Saddam's case appealed to U.S. high court

Washington Times ^ | 7/09/04 | AP

[kattracks]

ASSOCIATED PRESS
    The lone American on Saddam Hussein's legal team said yesterday that he has asked the Supreme Court to declare the detention of the ousted Iraqi president unconstitutional.
    The long-shot legal maneuver comes as Saddam's attorneys await the chance to meet with their client and find out what charges he will face in a war crimes trial by Iraq's new government in which he might face the death penalty.
    "Even the basic rights of due process, the basic rights of fair trial are being stomped on," said Washington lawyer Curtis Doebbler, who volunteered his services on the 20-member team with lawyers from Belgium, Britain, France, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, and Tunisia.
    Mr. Doebbler said U.S. authorities have refused to let him or the other lawyers see Saddam, who was arrested in December.
    Officials have said Saddam will be held in a U.S.-controlled jail until the Iraqis are ready to take physical custody of him. Iraq's new authorities took legal control of Saddam and 11 key deputies last week.
    The filing at the Supreme Court, dated Tuesday and titled "Saddam Hussein v. George W. Bush," asks the court for permission to file an indigent appeal on the ex-dictator's behalf. The court will have to grant special permission, however, because the documents lack Saddam's signature, something required in court filings.
    Mr. Doebbler said Saddam is "being held incommunicado," but his wife agreed to the filing.
    The Supreme Court is on a three-month summer break and likely will not act on the request until the justices return to work in late September. In paperwork at the high court, Mr. Doebbler said Saddam has sent messages through the Red Cross that "he is in urgent need of legal protection."
    The lawyer contended that Saddam's detention violates multiple international laws and his constitutional Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of "life, liberty or property without due process." Mr. Doebbler also said the war-crimes tribunal planned in Iraq will be neither independent nor impartial.
    The Supreme Court will review those arguments only if it grants permission for the filing.
    Mr. Doebbler, a 43-year-old international human rights lawyer, filed a brief in the Supreme Court earlier this year encouraging it to rule in favor of legal rights of foreign terror suspects held at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Last week, the justices decided that the nearly 600 men from 42 countries held at the prison in Cuba can use American courts to challenge their detentions.
    In a dissent to that opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia warned that federal courts will have to deal with lawsuits from "around the world, challenging actions and events far away, and forcing the courts to oversee one aspect of the executive's conduct of a foreign war."
    Lewis Katz, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said it is not surprising that Saddam's lawyers tried the appeal after the Guantanamo ruling.
    "The question is why would [the justices] want to consider this? I don't think they would," he said.
    At a press conference in Washington, Mr. Doebbler said he has received threats because of his work for Saddam, who is accused of multiple killings of religious figures and members of political parties, the gassing of Kurds in Halabja, the killing of the Kurdish Barzani clan in 1983 and the 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
    

[My2Cents]

One of John Edwards' colleagues.

[The Old Hoosier]

Should be disbarred, the jackass.

[MJY1288]

What part of "Iraqi Legal Custody" does he not understand?

[P-Marlowe]

Curtis Doebbler

---

Statement of Political Views
My Politics and Political Views

I am a pacifist in so far as I will not use force to achieve political ends and in principle I reject the use of force by both governmental and non-governmental actors. At the same time, I can understand the frustrations of those individuals who turn to the use of force when they or others with whom they identify are being oppressed and have no adequate means of legal recourse.

I strongly support the Social Justice Movement, which I view as the conglomeration of anti-globalists, human rights defenders, and anarchists who are striving for social change towards a world of greater equality. In this sense, I believe in a world of greater equality where no person or company can acquire such a disparity in wealth that others have less than the minimum that enables them to live meaningful lives. To this end I support actions to ensure the redistribution of wealth through governmental intervention as long as these efforts are not based on political biases and reflect the will of the majority of the people in any given country. And I support the intervention of the state to ensure education, health care, social welfare, a minimum income, and the protection of all fundamental human rights.

I ardently oppose American and more broadly western neo-imperialism which is being imposed through the exploitation of the majority of the people of the world and the economic and military dominance of the United States. I believe that all people have a right and a duty to take all necessary measures to end the United States’ inhumane dominance of the lives of billions of people.

I believe in the right of all people to make an informed choice about their government and to participate in their government in a meaningful way. To achieve this I believe that it is necessary for every person to be guaranteed basic education according to their abilities, the basic health care that is needed to live a meaningful and quality life, and the basic means of subsistence.

I am committed to striving through all means possible and within my capabilities to ensuring that all people, everywhere in world have their human rights respected. To this end, I will employ all my abilities to further the cause of human rights for the most vulnerable, the poorest, and those who have been disenfranchised. The human rights upon which I base my commitment are those which have been accepted by consensus by the international community either in treaties to which particular states have become parties, or, those rights found under customary international law. I believe that human rights must reflect an international consensus and that they should be periodically reviewed with input from all sectors of society and through means that allow extremely broad participation so as to ensure that international human rights law reflects the claims, demands and expectations of the overwhelming majority of the people in the world.

I believe that international law provides a basis for peaceful coexistence. This, I believe, is only the case when states respect international law. When states violate international it is necessary that all steps be taken by all people to punish violating governments and to ensure that they respect international law. This, I believe, is especially important as concerns the most powerful countries in the world.

Finally, I am committed to upholding my beliefs through action and the support of others’ actions. Such action is the right and responsibility of every individual in the world. It is my particularly strong pledge to assist others, anywhere in the world, who are striving to protect the human rights of the most vulnerable person in their societies.

