Saddam's Chief Apologist ...

[Oldgamer]

The following is from an article by my favorite British socialist, Christopher Hitchens. I will briefly quote it, and then provide the link:

Not many months ago, on this very page, a former attorney general of the United States defended his own decision to appear as an attorney for Saddam Hussein. In his article, Mr. Ramsey Clark made the perfectly obvious and indeed irrefutable point that his infamous client — his "demonized" client, as he phrased it — was as much entitled to a defense counsel as the next man.

Nobody disputes this proposition, least of all the Iraqi court that Clark described as illegitimate before it had even opened proceedings. So now, Clark — one of the chief spokesmen of the American antiwar movement, leader of the ANSWER coalition that filled the streets with protesters and compared President Bush to Adolf Hitler — is indeed in Baghdad, seated at the defense table for a client who on Monday terminated the proceedings by loudly comparing his own stand in the dock to the heroic struggle of Mussolini ...

For the most part, the antiwar faction has subordinated everything to its hatred of Bush, folded its hands and watched coldly as Iraqi democrats struggle in a sea of chaos and violence. That sham neutrality is bad enough. But now, the anti-warriors do have a permanent representative in Baghdad, in the form of an apologist for the past crimes and aggressions of a man who makes his hero, Mussolini, seem like an amateur.

I wonder: What will Cindy and the other humanitarians say this time? Or are they not "antiwar" at all, but simply pro-war and on the other side?

The Full Article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=20489

[imb39]

Needless to say, I think this is ridiculous. The two events are separate. Just because you oppose the war doesn't mean that you ignore the court proceedings. Also, defending Saddam doesn't mean that you agree with his actions. I just don't understand...

I'm sure that some of the arguments could be applied to Nuremberg.

edit - Now I understand. If Clerk works to the best of his ability and without prejudice, then I see no problem... It also applies to those who defend serial killers. Not easy, but someone has to do it.

[danzig]

I'm sure that some of the arguments could be applied to Nuremberg.

edit - Now I understand. If Clerk works to the best of his ability and without prejudice, then I see no problem... It also applies to those who defend serial killers. Not easy, but someone has to do it.

Hijacking it a moment because I can never miss a chance to attack Clark. Look at who Clark has defended, Karl Linnas (concentration camp boss), David Korsch (cult leader and accused though not proven child molester), Leonard Peltier (FBI murderer/Indian 'activist'), Charles Taylor (Liberian leader war crimes), Elizaphan Ntakirutimana (Rwanada genocide 'leader'), the terrorist who threw Leon Klinghoffer overboard and Milosevic. There is a clear pattern of defense by Clark combined with his commentary not related to those he defends and his motivation is highly questionable.

[Tom Paine]

So to extend the analogy, Nuremberg criminals should not have had lawyers? And to support the rule of law is to be against democracy? What lunacy is that?

[Greek Fire 19]

Hmm, When read on their own the paragraphs that oldgamer selectively quoted....don't really have a point. The full article is much more coherent and I would say that these are in fact the relevant paragraphs:

A core of principle is involved here, and it ought not to be overlooked. Hussein stands accused of some of the most revolting crimes ever perpetrated by any despot. A defense lawyer is (presumably) engaged to acquit him of such charges. Yet before he had even had his credentials accepted by the court, Clark announced that his client was a) guilty of disgusting atrocities and b) justified in having committed them.

To be exact, in an interview with the BBC last week and another in the New York Times on Tuesday, Mr. Clark addressed the charge that in 1982, after an apparent attempt on his life in the Iraqi town of Dujail, Hussein had ordered the torture and murder of about 150 men and boys from the area.

Far from denying that any such horror had occurred — and it is one of the smaller elements in the bill of indictment — Clark asserted that it was justifiable. He has now twice said in public that, given the war with the Shiite republic of Iran, Hussein was entitled to take stern measures. "He had this huge war going on, and you have to act firmly when you have an assassination attempt," he told the BBC.

To this he calmly added that he himself had more than once been shoved aside by Secret Service agents eager to defend the president of the United States (and of course one remembers the mass arrests, beatings and executions that followed the assassination attempts on presidents Ford and Reagan). It is as if Hussein had not started, by his illegal, blood-soaked invasion of Iran, the "huge war" that Clark cites as the excuse for Hussein then turning his guns on Iraqis.

I wonder, does the former absolute owner of Iraq quite realize that one on his team of attorneys is proudly trumpeting his guilt?

[Erik]

I think he want to say that Saddam doesn't deserves a fair trial, only a show trial.

