Aside from his being a knee-jerk America hater, Clark has not gotten off to a good start as Saddam's defense counsel. Did you see Saddam ranting and raving in court today? What defense counsel would ever let his client do that? Furthermore, Clark's says his biggest complaint about this trial is the lack of security. If that's true, why is he letting Saddam rant and rave? Seems to me, Clark really wants the trial to become a circus as gounds for a future appeal. I wish his passport would be revoked. He actively gives aid and comfort to every enemy, foreign and domestic. I can't believe people here defend Clark. Hate Bush all you want, but Clark hates all of us more. He is a traitor and a disgrace. I will make it a point to piss on his grave some day. May he die in a fire.

Or, if that's too inconvenient, you might consider contracting it out.


I think Mr. Clark has the best interests of the U.S. in his mind. If there is any possible way for this trial to be perceived as fair, in the minds of Iraqi citizens, it would go far in the battle for hearts and minds. I think that is Clark's objective.


Ed

Unfuqenbelievable...Clark's intent is to damage George Bush by attempting to diminish the undeniable monster that Hussein unequivocally is.

It is absolutely disgusting seeing the leftists here defend this treasonous anti-American communist pig.

To liberals Bush is a criminal and Hussein is the democratically elected dictator who should get American due-process.

Hussein should be drawn and quartered on pay-per-view.

What's interesting is everyone here treats this like a trial occurring under U.S. law. According to this from CNN:

The tribunal was set up by an interim Iraqi government created by U.S. occupation authorities, although the court is now overseen by a democratically elected Iraqi government.

Democratically-elected government gives me the impression Iraq is its own entity. Does that mean the Iraqi government has to first establish that Clarke is qualified to practice law in Iraq, let alone defend an Iraqi citizen?

Secondly, the use of "U.S. occupation authorities" to create the interim Iraqi government suggests the interim government could have been put in place with aspects of military law.

Can a civilian lawyer defend a prisoner of war held under a government that has, in part, been established with U.S. military law?

Someone mentioned "due process" as a manner in which Saddam's fate should be realized. Personally, I think it's a lot of smoke and mirrors. I believe Iraq is just saving face by giving Saddam a trial, attempting, to a degree, to show itself as Democratically-minded for the U.S. and world at large.

IMO, Clarke threw himself in there as a wrench in the system; whether he's a red herring, egomaniac or not. For the fact is, the reality is quite nonexistent that Saddam will be found anything less than overtly guilty.

Was watching the trial yesterday on CNN, BBC or Al Jazera, which ever had the best camera angle from hour to hour.

Funny thing is that the judge refused to let Clark speak! He had to talk to the head defense lawyer who then relayed Clarks ideas to the court. Seems that Clark is not legal to work in Iraq so cannot be directly involved with the defense.

Give Saddam a fair and fast trial, then take him out back and hang him. Its better than he gave most of his subjects. He gassed them with the WMD that he did not have.. guess they died of measles.

Joe A

I thought he gassed them with chemical weapons we sold him, at least that's what James Baker has to say.

This is not a trial as we know it, nor is it meant to be. It's a formality.

This is the part I never understood. This "do whatever it takes" mentality results in many guilty people walking the streets. It's as if getting the client off becomes merely a game and his real guilt or innocence is irrelevant. In fact, I would imagine that 99% of the time, the defense attorney *knows* the guy is guilty, but looks for ways to get him off. Doesn't seem right to me.

In my very naive opinion, a defense attorney should ensure that his client receives a fair trial. If Clark is doing any more than this, then I have absolutely no respect for him.

Mike

I thought it was Bush and Rumsfeld that gassed the Kurds...No? I have been watching a lot of CNN lately.

Thus "due process" is not needed.

Additionally, the jurors are behind steel curtains, and their voices are electronically altered. That's not quite facing a jury of one's peers.

Here's the cliff notes for those of you who were asleep in Civics class.
1. Rule of Law is Good. It lets us do our thing with a reasonable expectation that the Government will be our "enforcer" in legal matters. This lets us enter into contracts and keeps us from having to take the law into our own hands.
2. Rule of Law only works if most people see it as effective and fair. People lose respect for the Law when they perceive that some people get different treatment under the law i.e. rich people get off, etc.
3. The essence of fairness is not "fixing" the game to meet the outcome you want. When the even the homeless "bum" and most obviously guilty get a fair trial with a vigorous defense, the man in the street can expect to receive a fair trial. When that happens the Rule of Law gets the necessary "buy in" from the majority of the citizens that enables the it to work it's benefits.

The Iraqi government needs to demonstrate an even handed application of the Law even for mass murdering despots.
-Chris

What I find interesting is that Saddam welcomes and trusts this guy to run his defense. What does that tell you?

Why? Because it's a puppet government of the U.S.?

Very much agree...and I think that "due process" is key, ever more so in the case of SH: from what my friends tell me, the whole country is facinated with the formality of the trial, especially the fact that it is SH on trial.

This could be the first, best lesson in Iraq that will hopefully shorten our time there.

:eek:

However this is not what Ramsey Clark brings to the table or what his intent is...He is seeking to subvert the war-on-terror (just a google search away are his lies and hate-America speech)...He should be arrested and stuck in the cage with Saddam.

Temporary puppet government. The mullahs will establish a radical islamic theocracy in short order.

What anyone here thinks of our involvement in Iraq has nothing to do with the fact that Clark is an extreme nutcase America-hater. If Bubba had taken bin Laden when Sudan offered him to us, Clark would have eagerly defended him. Nothing America ever does will ever be right in his eyes. To him, we are what's wrong with the world. Again, I wish him a slow miserable death and that his name forever be disgraced.

For a media whore attorney like Clark, defending Bin Laden would be a dream come true.