Centerfield

Somebody has to defend him.

(shrug)

Carla,

I agree to a point. All people charged with a crime deserve legal representation, and in the United States lawyers get appointed every day in every state to defend criminal defendants.

However, in 99% of those cases the lawyer (1) didn't really volunteer to represent a particular defendant, or (2) genuinely believes in the innocence of the particular defendant for whom he or she is appointed to defend.

Neither is the case here. Saddam is guilty beyond any doubt of genocide. Clark is just a guy who craves attention. Don't forget, he also volunteered to assist the defense of Slobodan Milosevic.

Todd:

You don't know whether or not Saddam is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of genocide. Neither do I. We know what's been reported in the press. That's it. Until all of the facts have been presented from both sides and a jury has made an informed decision..none of us really know. That's why we have a system of jurisprudence.

I want Saddam to have the best legal representation available. (I don't know anything about Clark so I don't know if he's it). But in high profile cases like these people must have attornies who completely understand the system and the law. Saddam (like it or not) has rights and they have to be handled properly. Otherwise all those who come after him may be trampled as well.

Saddam's case isn't like those other 99% you mentioned. It's got all sorts of unique qualities. Clark may be a total slimeball or he might be a guy who genuinely believes that he can make sure Saddam gets a fair and equitable trial.

If we don't give that to those perceived as the worst of us...then we're no better than what we say we hate, IMO.

Carla,

You don't really believe the "we don't know if he is guilty" line, do you? If so, explain this.

Some years ago a European interviewer nervously quoted reports that the Baghdad authorities might, on occasions, have tortured and perhaps even killed opponents of the regime. Was this true? Saddam Hussein was not offended. Rather, he seemed surprised by the naiveté of the question. "Of course," he replied. "What do you expect if they oppose the regime?"

I will accept your process arguments with a straight face. But the guy is as guilty as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot of genocide, and there is indisputable evidence to prove it.

"But the guy is as guilty as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot of genocide, and there is indisputable evidence to prove it."

I think the evidence is overwhelming that he was responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of people -- tens of thousands, if not more, of Iraqis.

And I'm not a big fan of Ramsey Clark. On the other hand, it's also true that plenty of people in the U.S. supported Hussein even when they knew he was killing people. Even after they were prety sure he was using chemical weapons. I'm sure they did that with the best intentions -- they genuinely believed it was in U.S. interests. But it's still kind of cringeworthy, in retrospect. So it's hard for me to get all offended about Clark, when I remember how the U.S. supported him throughout the 80s.

For the record -- just a clarification -- the above *is* agreement with Todd's quotes.

Hussein may not have had the worst record of human rights during that time period -- he had competition. But he was up there. And it was widely known that he had used chemical weapons in the late 1980s.

It is sad when a former Attorney General decides, for whatever reason, to defend a Saddam Hussein. Its not as if he is the only prominent lawyer willing to do so.

Todd:

Are you saying that because someone quoted something in the press...it must be true?

Yes..I really believe the "we don't know if he's guilty" line. I'm weird about innocent until proven guilty. Newspaper quotes aren't indisputable proof of anything.

That's why we have courts.

This seems like really basic civics to me.

Carla,

Under your logic, we can't say that Hitler was guilty because he shot himself before a legal tribunal could formally adjudge him guilty.

I must say, I am surprised. I know you are liberal. But to me, the idea that we need to have a show trial in Iraq before we can be satisfied that he is guilty is quite remarkable.

Todd:

If Hitler hadn't offed himself...we would have put him on trial and made sure he had very good legal representation. We wouldn't have put the cart before the horse...proclaiming him guilty of things before we'd laid it all out in court...and letting a jury decide it.

Why does Saddam deserve different treatment than Scott Petersen? Why would he deserve different treatment than any other person accused of heinous crimes?

Enlighten me.

As a total aside, I'm glad he has good representation (assuming Clark is good representation).

I think it's tremendously important for the trial to at least try to present some semblance of the truth -- for the historical record, for non-Iraqis to understand, and for some sense of closure -- that's probably not the right word, though -- for the Iraqi people. What happened needs to be publicly recognized, and publicly recognized in an accurate way, and in a way that acknowledges that for many years people tolerated Hussein.

And I think that it's important that a country that is taking the first steps to democracy (skeptical as I am about the outcome) gets to see a trial that is as fair as possible. If it is as fair as possible in the worst case scenario -- in the case where we *know* that the guy is guilty, even if we don't know exactly what happened -- that sends a tremendous message about justice. It's exactly the opposite of totalitarianism.

