

25. Right.. Like we're in any position to judge "war criminals"? Have

you read the news lately, uhm, since MAY?

[geek tragedy]

26. I checked your post for a defense of this guy--couldn't find one.

I'm not a supporter of Bush and Rumsfeld.

This guy is a dedicated follower and counselor to the worst war criminals (yes there are people worse than Bush) on the planet.

[EFerrari]

27. geek, I'm not here to attack you or anyone. Please enlighten me

as to who is committing more war crimes than BushCo.

Clark had the balls to admit to his wrongs, to reflect on them and to try to disseminate the lessons he learned from them. Seen "Fog of War"?

See Bush doing that anytime soon?

Sorry if strident.
Beth

[Disturbed]

28. Amerika and shrub have already...

Saddam guilty and that he should get the Death Penalty.

Is Amerika right, er correct?

Saddam On Trial


Marsh Arabs. He could make the same argument for reclaiming the marshland that countries around the world do for hydroelectric dams. All in the name of progress. And he did have a rebellion to put down. Insurgents were attacking government troops during the night and hiding in the marshes during the day.

If that were happening today, what do you think the US would do? The first major marsh-draining scheme was proposed in the 1951 Haigh Report, "Control of the Rivers of Iraq," drafted by British engineers working for the Iraqi government. "The report describes an array of sluices, embankments and canals on the lower reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates that would be needed to 'reclaim' the marshes." The study's senior engineer, Frank Haigh, felt that the standing marsh water was being wasted, so he "proposed concentrating the flow of the Tigris into a few embanked channels that would not overflow into the marshes. He proposed one large canal through the main `Amara marsh." In this way, Iraq would be able to "capture the marsh water for irrigation" purposes to aid in feeding the newly created State of Iraq. Construction of the large canal, called the Third River, began in 1953. Further construction took place in the 1960's. It was not until the 1980's, however, during the Iran-Iraq War, that major work was resumed. Today, many of the water projects in the marsh area bear a striking resemblance to the Haigh Plan -- the only problem is that the projects are not being used for agricultural improvement!

<http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/ted/marsh.htm>

Mass graves

Group 1: Shiites and Kurds killed by the Iraqi govt before Gulf war (when he was an ally of the US. The US provided WMD and the means to deliver them to Saddam during that period. They were allies, and the US continued to supply arms and assisitance knowing that Iraq was doing this. How can the US say then it was ok, but now 20 years later it's bad. Aren't the countries who supplied the means for this murder just as guilty?)

Group 2: Iranians and Iraqis killed during the Iran Iraq war (Again, the US supported Iraq with WMD, helicopters and critical battle planning assistance, so it looks pretty foolish coming to him 20 years later and saying, but you shouldn't have helped us fight our enemy Iran)

Group 3: Masses of Iraqi soldiers and buldozed into mass graves by US troops during the Gulf War. If you think that is a crime against humanity, you know who to blame)

Group 4: Sunnis and Shites massacred by Shiites and Kurds in the pose Desert Storm uprisings encouraged by the US. You can't blame Saddam for this, and when you read about the situation, what choice did he have but to put the rebellion down, just as the US is doing in Iraq today.

As put forth by regional analyst Sandra Mackay: "The rebels utilized their guns and numbers to seize the civilian operatives of the Baath government while former Shia conscripts turned on officers of the army. They hung their captives from rafters of an Islamic school, shot them in the head before walls turned into execution chambers, or simply slit their throats at the point of capture.' (The Reckoning: Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein, page 24) Dilip Hiro, another Iraqi historian, documents atrocities in the holy city of Kerbala: "Insurgents had attacked the army headquarters and seized weapons? They decapitated or hanged 75 military officials, some of them Shia, and tortured many more." (Desert Shield To Desert Storm: The Second Gulf War, page 402)

All said, several thousand policemen, clerks, military personnel and employees of the government were slain, according to Omar Ali, another regional authority. (See Crisis in the Arabian Gulf, page 147) Meanwhile in northern Iraq, Kurdish separatists were gearing up for their own shot at the regime. As far back as 1961 ? seven years before Saddam Hussein came to power - they had been staging violent attacks on Iraq's central government, trying to leverage off a piece of the country to form their own fledgling state.

