# Hussein has a LAWYER?!



## jmackenzie_15 (17 Dec 2004)

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/16/iraq.main/index.html

Can you imagine the publicity you would get as being this guy's lawyer? Only Hitler would be better.
Im interested to see what his argument is going to be... "please dont burn him alive, at least go with electrocution "


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (17 Dec 2004)

"Of course, he's not guilty," said Ghazzawi, contending that the criminal proceedings are unfair and that Saddam legally remains president of Iraq.


^ my mistake... so the lawyer is insane.What a circus this will be, OJ step aside.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Dec 2004)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/16/iraq.main/index.html
> 
> Can you imagine the publicity you would get as being this guy's lawyer? Only Hitler would be better.
> Im interested to see what his argument is going to be... "please dont burn him alive, at least go with electrocution "



WTF are you talking about?  The right to legal representation was something we fought for in the last World War.  Lawyers are professionals, just like doctors and soldiers; I imagine the opporunity to take on as challenging a case as that would be a point of professional pride.  The tenets of the legal system are such that a lawyer should be able to take anybody's case without prejudice or bias.  The better the lawyer, the better his ability to do so.

Shake out your head gear, lad.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Dec 2004)

The fact that Hussein has a lawyer sums up the difference between pre war and post war Iraqi society. 

If the tables were turned and Hussein had captured George W Bush, the President would either have been shot our of hand or turned over to the Abu Gharab prison for long and sustained torture prior to being fed into an industrial shredding machine in front of the Al Jazzera cameras. (Abu Gharab was one of the most notorious prisons in Iraq for the cruelty of its staff, posing prisoners naked with women would not even have crossed their minds as a beginning, much less an end).


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (17 Dec 2004)

i know he's entitled to a lawyer, i just figured the guy for the job must be pretty brave to try and win a case for not guilty.Although after reading the article, he does have a point.However, the biggest thing for him is, even if he loses, he'll be famous =p I can see that trial going on for a long long time though.


----------



## KevinB (17 Dec 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The fact that Hussein has a lawyer sums up the difference between pre war and post war Iraqi society.



BINGO


----------



## Hottie_Cowgirl_ (17 Dec 2004)

I know this is horrible to say (we should be better than him) ...but just imagine all the time and money that would have been saved had they just shot him in the hole they found him in.  He would not have thought twice about giving anyone more than that.


----------



## KevinB (17 Dec 2004)

Hottie_Cowgirl_ said:
			
		

> I know this is horrible to say (we should be better than him) ...but just imagine all the time and money that would have been saved had they just shot him in the hole they found him in.   He would not have thought twice about giving anyone more than that.



True - bit Iraq as a country will be better served by witnessing justice in action, in the long term.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Dec 2004)

Quote,
_He would not have thought twice about giving anyone more than that._

...and that to all the naysayers is as good a reason as any to "justify" this war........next?


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (17 Dec 2004)

If the americans had just killed him when they found him, he would have died as a martyr , or a hero to the cause of the people still fighting the americans, rather than just being captured pathetically which is alot more demoralizing.I think they made the right call on that one.


----------



## Pieman (17 Dec 2004)

> I know this is horrible to say (we should be better than him) ...but just imagine all the time and money that would have been saved had they just shot him in the hole they found him in.   He would not have thought twice about giving anyone more than that.


I think the exposure of all the misdeeds of Hussein to the Iraqis and the world will be well worth it. I hear a lot of people say 'It is good we god rid of Saddam' but don't really have a lot of examples as to why. They just heard it being said on the news and 'he gassed he own people'. He did a lot of other bad things.   

I hope the trial will expose him for the jerk that he is and may contribute towards a more accepting attitude of the invasion...one can only help a change in attitude will lead to stabilization.


----------



## bubba (17 Dec 2004)

if hussain is smart he'll get johnny cochran,he freed willy and oj.... 8)


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (17 Dec 2004)

Hussein's lawyer is saying that the trail is illegal, and he cannot be prosecuted, as the war itself was illegal.Which is true, the UN did not support it, and afterwards decreed it to be illegal.Team America World Police has become a reality i suppose lol.


