Ramsey Clark .... Off the Deep End
 

Just when you think things can't get any stranger, a story like this comes along! Ramsey Looneyboy Clark, former Democrat Attorney General and ultraLiberal civil rights extraodinaire has decided to represent none other than Saddam Hussein - mass murderer of 300,000 of his own people. Looneyboy characterizies Saddam as a quiet, thoughtful, dignified man ...... :eek:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=AA3YS0N2Q51L5QFIQMGCNAGAVCBQU JVC?xml=/news/2005/01/16/wirq116.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/01/16/ixnewstop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=25768

aha! I knew it! I knew I'd find that misplaced liberal idealism somewhere!!! thanks, cege :D

That is a little odd, to put it mildly, but OTOH any truly fair trial of S. Hussein would embarass the fuch out of the U.S. :eek:

Should be interesting. :cool:

well, I guess we'll never know. no matter how fair the trial may be, you'll never admit that it was ;)

Re: Ramsey Clark .... Off the Deep End
 

Who cares who defends him? If the case is so tight, it could be anyone from PeeWee Herman to Johnny Cochran.

Personally, I got a kick out of how Milosevic handed everyone their asses at The Hauge. I think the US is afraid that Saddam would do the same thing. Probably something like this:

Prosecutor: Saddam, is it true that you possessed weapons of mass destruction?
SH: Yes, Ronnie Reagan gave them to me. Here's my receipt and the lovely card he sent along with them.
...
Prosecutor: Saddam, is it true you killed your own people?
SH: Yeah, I got the idea from Rummy after that time we had dinner together and knocked back waaayyy too many Baghdad Bombers and Cuban cigars... That Rummy can mix a mean Baghdad Bomber!

If Ramsey loses, and SH gets punished dead, he may have 50,000,000 SH believers out to kill him ?

As usual, you missed the point widebutty. The point is that the guy who chose to take the job is one of your left wing coharts. First defend the downtrodden, then get a few mil to defend the guy who murders the downtrodden by the hundreds of thousands. No inconsistency here.

I would think it would be far more embarassing for France, Germany, Russia, China, and the U.N..

I'm sure that it would be for them as well, but since they didn't invade his country the hypocrisy would not be quite the same. :cool:

As usual, you miss the point, Ass (vernacular for 'mule'). The guy is innocent until proven guilty. You seem to hold American values in such contempt that you want to execute him on the spot, like your boyhood heros Hitler and Stalin.

Why does letting Saddam have his day in court - irrespective of his counsel - bother you NeoCon groupies so much?

Who would you have selected for Saddam's counsel? Alberto Gonzales, the guy who said the Geneva Convention was 'quaint' and didn't apply to the US?

Saddam is fully entitled to his day in court. However, it is just downright opportunistic and anti-American for a U.S. lawyer to take this position. Not long ago, Ramsey's actions would be considered treason. IMHO, if you are not loyal to this country, you have no business living here.

Widebutty, can you read? I'll try my point again. 1. I don't give a rat's a$$ what kind of trial this guy gets. 2. He's not an American citizen therefore not entitled to all that stuff you wrote. 3. How can Clark justify in his own beady little brain, defending the worst mass murderer of this age?

"Innocent until proven guilty" is not a uniquely American concept, but I thought we were supposed to be bestowing all that is good and American on Iraq. I guess it really is about oil.

It takes a king sized pair of balls to stand up against the Confederate flag-waving lynch mob, but the willingness to do the right thing has always been the hallmark of a Liberal.

How can Gonzales justify in his beady little brain, conveniently disposing of international rules set up to prevent the mistreatment of civilians and soldiers alike? Maybe Gonsalez and Bush should be on the docket with Saddam.

The cons are pleased as punch that James Baker is defending the 9/11 funding Saudi Royal family. What should his actions be considered? I'm sure the cons think he's a great patriot.

Worst mass-murderer of this age? I guess you have to define "this age", but no matter - he's not even close.

China, Mao Zedong's regime (1949-1975) - 40 to 70 million
Cambodia, Pol Pot's regime (1975-1978): 2 650 000
Vietnam, various Presidents (1960-1973): 3 500 000


And the sicko the cons love to defend:

CROWN PRINCE ABDULLAH of SAUDI ARABIA!(let's hear it for the prince..)

The country holds no elections whatsoever.

Human Rights Watch has reported "slavery conditions" for the 8.8 million foreign workers(Chaldee slaves from Africa - they use them in Kuwait too!) in the Kingdom.

Well it damned sure it isn't wide spread, widebody. No trial, just gators, or crocs.

It all depends upon your definition of "the right thing"... :rolleyes:

Hey Dryden, you were you at Ft Lost in the Woods in the mid 80's by any chance for basic training?

No, unfortunately I never served. Wished I had now.

Confusement, thy name is widebutty. Quote:
"It takes a king sized pair of balls to stand up against the Confederate flag-waving lynch mob, but the willingness to do the right thing has always been the hallmark of a Liberal."

So you are equating Abraham Lincoln & Marin Luther King to Saddam Hussein? Why do you hate this country so much?

PS Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

I don't have a problem with him defending Saddam. Someone has to do it, and I'm sure he was asked. Widebody's attempt to humanize Saddam is a little strange however. Oh well....