Posted on 01/25/2005 2:27:53 AM PST by RWR8189
You've got it about right. Many people believe that once you are charged with a crime, you loose all rights. Remember that just over 4 years ago, we had the Clinton Justice Department. Anyone who does not know that bunch would indict someone for political purposes is an absolute moron. Even the Bush Justice Department can be heavy handed in its zeal to mission.
I will stipulate that Ramsey Clarke is first and foremost an ass, but if everybody comes close to doing his job, Saddam will be convicted and executed after having a zealous and competent defense.
"Saddam does not deserve the due process guaranteed...."
How do you know?
How the rest of the world knows ?
Anyway it is not Saddam who deserves the justice but the Iraqi people.
And justice is can not served by lynch-mob style.
Have to clearly state his crimes, separate from the rumours, and not just give credits to anyone who taking advantages of the situation.
I mean the 'Iraqi exiles' group, who maybe contains some real griveances against Saddam but many of them are criminal who seeking their political agendas by removing Saddam....
I mean... would you buy a second hand car from Allawi or Chalabi ?...
(Allawi hiself admitted of shot tied and blindfolded prisoners in the head, Chalabi is internationaly wanted criminal...)
No.... Saddam need to be tryed and discover his aides, motives, methods and so on...
Then the Iraqis can start on a new page...
"The war has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis"
Let's not differentiate between the Bathists/terrorists and the civilians.
How'd I do?
I agree with you. LBJ was not like Ramsey Clark, but today's current Democrat Party is just like him, traitors and guilty of treason.
Ramsey Clark says that the US is a war criminal, and Saddam should be exonerated. [Twightlight Zone music begins]
Because you've always been a leftist, anti-American scumbag?
You applaud this?
And I think that is the purpose a legal system in a free and democratic society...
Huh? He's not in the U.S. but in Iraq where their legal system is trying him. I don't even think he's being tried under international law. Now you think imposing our justice system on the Iraqi people is justified?
"Now you think imposing our justice system on the Iraqi people is justified?"
No.
But there are some minimum standards ti be hold when you want to build a democratic society.
Otherwise you give a lifetime munition to the enemies of freedom and the US.
Of course I do detect some problem here...
Do not make it look like there IS a reason not to be held a just, fair and transparent trial !!!!
Hey, guys. A little off topic. Just read on Fox about the starting multi-million suit hearings on the Elian Gonsalez raid. Can anyone comment or open a new thread? Kind of encouraging, ha?
Perhaps the laws in Iraq will allow for the Death penalty of Hussein and also for the execution of his attorneys.
A fitting end for Ramsey Clark.
John Adams, in his old age, called his defense of British soldiers in 1770 (The Boston Massacre British) "one of the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country."
Commits treason, your words, goes on to become President. Go Figure.
Uh, no. Hussein did that all by himself as the photographs of the gassed Kurds (including women and children) have proven.
This is exactly the reason I decided not to go to law school, even though I had taken the boards and been accepted at UT. After working in the military legal field for three years (to that point), I determined that I could not, in good conscience, defend a person who had either told me that he was guilty or that I could, in my own mind, "find beyond a reasonable doubt" was guilty; nor, could I, in good conscience, prosecute someone whom I could make the same determination was not guilty.
Personally, I have always felt that those who could cared less about "justice" than the monetary or other rewards of doing so. In my eyes, lawyers of this type fit into the hired gunslinger category, willing to work for anyone who paid them to do whatever they were hired for.
The lowest of the low - Clark, former AG now AC - Ambulance Chaser for anti-America thugs!
I guess you forgot to read the rest of the post.
IIRC, I clearly stated that the ONLY reason I would have for defending someone I knew to be guilty would be to ensure a fair trail were held. That does NOT mean I would fight to have the suspect exonerated - especially by using nefarious means!
Nope ... I understood you to mean that. I didn't mean to infer that you would do anything "nefarious". One of the instructions given in military courts is that the accused has a "legal and moral right to plead not guilty," even if the accused believes that he is guilty. Judges, counsel, and I have gotten into some pretty heated discussions about the word "moral". I understand that the accused has a LEGAL right to plead not guilty, even if he is guilty. However, I do not believe that an accused has a moral right to lie to the court .. and that is what I believe him to be doing if he pleads not guilty while knowing or believing that he is guilty.
Plus, if you're going to defend an accused that you believe is guilty to ensure a "fair" trial, but you are not going to fight with all means at your disposal, how "fair" is that? Basically, aren't you simply pretending to defend your client ... running with the fox while hunting with the hounds?
The reason he is willing to defend Sadam Hussein is simple.... it's because....Clark is a self serving a hole..and that is what they do...
Like lemmings to economy class hang gliding
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.