----------



## Hottie_Cowgirl_ (17 Dec 2004)

> If the americans had just killed him when they found him, he would have died as a martyr , or a hero to the cause of the people still fighting the americans, rather than just being captured pathetically which is alot more demoralizing.I think they made the right call on that one.



Good point and I know that the Iraqi's need to have some real 'closure' on this but at the same time all this seems like such a huge waste of resources for the one person in the world that I think deserves nothing.


----------



## Hottie_Cowgirl_ (17 Dec 2004)

> Hussein's lawyer is saying that the trail is illegal, and he cannot be prosecuted, as the war itself was illegal.Which is true, the UN did not support it, and afterwards decreed it to be illegal.



Do you think they have a chance at winning with this argument? They have a good point that it was decreed as illegal by the UN.  I guess that it all comes down to how much clout the UN still has in the world.  It would be really sad if he got off because of the internal fighting and bickering at the UN.


----------



## winchable (17 Dec 2004)

Defence lawyers love a challenging case. What could be more challenging than the defence of Saddam Hussein? Even if the lawyer doesn't believe in his clients guilty or innocence it's something which I know a bunch of lawyers would love to sink their teeth into. In fact the Law school at Dal is having a moot trial (a decent and fair one) and theres a lineup to be Saddams Defence.

Where will the real trial take place?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Dec 2004)

Che said:
			
		

> Where will the real trial take place?



In the hearts and minds of those that love him...


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (17 Dec 2004)

It is illegal, but the tribunal will go on.The US does whatever it wants =p

It does seem like a waste of resources, but they likely would have (if saddam were killed) be put into more troops to combat the rising insurgency after their leader was "murdered by infidels".See where im giong with that? =p


----------



## Shec (17 Dec 2004)

When will the JAG episode be aired ? :


----------



## Hottie_Cowgirl_ (18 Dec 2004)

> It is illegal, but the tribunal will go on.The US does whatever it wants =p
> 
> It does seem like a waste of resources, but they likely would have (if saddam were killed) be put into more troops to combat the rising insurgency after their leader was "murdered by infidels".See where im giong with that? =p



First off, I just don't really get the illegal thing.  At some point it has to become legal to do the right thing even if others aren't willing to take that stand....BUT, the war's legality or necessity or what ever you would like to call it is a whole topic on it's own and we should start a new thread for that if you want to discuss it with me jmackenzie_15.

I see where you're going with the whole infidels thing but if you're going to go down that line of thinking then you basically have to say that he can never be put to death no matter what this trial says because someone is still going to think he's a martyr that died at the hands of the infidels who cooperate with the Americans.  In some cases I think that would be even worse because no longer do you have a country fighting one outside source but now it's fighting against itself and no one will trust anyone.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Dec 2004)

If I'm not mistaken, he's to be tried by the newly elected government, his own people. Also under their law. I don't see anything illegal about it. Of course the conspiracy theorists, terrorists and anti US\ Bush bashers will not accept this reasoning and claim it's only a puppet regime doing the bidding of the global corporations. IMHO, their theories don't hold water and are only the musings of deranged and ostrich like minds.


----------



## Hottie_Cowgirl_ (18 Dec 2004)

> Of course the conspiracy theorists, terrorists and anti US\ Bush bashers will not accept this reasoning and claim it's only a puppet regime doing the bidding of the global corporations.



You left out one group from that...some of the most powerful clerics will also do this and broadcast their beliefs to all there followers.

This is exactly the point I was getting at.  Even if this trial by their laws and their government and for their people finds him guilty someone is going to turn it all around and use it as reason number one to kill more Americans and their allies.  Unless they let him die of natural causes sitting in jail waiting for execution I can't see a positive way out of this for Iraq.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Dec 2004)

Hottie_Cowgirl_ said:
			
		

> You left out one group from that...some of the most powerful clerics will also do this and broadcast their beliefs to all there followers.



