More than 600 Jordanian lawyers have volunteered to defend Saddam Hussein

So Saddam's legal team will consist of lawyers from 1) the Arab World, 2) France and 3) Communist Groups like ANSWER.

Now there's a winning combination if ever there was one! Can you say HISTORY'S LOSERS???

And so it begins.

Too bad we can't punish all of the defense lawyers with the same punishment Saddam gets, when he's found guilty...

Methinks the number of volunteers would be much smaller...

Absolutely wonderful.

A Euronut lawyer would probably play all the games with seeking more lenient terms of conviction and getting an acquital by technicality (or some such).

These guys might actually treat us to a "not guilty" plea.

What entertainment. :)

It's reassuring to learn, that it is not just American lawyers that are such unprincipled pricks.

Semper Fi

600 Jordanian lawyers = a target rich environment.

Even my cousin Vinny won't get Saddam off!

"He maintains Saddam is Iraq's legitimate president because the U.S.-led occupation has no legality."

Fine with me, let's put Saddam back into the Presidential Palace and then notify the good residents of Baghdad where he is. Get out the popcorn and watch the fun.

I'll get the rope.

Won't they have to trip over Ramsey Clark to represent Saddam?

I bet one New York shyster could whip the lot of them....

"Too bad we can't punish all of the defense lawyers with the same punishment Saddam gets"

They should provide their own security. I'm betting the first 3 lawyers are stoned to death on their way to the courthouse.

If this trial is televised, it will be fascinating to watch.

I don't understand those who say that Saddam is entitled to a trial.

The point of a trial is to determine whether or not a defendant is guilty of committing particular crimes. If he actually committed those crimes, his defense focuses on whether the defendant was really responsible for acting criminally.

We have a constitutionally mandated trial system in order to ensure fairness and to protect presumably innocent defendants from being railroaded by the overwhelming power of the state.

In Iraq, Saddam WAS the state. Can there really be a presumption of innocence for the totalitarian ruler of a police state? Presumption of innocence is a right of the People. Saddam, by virtue of his office and the means by which he sustained it, is not and never has been a member of “the People" in any meaningful sense.

There is no slippery slope here. It is not as if we threaten the rights of any other citizens or groups by refusing to extend the presumption of innocence to criminal dictators around the world when they come into our custody. Political dictators comprise a unique group – arguably the most exclusive club in the world . They commit their crimes by exercising unique powers under the laws that they alone are able to impose, and it is justice to treat them uniquely in their ultimate legal disposition.

In the west, we have developed a trial system as a means of finding truth. But certainly in Saddam's case the process can commence with the unarguable stipulation that he committed human rights atrocities against the people of Iraq and the rest of the world.

What possible defense could Saddam offer? That he didn't commit these crimes? That he has been framed by Jamaican drug lords? That he was out playing golf while it all happened and so wasn't anywhere near the scene? That he didn't give the orders? That he didn't commit many of these crimes with his own hands, as well as through delegation to subordinates? That somebody else did it? That these crimes are propaganda and never really never happened? That he did not commit even one of the millions of individual counts on the indictment?

There is no legitimate defense against the criminal indictment of Saddam, because his acts are too ubiquitous to fully catalog, and his responsibility is self-evident, well-documented and universally conceded. His own megalomaniacal boasting through state controlled-media and publicly funded monument building over three decades amounts to a full public confession of his own guilt.

So if there can be no defense, why grant Saddam an opportunity to mount one? Why allow him to turn a necessary legal proceeding into a charade and a propaganda coup by granting him a presumption of innocence and a right to have his attorneys cross examine witness. .

Perhaps some will claim that even though Saddam committed his criminal acts, there might be extenuating circumstances that would somehow mitigate his guilt. Therefore, they would argue, it is necessary to have a trial so that such circumstances can be presented in Saddam’s defense..

It is well known that Saddam had a brutal and tragic childhood. Is it really his own fault that he grew up to be murderous, raping, plundering, sadistic and ruthless narcissistic monster? Maybe he was taking too much medication. Maybe it could be argued that he was really working for the greater good of pan-Arab nation, and that there is some level on which his actions may be justified.

Even if such arguments were legitimate, they would still only be relevant to the issue of sentencing. They have no bearing on the question of Saddam’s guilt or innocence.

What Saddam needs, therefore, is not a trial, but a sentencing hearing. He needs to be made to sit in the dock for months, if not years, on end, listening to the endless testimony of those he has ruined. The world needs to hear this testimony and see the documentary evidence, so that those who supported Saddam in Iraq, at the UN and in European state capitals can be confronted with their own duplicity.

Saddam needs to be afforded, at some point in the proceedings, a single opportunity to make a voluntary statement to the court and to the world.

Certainly, there needs to be debate on the actual sentence and who shall impose it -- the only issues that really need to be adjudicated at this point.

But an actual trial? Not if justice is the real objective.