Ex-U.S. Attorney General Ready To Defend Saddam

IslamOnline.net ^ | Dec. 15 2003 | Mustafa Abdel-Halim

[Senator Pardek]

CAIRO, December 15 (IslamOnline.net) – Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsy Clarke expressed readiness Sunday, December 14, to act as defense lawyer for ousted Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, with western analysts suspecting the captured leader would be given fair trial.

"Certainly, why not. I am ready to act in his defense," Clarke told IslamOnline.net shortly after the U.S. confirmed the detention of Saddam near Tikrit.

Clarke, currently in Cairo to attend a two-day international anti-occupation conference, stressed that Saddam – however brutal – should be give a "fair, objective and impartial trial".

"Saddam must be domestically prosecuted first and - if this fails - he should be referred to an international court," said the former American official, known for his staunch opposition to the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.

He doubted, however, that the ousted Iraqi president would be given such a fair trial.

Clarke averred that neither the U.S.-installed Interim Governing Council (IGC) nor the occupation forces is eligible to try the overthrown president.

"The IGC does not represent Iraq. It is Bush's council," said the former U.S. attorney general.

He noted that the Iraqi body was quick to say that DNA test proved the captured man was Saddam.

"Do you think that they can take the test themselves. They are puppets," Clarke maintained.

For the occupation forces to take over the trial, he dismissed this as a would-be ridiculous proposal.

"Occupation of Iraq is in itself an international crime" and runs counter to common decency and moral integrity.

Asked if Saddam could be taken to the International Criminal Court, the former U.S. attorney general whimsically ruled out the suggestion, noting Washington does not even recognize the court.

[tcuoohjohn]

Either we believe in what we say we believe in or we are hypocrites. If we believe that a man accused of crimes is entitled to a vigorous defense then we should have no objection to anyone providing that defense. It is an affirmation of our beliefs and proof positive that our professed values are not merely hollow words and insincere postures.

[CyberCowboy777]

he he he

[chudogg]

I don't know if this has already been brouht up, i didn't bother trying to read all 200+ comments.

Remember, Ramsey Clark provided legal defense for Hussein in the past. And has accepted huge sums of money from the Hussein regime. Clark heads the IAC, and affiliate of WWP and ANSWER. Clark was organizing antiwar protests with money provided by Saddam Hussein!

[Jeff Gordon]

A "We Arabs Are So Humilated" conference. LOL

I hope they have lots of whine to go with their goat's milk cheese.

[tcuoohjohn]

I am amazed at the idea that a vigorous defense of someone accused of a crime is now deemed treasonous. I suspect the founders would be rolling in their graves at the notion.

If a spirited defense is only acceptable for those deemed "worthy" of defense then we are making a mockery of justice.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Chad, the Pope is NOT infallible except for very limited things. In fact, the areas are so rare that I cannot even name one for you. But he is NOT infallible in everything. Thinking the Pope is infallible in everything is a common misunderstanding by those without Catholic teaching.

Papal infallibility is one of the great differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. I can say that, as a kid from a Catholic family who chose to become a Baptist on his own, but that is really digressing here :0)

I was merely trying to point out that one can disagree with something the Pope has decided, and that does not automatically make one an anti-catholic bigot.

Tossing around the "Bigot" label because one disagrees with a Papal decision is not always right. I hope you understand where I am coming from :0)

[EDINVA]

can we take a poll: how many FReepers had to read the story to guess WHICH former AG that might be?

[Chad Fairbanks]

LOL

[oyez]

Ramsey Clark, the biggest throwback of the throwback Johnson administration. The next Democratic president after Johnson was Carter then Clinton. The only thing worse than that was the cretins they ran in the election years they lost.

The only kind of appointments Lyndon made was of the the kind of people he could control. As long as Ramsey Clark had a meal ticket from LBJ he was quite agreeable.

[Chad Fairbanks]

ROTFL... Sorry, I'll remember that next time. ;0)

[Stultis]

Isn't David Duke an attorney? He could be co-counsel. He's likely to be at the conference also, seeing as how he's frequently feted and hosted by the Islamonazis.

[hole_n_one]

I am amazed at the idea that a vigorous defense of someone accused of a crime is now deemed treasonous. I suspect the founders would be rolling in their graves at the notion.

It's the cumulative record that is being weighed.

[kitkat]

***Ditto. I will also never understand those who think the Vatican is infallible.***

I'm glad to hear it, Chad. Now I can continue to enjoy your posts.

[Chad Fairbanks]

I only jumped in to point out that a pope can say something dumb without invalidating the beliefs of a billion people

True enough, and I never said it did. In fact, I know many Catholics that disagrees with the Holy See on this issue :0)

And as far as the thin-skinned thing, I know there has been a lot of Catholic-bashing on FR, but legitimate criticism isn't Catholic-bashing. :0)

Have a good night!

[Chad Fairbanks]

I also don't expect the Pope to say .. Kill the SOB

But, maaaan, wouldn't it be cool if he did? ;0)

[tcuoohjohn]

As a mackeral snapper myself, I second your comments with unabashed fervor.

Dominus Vobiscum

[Chad Fairbanks]

Good :0) I just wanted to clear up the whole "Bigot" thing. I recognize that while some threads on FR turn into Catholic-bashing threads, I've never been one of those posters. :0)

[Mo1]

LOL .. yes it would .. and yes, I would be shocked

But he ain't gonna say it .. no matter what

[Chad Fairbanks]

Hmmm...maybe I should run for Pope someday ;0)

[BerniesFriend]

I wonder what the Johnson family has thought of crazy man's antics..I mean..how could LBJ appoint such a lunatic..or did he get sick after his term..he was there with iran claiming sympathy for the hostage takers in 1979...has taken common cause with foreign foes against the USA since..sad to say no straight jacket has held him..lol.