It's a matter of opinion. I personally believe many of their "most powerful clerics" are terrorists. Just because they don't carry firearms or strap bombs to themselves, doesn't mean they're not as guilty, by the Jihadist line they espouse to their followers who do.


----------



## Hottie_Cowgirl_ (18 Dec 2004)

> It's a matter of opinion. I personally believe many of their "most powerful clerics" are terrorists. Just because they don't carry firearms or strap bombs to themselves, doesn't mean they're not as guilty, by the Jihadist line they espouse to their followers who do.



We think alike.  I totally agree!


----------



## mo-litia (18 Dec 2004)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> "Of course, he's not guilty," said Ghazzawi, contending that the criminal proceedings are unfair and that Saddam legally remains president of Iraq.



Like it or not, this is a correct statement.   Under Iraqi law, Saddam is still president - he was overthrown and did not relinquish his position.   And technically, as Iraq's president he is immune from prosecution.

Of course, getting angry about abuses of democratic process in Third World nations is such a waste of time it's laughable . . .


----------



## winchable (18 Dec 2004)

International law (And whiskey may back me up on this) is very, very vague and ambiguous.
So Saddam, regardless of how you feel about him, will be tried according to what? International law? C'mon that can be just about anything. Or is it Iraqi law? Who wrote the new Iraqi law?

I think what has happened in Iraq is a step in the right direction perhaps, but I seriously question (hate me if you will, sod off) any trial held in country as there is absolutely no way it will be fair and impartial.

Now in Realist terms, who cares right? It's the butcher of Baghdad, we knew as soon as he was caught there would be no fair trial but honestly other than minority of people the less living Saddam, the better.
However the system which the US has bestowed on the Iraqi people garauntees the right to a fair trial, so Saddam must be dealt with as such.

 But how can you find a fair and impartial Jury in a country where someone was a dictator for 30+ years?

(Edited-Because no one should post after that much rum)


----------



## Hottie_Cowgirl_ (20 Dec 2004)

> But how can you find a fair and impartial Jury in a country where someone was a dictator for 30+ years?



I thought it was a trial by a panel of judges.  Does anyone know for sure?


----------



## winchable (20 Dec 2004)

Alright, well, if it's a panel of judges
"How can you find a fair and impartial panel of judges?"


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Dec 2004)

You can't.  There's no other real alternative though.  When you're trying to put someone as famous as Sadam on trial, no matter where you pick your jurry you'll end up with people who know of his actions and are biased.  Maybe if you grabbed a couple Tibetian monks you'd be able to find a few who have never heard of him, but apart from that....


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Dec 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> WTF are you talking about?   The right to legal representation was something we fought for in the last World War.   Lawyers are professionals, just like doctors and soldiers; I imagine the opporunity to take on as challenging a case as that would be a point of professional pride.   The tenets of the legal system are such that a lawyer should be able to take anybody's case without prejudice or bias.   The better the lawyer, the better his ability to do so.



Curiously, I find myself at a loss to explain why thousands of unrepresented litigants are hauled in front of judges everyday in Canada. Oh!!! Now I remember why!! A person has right to have a lawyer represent them, it doesn't mean they have a right to a lawyer. It depends on their means, and what they are charged with. There's a potential difference between our system and Iraq's right there. 

Sadly, IME the outcome is nearly always predictable whether a lawyer is present or not. I once watched a crown attorney put a case on while half asleep, and she still creamed the D.


----------



## Hottie_Cowgirl_ (20 Dec 2004)

> I once watched a crown attorney put a case on while half asleep, and she still creamed the D.



OK, that's pretty sad.  At least we're lucky enough to have the right to representation...even if they do fail in the end.



> You can't.  There's no other real alternative though.  When you're trying to put someone as famous as Saddam on trial, no matter where you pick your jury you'll end up with people who know of his actions and are biased.  Maybe if you grabbed a couple Tibetan monks you'd be able to find a few who have never heard of him, but apart from that....