Accepting Washington's pronouncements about a vanquished Iraqi military, up to 400,000 Kurds undertook a ferocious spree of mayhem that rivaled that of the Shia. According to Mackay, in Kirkuk "no one bothered to count how many servants of Baghdad were shot, beheaded, or cut to shreds with the traditional dagger stuck in the cummerbund of every Kurdish man. By the time Kurdish rage had exhausted itself, piles of corpses lay in the streets awaiting removal by bulldozers." (The Reckoning, page 26)

<http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/433> /

Group 5: Rebels killed by the Baathist regime when putting down the Shiite and Kurdish rebellions (Saddam would merely argue that he did exactly what the US is doing now in Iraq -- using all necessary means to restore stability. How do you convict him for that?)

Group 6: Victims of the current invasion, estimated to be between 35,000 and 100,000 Iraqis. The US and UK killed these people.

[LynnTheDem]

30. And now you, like me, will be called a "Saddam loyalist" etc

for your having posted FACTS. ;)

[NNN0LHI]

31. People always kill the messenger

They only want to hear about bunnys, and rainbows, and shit. Its just the way it works.

Don

[ButterflyBlood]

37. I don't really see the point here

yes, it means Reagan and co. are just as guilty and should've been tried as well.

That doesn't absolve Saddam.

[Bouncy Ball]

49. It makes our actions

a lot less benevolent and that has implications for this case.

That's why it's an important point. The backstory IS important.

[ButterflyBlood]

51. There is no "our" here

Neither of us dealt with giving Saddam weapons, neither of us supported the war. Put the blame on Reagan and the Bushes where it belongs, not ourselves.

Regardless, the point is that while those in the US government deserve to be tried as well, Saddam is not absolved. Throw Saddam, the Bushes and the surving members of the Reagan admin the same cell.

[Bouncy Ball]

55. Who is talking about Saddam being absolved?

This story is about him having legal defense? Who is absolving him?

And by the way, "we" refers to the US government. It's used as shorthand.

[NNN0LHI]

72. Don't you just love when people put words in your mouth like that

I have watched the freepers use them same tactics.

Don

[geek tragedy]

64. Slobo Milosevic, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein.

They aren't merely his clients. They aren't merely his friends. They are his causes. Their agenda is his.

He is also allied with those who committed the Rwandan genocide.

[Just Me]

60. For better or worse, the man does stand on principle.

He does fully respect the "rule of law" which, in this country, dictates that any individual accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

There was GREAT "reason" behind that concept.

That "reason" is being broken every single day,...but it is still worth a stand and I'll be damned if I will condemn this man for standing on such a GREAT, reasoned principle of law.

To me,...JUSTICE is LOVE,...not vice versa.

[geek tragedy]

65. He's not standing on a principle of law.

He only allies himself with the most repugnant enemies of the United States. He's a seditious scumbag if one ever walked the earth.

[NNN0LHI]

73. "allies himself with the most repugnant enemies of the United States"

Are you fucking joking? Saddam is being charged for doing something during a period of time when he WAS the USA's ally. Did you forget that? Or is it that you just don't want to believe it? And another thing. At the same time this was happening the USA was arming the Iranians (see Iran/Contra) so they could kill Iraiqs. And this was at the time that Iran was on the list of states that support terrorism. Now tell me something. Who is the real criminal in this whole situation? Saddam?

Don

[imenja]

33. delete

delete

[imenja]

34. even war criminals need attorneys

We don't reserve a criminal defense for only those we deem worthy. Everyone deserves a good lawyer. The most heinous crimes require the strongest defense, because punishments are justifiably harsh. Saddam's guilt will become evident through the proceedings. That he has a good attorney is crucial to the legitimacy of the proceeding.