And having good representation will help achieve that. I hope.

Carla,

The case against Saddam is not exactly questionable. Just for starters there was (1) the Iran-Iraq war that Saddam started and during which he used chemical weapons, (2) the chemical attack on the Kurds in 1988, and (3) the invasion and occupation of Kuwait. Oh, and we also found more than a few mass graves.

I don't need an Iraqi factfinder to tell me that those things happened and Saddam is guilty, regardless of the ultimate actual charges.

I agree that he deserves representation. But for a former AG of the US to volunteer to represent him is, in my opinion, disgraceful.

FOlks,

Yes, the court case is pretty open and shut. The only thing Clarke can hope to do is turn it into an embarassing affair for Bush and we all know how that can happen. However, the fact that he was a criminal does not in and of itself justify an invasion though.

Carlos

Todd:

I've never said the case was questionable. I think you're misunderstanding me.

I'm saying that we don't presume someone is guilty in this country. We presume they're innocent until they're proved guilty. Whether they're Saddam or Hitler or Scott Petersen or Tim McVeigh....that's how our system works.

What would be disgraceful (to me) would be for Hussein to not have the very best representation possible. That way his case his most vigorously presented and judged. That's how it ought to be.

In my opinion, you're looking at this the wrong away. You presume Hussein is guilty of genocidal acts. In the end...you could be proved correct. But in your presumption...you negate the reason for having the system in the first place..and letting it run it's course.

That's my point. I'm not defending Saddam in any way..or saying he's innocent or anything of the sort. I'm saying we have a system. In order for it to work we expect defendants to have the very best representation possible for them. We should expect them to be vigorously defended and represented. That way if they are found guilty..there's no doubt about the decision.

This concept is much larger than Hussein or his case. I remember reading about people who've received the death penalthy in Texas...whose counsel slept through hearings and/or were completely inept. THAT is a disgrace.

Saddam clearly should have representation. There is nothing wrong with lawyers defending heinous people; the ACLU has defended Nazis to vindicate First Amendment rights. If Ramsey Clark wants to defend him to make sure the process is fair, fine.

The problem I have with Clark, though, is that, IMO, his motives are disingenous. This is purely to poke his nose at Bush and, really, at the United States in general. Clark has become increasingly disenchanted, not just with American foreign policy but with America in general. I think he sees this as another way to say FU America. He will defend anyone who is an enemy of America. Ask yourself if Clark would be willing to defend Pinochet. I suspect the answer would be a resounding no, unless Pinochet became an enemy of the US. I think Clark has become increasingly like Michael Moore or, for that matter, Bobby Fischer--any enemy of America is a friend of mine. And I think that's sad. There are lots of people who don't like the direction America is going who haven't stooped to the Ramsay Clark level.

And Carlos, I totally agree with you that whatever Saddam did doesn't in and of itself justify the war.

Carla,

I guess maybe we agree on more than we disagree, and MWS' comment ties it all together. I'm all for process. But as I said in my original comment, and MWS appears to agree, Clark has a personal agenda.

As a sidenote, I was involved in a habeas corpus petition for death row inmate in Texas who was the driver (not the triggerman) in a convenience store holdup that went bad. He got death penalty because he was guilty of felony murder, but the case involved a corrupt PI, an overzealous prosecutor, and an incompetent defense lawyer. Believe it our not, we won, and the death sentence was commuted by the federal court. (This NEVER happens.)

My point is that we agree, I guess, on this: Saddam should get quality representation. In my opinion, he then deserves whatever punishment the Iraqi justice system metes out.

MW,

As far as Clarke being anti-US, I object to that label. He is severely anti-Bush/GOP and will use the trial to embarras GOP policy and point out genuine hypocrisies and inconsistencies. I for one cheer Clarke on, as he tries to embarass the Bush/GOP gang. I can just anticipate Clarke exploring with Sadam the extent of Bush/Reagan/Rummy support in weapons against Iran, Rummys visit to Sadamm etc. He wont affect the verdict anywyas. He might as well embarras some people.

Clarke= HATES Bush, LOVES US....like myself.

CM

OK, let's give Clarke the benefit of the doubt on being anti-US. Let's just list what he's FOR!