I would think that judges would be in the best position to TRY to be impartial.  At least from their perspective they know how valuable it is to at least appear to be impartial during Saddam's trial.  I'm not sure they will get it done but on the other hand I can't honestly say I care.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (20 Dec 2004)

Quote from: jmackenzie_15 on December 17, 2004, 00:12:15
"Of course, he's not guilty," said Ghazzawi, contending that the criminal proceedings are unfair and that Saddam legally remains president of Iraq.


Like it or not, this is a correct statement.  Under Iraqi law, Saddam is still president - he was overthrown and did not relinquish his position.  And technically, as Iraq's president he is immune from prosecution.


^ how do the americans hope to instill the values of democracy and justice into iraq when they only practice these ideas themselves when it suits them to do so?

Also, of course you can put saddam to death, but if he died in the field, the Al-Zarqawi camp would have a field day of propoganda about how their leader died gloriously in battle etc.Anything much they do to Saddam wont have much of an effect on the resistance I dont imagine.Unless of course hes found not guilty and freed somehow.


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Dec 2004)

Just because the Sec Gen of the UN shot his mouth off and said the invasion of Iraq was illegal, doesn't mean that it actually was. There has been no legal finding by a court of competent jurisdiction on that matter, and there never will be. The general consensus amongst sensible international lawyers and jurists is that the invasion, because of its anticipatory nature, is in fact sufficiently sustainable in international law.   There may have been some negligence involved in the intelligence services, but with or without the intel, the invasion was legally justified whether there was a coalition or not, and whether the UN approved the war or not.

The new Iraqi constitution supercedes the old one, and the head of state is the interim leader until a new one is elected. End of story. I don't know how it could be more plain than that. Saddam Hussein is now citizen Hussein, soon to be pushing up vegetation in by a garbage dump east of Bagdad by operation of domestic Iraqi law, God willing. There is no need to haul him in front of an international tribunal, it would be pointless and accomplish absolutely nothing from a legal perspective.

The man was surrendering when he was captured, and in one of the most perverse twists in the past 100 years, it would have been murder to shoot him. Some 20 year old had his crap together at that time, good on him!! Temperance is as courageous as a bayonet charge - it's called the art of war. Cheers.


----------



## Hottie_Cowgirl_ (21 Dec 2004)

Well said whiskey!


----------



## Sailing Instructor (21 Dec 2004)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> If the americans had just killed him when they found him, he would have died as a martyr , or a hero to the cause of the people still fighting the americans, rather than just being captured pathetically which is alot more demoralizing.I think they made the right call on that one.



I think this reasoning (which is pretty much everyone's reasoning, even mine) is rather akin to the Party's belief in Orwell's _1984_: you can't just kill those with bad thoughts because then those thoughts will still persist, you must cleanse their mind before killing them.  Not exactly equal to our conception of justice but rather interesting if I do say so myself.

On the point about the trial being more fair if Hussein is tried by his own people: doesn't this rather collapse our ideas of justice being a unversal notion?  If the trial is just, it oughtn't to matter who the judges and lawyers are because justice is a universal truth and does not rest on one person.  Or perhaps the fact that the 'tried by peers' idea has gone on for a while makes the idea of justice somewhat subjective?


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2004)

Here is the Hussein dream team, financed BTW, by monies stolen from the Iraqi people under the notorious "Oil for Bribes (oops, Food)" program.

http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/12/devils-advocates.html

Note: Welcome to all the new readers - please stick around and check out the rest of the blog, in particular the latest mega round-up of good - and much under-reported - news from Iraq.

With the recent speculation about the date of Saddam's trial, and following the first meeting between Saddam and one of his defense lawyers, I thought it worthwhile to republish the updated profile Hussein's legal eagles, which "Scotland on Sunday" describes as a "20-strong international legal team based in Jordan [with a] back-up from some 1,500 volunteer lawyers, mostly from Arab countries." As the paper's Ian Mathers continues,

    "The legal campaign to save the former Iraqi dictator is being run by Saddam's wife and three daughters. They are funding the campaign using aid cash for the Iraqi people stolen by the dictator in the dying hours of his regime.

