Posted on 01/25/2005 2:27:53 AM PST by RWR8189
Ramsey Clark was attorney general under President Lyndon B. Johnson.
Late last month, I traveled to Amman, Jordan, and met with the family and lawyers of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. I told them that I would help in his defense in any way I could.
The news, when it found its way back to the United States, caused something of a stir. A few news reports were inquisitive — and some were skeptical — but most were simply dismissive or derogatory. "There goes Ramsey Clark again," they seemed to say. "Isn't it a shame? He used to be attorney general of the United States and now look at what he's doing."
So let me explain why defending Saddam Hussein is in line with what I've stood for all my life and why I think it's the right thing to do now.
That Hussein and other former Iraqi officials must have lawyers of their choice to assist them in defending against the criminal charges brought against them ought to be self-evident among a people committed to truth, justice and the rule of law.
Both international law and the Constitution of the United States guarantee the right to effective legal representation to any person accused of a crime. This is especially important in a highly politicized situation, where truth and justice can become even harder to achieve. That's certainly the situation today in Iraq. The war has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis and the widespread destruction of civilian properties essential to life. President Bush, who initiated and oversees the war, has manifested his hatred for Hussein, publicly proclaiming that the death penalty would be appropriate.
The United States, and the Bush administration in particular, engineered the demonization of Hussein,
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
"The United States, and the Bush administration in particular, engineered the demonization of Hussein, and it has a clear political interest in his conviction. Obviously, a fair trial of Hussein will be difficult to ensure — and critically important to the future of democracy in Iraq. This trial will write history, affect the course of violence around the world and have an impact on hopes for reconciliation within Iraq."
That nice fella Saddam has been demonized by the bad ole US and Bush in particular/LOL...
He defended Khomeini and the Islamic revolution in Iran and now he is defending another evil...
I wonder when the American people are ever going to figure out that the Democrat Party is filled with traitors and it should be destroyed forever at the vtoing booth!!!
"Because I'm an attention-deprived, sniveling, congenital moron who hasn't had center stage since the criminal Johnson Administration, that's why."
Maybe me who is missing the point....
BUT...
I think there is a big difference of convicting Saddam in an obvious kangooroo court or convict him when the world best lawyers defending him...
In the first case he quicly become a hero to anyone harboring bad feelings toward the US or the new Iraq and it puts equasion between the US and the ex-soviet style show trials.
But in an open and as-fair-as-possible trial showing the word the real Saddam, that would cool down his less hardened supporters and prevent bad speculations for years...
(True.... for that need some VERY strong cases....)
And I think that is the purpose a legal system in a free and democratic society...
But Ramsey, what does that have to do with whether Saddam is a murdering, butchering thug? Bush/US actions are completely separate from the crimes of Saddam despite your ignorant linkage. Oh, I get it, as usual, it's Bush's fault and Saddam is the victim of a W/US smear campaign.
If Saddam is guilty of even one millionth of the crimes alleged (Assumed) he is subject to execution. Clark, as a lawyer, assumes he is wanted and needed to make certain the process is orderly when his real purpose is to create chaos and thereby damage the US. This is a sick, pathetic old man. Unfortunately, he's not alone in his knowingly misguided views and agenda.
Thowing Clark in a mass grave with all of the other terrorist would be to good for him.
I am all for a fair trial and representation..It's Ramsey I don't like pontificating about it..Here's his site
http://www.iacenter.org/
After you have looked around..Click on relevant links..It will educate you about Clark and his interests.
It seems he's never seen a criminal or a terror group he didn't like. He loves communism..hates the bad ole USA.
I also want to make two things clear, it has nothing to do with an additional 15 minutes of fame and surely nothing to do with the vast amount of money I'll be paid.
Well... As lonf Ramsey doing it WITHIN the legal framework he only strenghten the "good" case.
Because that is the point.... Give every chance to your opponenets and defeat them...
If you tie his hands, you loose the moral ground.
I know this is annoying, but it is necessary to uphold the justice...
After all, THAT is what count, and not who defends-attacks it and how and why...
If I could I would tell him that is not what people are saying. Not even close. Unfortunately, I can not write here what people are really saying. Let's see: Yada yada yada traitor yada yada yada. Blah blah blah son of blah blah blah. No, this isn't working out so well. Maybe others of you can say it without the yada's and blah's and still get it past the mods.
He learned well from Lyndon Baines.
No need to explain, Mr. Clark.
We remember.
Ramsey Clark is a laughing stock to all but the most radical here in the US..I don't care about his grandstanding..I hold nothing but shame this man came from Texas and was once Attorney general...
I have never said Saddam should not get a fair trial..He certainly never gave one to his dissidents or people he felt disloyal to him..but this is to be an example of how justice should be.
The Iraqis themselves were Saddam's victims..They will be in charge of prosecution.
LBJ was many things I dislike..but he was not like Ramsey Clark.
Well, I guess the days of "every person charged with a crime is entitled to legal council" are gone.
No, now we have to have a political agenda!
There really was a time when the true purpose of defense council was to ensure that the suspect's received a fair trial and to fight to the end when the suspect was, in thier opionion innocent. Today, that criteria is no longer used.
If I were a lawyer, I would be willing to defend anyone - even someone I knew was guilty. I would do this to ensure that the law was being followed. Unwillingness to defend even the guilty, would lead to a system where government abuses could go unchecked.
All evidence I have seen would seem to indicate that Saddam is guilty of myriad crimes. He is entitled to his day in court and a defense that ensures that a fair trial is held.
That should be reason enough, even for Wesley Clark. The rest is simply pontification in furtherance of his own agenda.
Amen
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.