He's for his long-time friends. He's pro-Castro, pro-Milosevic, por-Qadaffi, pro-Iran, pro-Kim Il Sung, and pro-Saddam (and yes, that relationship goes back almost two decade). In fact, he doesn't appear to have met any dictator in the last 20 years that he doesn't like. He supported Deng Xiaopeng's suppression of protestors in Tianmen Square, he was a helping hand to Yassar Arafat. He's pro-PLO, pro-Intifada--pro just about anyone who is anti-Semitic. In fact he's the man who recruited Lynne Stewart as defense counsel for Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the terrorist cleric behind the first World Trade Center bombing. (Ms. Stewart is currently on trial for helping Abdel-Rahman communicate with terrorist associates and coordinate new terrorist operations against US and Israeli targets from his prison cell. The jury will tell us what they think of that case, probably next month.)

He's a long-time supporter and ally of the Worker's World Party, an international Stalinist organization categorized as "terrorist" by the FBI. He founded the International Action Center, which shares directorship and offices with the WWP, acts as it's "front" org, and is most currently blaming the United States for the tsunami deaths, between bouts of holding rallies for Mumia and Leonard Peltier and Fidel, and attempting to get American soldiers to desert.

Gee, Carlos, how could anyone call him anti-American? He's such a fine example of everything the Democrats stand for, eh?

Carlos,

If Clark was simply anti-Bush, that would be one thing. But, as Tully points out, he has had a long history predating GW of supporting really nasty people because they opposed the US. If you have ever read any of his comments, it's clear he has a distinct distaste for Americans, not just the US Government.

But even if you are right that he is simply anti-Bush and wants to embarrass him, I think you have to question whether it's appropriate for someone who is not "anti-American" to use a forum like this to undermine US foreign policy. I'm not someone who believes in "my country right or wrong" and I certainly don't countenance the argument that criticizing US policy is helping the terrorists, but it seems to me there are more and less appropriate forums to attack US policy. This, IMO, is a less appropriate forum.

I'll take Tully's word for it that Clarke associates with the scum of the earth. Clarke's character and motives are a moot point.

It is healthy for any system to have a fly tossed in its soup every now and then. Whether it's Dem or Rep, it's always useful for somebody to show live video of them caught with their pants down. It tends to keep them humble and the system healthy.

I think the show trial should be a hoot. I'd laugh myself silly if Rummy is called as a witness FOR Saddam. (Although I don't think that will happen. The whole thing will be choreographed to exclude the U.S. involvement in arming Saddam and accidentally giving him permission to invade Kuwait.)

If it take a bottom feeder like Clarke to do the job, so be it. Who knows, maybe in his own mind he sees himself as the ACLU's redheaded step child.

Here is a chronology of Saddam's life. The jaw dropping event is on July 25, 1990.

Saddam meets with U.S. ambassador:
April Glaspie, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, is summoned to meet with Saddam. According to an Iraqi transcript, Saddam harangues her about his dispute with Kuwait over oil prices. Ambassador Glaspie tells Saddam, "The president personally wants to deepen the relationship with Iraq." She expresses concerns about the Iraqi troops on the Kuwaiti border, but reflecting the official State Department position, she says, "We don't have much to say about Arab-Arab differences, like your border differences with Kuwait. ... All we hope is you solve these matters quickly."
In the final week of July, Saddam reinforces his troops. But several Arab leaders privately assure the U.S. that Iraq will not invade Kuwait. The State Department continues to make it clear the U.S. will not intervene in the dispute.

Not so jaw dropping, really. Glaspie repeated the standard Foggy Bottom line that America does not take sides in border disputes, but urges the settlement of them through peaceful means and negotiation. Saddam repeatedly assured her that Iraq was not going to invade Kuwait. Glaspie believed him. Saddam was lying. Gee, what a shocker.

The "transcript" (supplied by Saddam, of course, and thank you for noting that!) has been contradicted by other witnesses who were present, and by Glaspie's testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee.

I suspect Clark will use his usual "put the U.S. on trial" soap-box defense. When the facts and the law are both against you, appeal to the jury....

I also used the word “accidentally”.
I did some more surfing on the whole April Glaspie thing.
A comprehensive and even handed story is at wikipedia.org.

Saddam is of course a sack of poo. But the controversy about Ms. Glaspie could be put to bed quickly by declassifying her cables on the encounter. It's been 15 years and Saddam is in jail, why not release the cables? Must have something embarrassing.
Should be fun to watch the government explain why Saddam can't use them in his trial.

It's always fun to watch the bureaucrats play CYA! But it's not likely to be ruled relevant to the charges. He'll be tried for crimes against the Iraqi people, not the Kuwaiti people. Sigh. I'd love to see those cables. But no doubt they contained much more incidental material (or at least will be claimed to) and thus will not see the light of de-classification anytime soon.

Nice Glaspie writeup in Wikipedia--thanks for the tip. I'm more impressed with their vetting and editing processes every time I go there.