    "His wife, Sajida Khairallah Telfah, lives in Qatar with her youngest daughter, Hala. Saddam's other daughters, Raghad and Rana, have been granted political asylum in Jordan. From Amman, Raghad pays the bills and takes the lead, holding regular planning meetings with the legal team... However, the devotion of Raghad and Rana to their father is surprising, since Saddam ordered the murder of both their husbands [in 1995]."

The assets of Hussein family members have been frozen after the liberation, but apparently not all; besides, "there has been a rush of Arab lawyers volunteering to help Saddam. Most are working for nothing, but they will gain kudos from a high-profile case which is very popular in the Arab world."

So just who exactly would volunteer to defend one of the most repulsive characters to walk the pages of recent history? Quite an interesting, and disparate group of people, by the looks of it; some probably doing it for money, others for publicity, still others because of their anti-American ideological convictions or a sense, particularly prevalent among the Arab members of the team, that Saddam is actually innocent, a sort of a Middle Eastern version of O J Simpson. Let's take a closer look at the devil's advocates:

Tom Hughes, a solicitor from Tiverton, in Devon, England, is a surprise entry. The "Guardian" comments:

    "The married father-of-three was approached... to join the team 'to review principles of international justice surrounding the forthcoming trial'. Information on Mr Hughes from the Law Society shows not a specialist in international law but a typical country solicitor: areas of expertise include crime (including motor offences); family law; general litigation; debt and money advice; employment; and neighbour disputes."

Doesn't sound like much of an international law background, but the "neighbour disputes" experience might come in handy when defending Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. The missing link is Hughes' one year stint at a law firm in France, where he met the French member of the "S team," Emmanuel Ludot.

Of Emmanuel Ludot little is known outside his own country, except a for his penchant for controversial cases. In the past he represented a cancer sufferer suing over the Chernobyl disaster. In case you were wondering the suit wasn't against the Soviet Union but the French government for allowing people to consume food possibly contaminated by the radioactive fallout over France. According to one recent report, "Mr Ludot... called the Iraqi penal code 'Stone Age legislation' and said it was ill-suited to Saddam's case." One would have thought it was very well suited.

Ludot, in turn, is closely associated with another French member of the team, Jacques Verges, famous - or notorious - as defender of Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie and international terrorist Carlos the Jackal. Charmingly, he "is said to have been a friend of Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge leader behind Cambodia's genocide." Verges has long legal history:

    "In World War II, he earned a reputation as a war hero with General Charles de Gaulle's Free French resistance, but later he became a Communist.

    "During the Algerian war of independence, he defended Algerians accused of terrorism against France. One of his clients was Djamila Bouhired, who was sentenced to death in 1957 for planting bombs in cafes in Algiers. He managed to have her sentenced commuted, and married her when she was released in 1962.

    "Later, in the 1970s, he became the champion of extremists from both left and right, defending Palestinian violence against Israel and neo-Nazi bombers."

Verges also represented himself as defending Slobodan Milosevic, a claim angrily rejected by some of Slobo's fans, who resent Verges' past association with Muslim extremists. In addition to acting for Saddam, Verges is also representing Muhammad al-Jundi, the Syrian driver of the two kidnapped French journalists. Al-Jundi has been rescued from his captivity by the American troops in Fallujah in November, but he's still suing the US authorities because, as he claims, following his rescue he "was taken in handcuffs to a military base where he was beaten and kicked... thrice threatened with mock executions and tortured with electric shocks... [as well as] denied medicines and forced to sleep on a pile of plastic rice sacks." Al-Jundi now resides in Paris, "under French protection."

Another team member is British-based Giovanni di Stefano, multi-millionaire and former controversial director of Dundee football club. And a lawyer, apparently. One report says that "Mr di Stefano, who once reportedly said he would have been prepared to represent Adolf Hitler, lists road rage killer Kenneth Noye among his past clients." He is currently representing "43-year-old Mr [Jeremy] Bamber was handed a life sentence for the murders of his adoptive parents, sister and her twin six-year-olds in 1986."