Well, I think Saddam is evil and guilty of horrible things.
But IMO those people should get a fair trial too, since a fair trial wil also result in a prosecution.
But I guess this opinion makes be a terrorist supporter in some eyes.

[Tom Paine]

Ah, I get it... we sould do to Saddam what Saddam did to people, its what we do to terror suspects because terrorists torture people!

[Tom Paine]

Its the trumpeting the guilt, not contending it; a sort of Nuremberg defence, "I didn't order it, it was the commander's initiative" maybe, would form the best defence?

EDIT: Every one of those, danzig, deserved a defence because it is their legal right. The fact that, against public sentiment, he took them is to his credit. Of cours,e his statements that they were guilty go inevitably to his debit far more weightily.

[imb39]

Danzig, the basis of our legal system is innocent until proven guilty. The accused has the right to a defense under both of our legal systems. To attack Clerk for acting as defence council is to attack the system. It is also unfair. Clerk might be an unsavoury character (I do not know) but this is no reason to attack him.

[bigfootedfred]

well.

he is making tha case that it was "justifiable" ...probably becuase its the only case he can make.
if he put forward a plea of "not guilty" the court would probably burst out laughing.

[danzig]

Danzig, the basis of our legal system is innocent until proven guilty. The accused has the right to a defense under both of our legal systems. To attack Clerk for acting as defence council is to attack the system. It is also unfair. Clerk might be an unsavoury character (I do not know) but this is no reason to attack him.

Saddam does deserve the right to be defended Im not arguing that what Im arguing is Clark who is a hypocrite in attempts to justify war crimes and genocide but then attack others (Blair and Bush). So he is deserving of being attacked and honestly Im glad he is defending Saddam...after all look at the list of people he has defended and where they are today. And yes Clark is unsavoury beyond just this, he owes his entire career to his dad who was a supreme court justice who stepped down so Marshall could be appointed as the first black justice in exchange for his son being made Attorney General.

[Tom Paine]

Not Guilty because of justifications is different than not guilty through innocence.

[bigfootedfred]

Not Guilty because of justifications is different than not guilty through innocence.

well, im no lawyer, so legal terminology is not my strong point.

but, the way i see it, the case he is trying to make is not to say he never did any of these crimes, but that they were justifyed.
...becuase frankly, thats the only case he can make.

i dont get why people have such a beef with him over this, someone has to defend the guy.
hes a laywer....this is what laywers do.

[Tom Paine]

Well then he was probably the only one who would take the case; I mean, I bet he isn't no win no fee...

[Oldgamer]

I want to thank everyone for the interesting posts in this thread.

Frankly, I found the article interesting because it showed that a man who labels President Bush "another Hitler" goes to bat for someone who arguably tried to be another Hitler. Also, the very last sentence in the article caught my interest because of the notion that some "anti-war protesters" may actually be "pro-war, and on the other side".

I think that Saddam should be given the most vigorous defense possible, within Iraq. His "venue" should not be changed, because the trial of a certain former Serbian dictator shows what can happen when that occurs (I'm sure he will die long before his trial ends). The people of Iraq deserve ... and I heartily detest this word ... closure to the murderous regime of Saddam, even if it ends only in imprisonment.

Also, sorry for the long delay in replying to my own thread. I'll be checking in to see if it goes any farther ...

Greek Fire said:

Hmm, When read on their own the paragraphs that oldgamer selectively quoted....don't really have a point. The full article is much more coherent and I would say that these are in fact the relevant paragraphs:

I agree with you. I merely quoted what to me were the most interesting sections of the article, and the most provocative.

[Tom Paine]

Precisely, it gives a false image of the article to selectively quote however.

Anyways, I think that labelling Bush another Hitler is inaccurate, but so is doing the same to Saddam (far, far less agressive, for a start). He deserves the bet defence he can lay his hands on, and it looks to me like this guy isn't it, he's far too radical. He's probably the only one who'd touch the case though....

[Oldgamer]

Precisely, it gives a false image of the article to selectively quote however.

Anyways, I think that labelling Bush another Hitler is inaccurate, but so is doing the same to Saddam (far, far less agressive, for a start). He deserves the bet defence he can lay his hands on, and it looks to me like this guy isn't it, he's far too radical. He's probably the only one who'd touch the case though....

People like Saddam depend on weakness. When he went into Kuwait, he ran into a brick wall called "The West". I have no doubt about what he would have done, had George I not said, "This shall not stand."

He attempted to conquer the western provinces of Iran, and failed. He took Kuwait, and effectively lost his power because of it. All he had left was internal purges, and this he did with gusto. Teachers should be talking about the West and Saddam in the same light as the West and Hitler, as in appeasement and weakness of will ...