[geek tragedy]

63. He has been a political activist who has advocated for their causes.

And Kim Jong Il does not need legal representation.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

75. Until he is deposed and captured. Then he will. (nt)

[bpilgrim]

81. what a geek tragedy

do you actually have any of his writings that back up your wild charges or are you just slinging baseless charges like the cable news folks do?

if the latter, could you please STOP.

thank you :hi:

peace

[bpilgrim]

40. for standing up to the EMPIRE you call him a 'whore'?

talk about eating our own with the cheap tactic of guilt-by-association but never attacking any of his msg, what gives :shrug:

peace

[geek tragedy]

62. Stalinists and friends of war criminalsare not my own.

Ramsey Clark hates this country, not just Bush. His friends are the worst of the worst--if there's a genocide that's been committed, Ramsey Clark has been a friend of the perpetrators.

[bpilgrim]

68. still using 'guilt by association' - just like a winger...

very LAME.

peace

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

76. I disagree with part of your post

Namely, the words "just like a".

[bpilgrim]

89. true

kick

peace

[bvar22]

70. What can you possibly disagree with in this statement?

"Anyone accused of crime has the right to be tried by a confident, independent and impartial court, and there can be no fair trail without those qualities,".

Anyone who loves American Democracy would agree with this statement.


Please enlighten me.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

32. go ramsey!

[ButterflyBlood]

36. not a suprise, check out some of this wacko's former clients:

David Koresh
Father Philip Berrigan
Former Liberian Leader Charles Taylor
Lyndon LaRouche
Slobodan Milosevic
Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, a leader of the Rwandan genocide
PLO leaders in a lawsuit brought by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, the wheelchair bound elderly tourist who was shot and tossed overboard from the hijacked Achille Lauro cruise ship by Palestinian terrorists in 1986

[mitchum]

41. Why did you include Berrigan in that rogue's gallery?

I'm not attacking you or anything, I'm just curious.

However, in my opinion, Clark is not a wacko

[ButterflyBlood]

52. I just took the list off wikipedia and wasn't aware of who he was actually

I looked it up now, it turns out he was a prominent anti-war activist. Certainly better than the rest on the list, but the definately the exception.

[Bouncy Ball]

45. Why did you call him a wacko?

[ButterflyBlood]

53. what else do you call someone involved with LaRouche and his ilk?

n/t

[Bouncy Ball]

56. Explain please.

[ConsAreLiars]

67. Someone who believes in the right of Anyone accused

to defend themselves against the powers that be will be demonized by those who willingly submit to that authority. I believe in the rights of the accused to defend themselves in court, regardless of the accusations. Even bad people who are guilty. However, if you look at the details you will see that Clark has presented these defenses in the context of his anti-corporatist, anti-fascist POV, not as a defense of their beliefs. That is why you see LaRouche and Berrigan and Hussein on the same list.

[pacifictiger]

39. Boy, that Texan son

must really hate the Bushie crowd. I wonder if it has anything to do with what he may have learned in the Kennedy & Johnson admins?
But we all know that saddam is going to mysteriously die before he spills any beans don't we.

[Disturbed]

42. Amerikans

talk about liberty,democracy, freedom and justice but do they practice these?

A little reading of post WW1 Amerika would enlighten those who are not familiar with how quickly Amerika plunged into Fascism and Police State mode in that period. It is happening again, now!

[mike_c]

59. Ramsey Clark is THE MAN....

Ramsey Clark is an inspiration for liberal activists.

[m0nkeyneck]

78. it's possible that the enemy of the enemy..

can still be the enemy


screw saddam ..he's a pig

[NNN0LHI]

79. Was Saddam a pig when he was Americas ally too?

And if so, does that make the patriotic Americans who supported Saddam when he was Americas ally pigs also?

Don

[m0nkeyneck]

80. oink oink

no getting around this one.. saddam was, is, and always will be a filthy murdering pig w/ no respect 4 human life and i guess whoever supports him at anytime would also fall into that category..

<insert generic US gov criticism here ;-)>

[bpilgrim]

88. at least your honest

peace