Di Stefano has in the past rubbed shoulders with some interesting characters. He had this to say about the late Serbian ethnic cleansing mass murderer Arkan: "He loved me very much as a human being. And I liked him as a person. He had good morals. He was a good person. And I'm not ashamed of saying it." He also claims to have met Osama bin Laden in Baghdad in 1998 (!): "He had a handshake like a woman. He had a soft voice. He spoke like a priest." Di Giovanni's legal qualifications have been queried by a Court of Appeals judge and he has been previously convicted of fraud.

Swiss barrister and academic Marc Henzelin seems a lot less colorful by comparison. A lecturer at the universities in Geneva and Hong Kong, Henzelin specializes in international criminal law. In the past he has represented Iraqi-based Iranian mudjahedin, Argentinian arms dealers, and Saddam's nephews and nieces whose Swiss bank accounts were frozen by the authorities.

Then there is American academic (Professor of Human Rights Law at American University in Cairo) and lawyer Curtis Doebbler. Doebbler is a former legal advisor to the Palestinian Authority, and has been representing suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay (or as this note delightfully puts it, he "served as an advisor to the Taliban on the laws of war"). As Doebbler says himself:

    "I am a pacifist in so far as I will not use force to achieve political ends and in principle I reject the use of force by both governmental and non-governmental actors. At the same time, I can understand the frustrations of those individuals who turn to the use of force when they or others with whom they identify are being oppressed and have no adequate means of legal recourse...

    "I ardently oppose American and more broadly western neo-imperialism which is being imposed through the exploitation of the majority of the people of the world and the economic and military dominance of the United States. I believe that all people have a right and a duty to take all necessary measures to end the United States' inhumane dominance of the lives of billions of people." 

In other words, one of those violent pacifists. You can also read this extensive profile of him, where Doebbler comes out as an equal opportunity defender, offering his service to George W Bush, should the President ever face a war crimes tribunal.

Another American (by naturalization) member of the team is Clive Stafford Smith, an anti-death penalty activist, who over the last quarter of a century, successfully defended some 300 clients from execution. Most recently, Stafford Smith has been a beneficiary of a grant by Soros Justice Foundation to "organize a coalition to promote enforcement of constitutional and human rights in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (home of a U.S. military base and prison); to produce a best-practices manual for litigating the cases before military commissions; and to write about a selection of Guantanamo prisoners" (hat tip: Little Green Footballs). Having recently met with two Britons held at Guantanamo, Stafford Smith said of his experience, "I don't think I've ever been as depressed coming out of Death Row as I was leaving that place. It was terribly shocking."

Stafford Smith already had an opportunity to contribute to Saddam's defense:

    "A 50-page brief prepared for the defense team by British human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith argues that US law should prevail in any trial of Saddam and his 11 captive aides because the trial is effectively being taken at Washington's behest... The lawyer charged that the Iraq Special Tribunal set up by the US-led coalition last December amounted to 'victors' justice' creating 'inherent illegality and bias'."

Lastly, Saddam's defense team even gets a more glamorous celebrity member:

    "A daughter of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi has joined a 20-member defense panel for former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the team's chief Mohammad Rashdan announced yesterday.

    " 'Aysha Qaddafi, who holds a doctorate in law, has called us offering to join the team, and we welcomed that. She is now member of the defense panel for the Iraqi president,' Rashdan [said]." 

The Calcutta "Telegraph" is not very kind to Miss Qaddafi:

    "Aisha, in her mid-20s, has been variously described as a 'law graduate' and a 'law professor'. Other than her pin-up good looks and blonde locks, not much is known about the daughter of the leader of Libya."

Regardless of her actual qualifications, judging by the photo at least she will add the newsworthy glamour to the team. Which might be exactly the plan for our PR-conscious times.

So far, there seems to be one sad omission from the "S Team":

    "Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark said... that he would represent Saddam, but added it was unlikely an international court would let a foreigner who didn't speak Arabic and wasn't trained in the Arabic legal tradition to appear in an Iraqi court."

Ramsey Clark - because no cause is too disgusting.

Looks like it's going to be an interesting trial.


----------