Curtis Doebbler, Professor of Human Rights Law at American University in Cairo, served as an advisor to the Taliban on the laws of war.

January 2002

The detainees in Guantanamo are POWs. Some people say there is some ambiguity, but Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention states that until a competent tribunal determines whether or not they are POWs, they are, prima facie, entitled to POW status. This means that they are POWs right now, and until a tribunal decides differently.

The detainees are combatants, which would make them POWs because they are members of an armed group that is under the command structure of the government, or other regular armed forces in Afghanistan. The United States claimed that these men were picked up in combat, in Afghanistan, which is evidence that they were indeed combatants.

The United States and Great Britain initially claimed that Al Qaeda and the Taliban were indistinguishable. Under international law, the Taliban was a government, and while it was not recognized by everyone, it de facto, met the legal criteria for a government because it controlled most of the territory of Afghanistan. If the US is arguing that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are one in the same, then they are automatically declaring that both the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees are POWs.

It is necessary to determine the status of the detainees, and until a competent tribunal declares that they are not POWs, then they are POWs. After this determination is made you can have legal wrangling over the criteria in the Geneva Conventions. It is important to remember that the prisoners are entitled to respect of their human rights whether they are POWs or not. For example under the American Declaration of the Rights of Man and, I would also suggest, customary international law, they are entitled to a fair trial irrespective of whether or not they are POWs or war criminals. With that in mind, they have the right not to have their dignity affronted, to have access to legal counsel, and other such rights that one could argue have been violated.

There are consequences of declaring the detainees POWs. Doing so requires that they be repatriated after the war unless they are accused of war crimes. It appears that the ICRC thinks that the Taliban have not committed any major violations of humanitarian law. It is even likely that the Taliban respected the laws of war more than the US and its allies did.

If they are tried, you have got to find something to try them for, and I’m not sure the United States has enough evidence in order to do so. They have to have committed crimes that violate United States law, or crimes against humanity if they are to be tried in the United States. And if you’re going to try them, you have to provide due process, as spelled out both by the Geneva Conventions and under international human rights law.

A major point that every human rights group in the United States has missed is the relevance of general international law regarding the use of force to the human rights of detainees, or anyone else affected by the hostilities in Afghanistan. If the United States attacked Afghanistan illegally, then every action harming the basic rights of Afghans is a violation of international human rights law. We don’t even have to get to the application of humanitarian law. The United States is in violation of the most basic rights of all Afghans who have been seriously injured by the armed conflict. The lack of time given to this important point is especially surprising because it seems quite clear that the United States used force against Afghanistan in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter and the Pact of Paris from 1928, and not in self-defense, which cannot be exercised in response to an attack by a non-state actor.

Whack Job!!!!!!

[BurbankKarl]

I saw a hooded group said they would kill Saddams dream team if they came to Baghdad.

[P-Marlowe]

I saw a hooded group said they would kill Saddams dream team if they came to Baghdad.

He's allegedly hired 1000 lawyers. You know the old joke... what do you call 1000 dead lawyers floating in the Euphrates?

A good start.

[BurbankKarl]

Militants issue threat to Saddam's lawyers

FOREIGN STAFF

ISLAMIC militants yesterday issued a videotape threatening to behead any lawyers defending the deposed Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein.

The tape, passed to the international news agency Reuters, claimed to be from a previously unknown group calling itself Saif al-Allah, the Sword of God.

The video showed masked militants brandishing assault rifles and grenade launchers.

One gunman read a statement warning "all those who defend the criminal file of the cowardly criminal Saddam ... that we will sever your necks before you arrive".

The gunman said the warning was for "the Iraqi, Arab and foreign lawyers who have taken on the case of the criminal Saddam".

A defiant Saddam and 11 of his lieutenants, ousted by United States-led forces in April last year, stood before an Iraqi tribunal last Thursday to face charges that could lead to an indictment for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

His Jordan-based defence team abandoned a proposed visit to Baghdad to show support for the jailed former president on Wednesday after members received death threats.

A team of at least 21 mainly Arab lawyers granted power of attorney by Saddam’s wife, Sajida Khairallah, have voiced fears about their personal safety in Iraq.

"We are getting one threat after the other," the team’s co-ordinator, Mohammed Rashdan, said on Wednesday.

The defence team said that among the large contingent of lawyers ready to defend Saddam are 700 non-Arabs, including 400 Americans and Europeans.

Many lawyers say the trial is a vendetta by Saddam’s political foes and only an international court would guarantee an impartial and fair hearing.

[GeronL]

Stupid. The man is no longer a US prisoner and the US Bill of Rights do not apply to Iraq

[torchthemummy]

"I am a pacifist in so far as I will not use force to achieve political ends and in principle I reject the use of force by both governmental and non-governmental actors. At the same time, I can understand the frustrations of those individuals who turn to the use of force when they or others with whom they identify are being oppressed and have no adequate means of legal recourse."

"Curtis Doebbler, Professor of Human Rights Law at American University in Cairo, served as an advisor to the Taliban on the laws of war."

So this hypocrite states that he's against violence but understands it if a thug or their brethern are "being oppressed and have no legal recourse." Without going into a detailed harangue, what does he feel about the countless women the Taliban killed, not to mention many of their former countrymen. How about the former Soviet Union, Iraq of course, Cuba, Syria, China, North Korea, Iran, Vietnam, Cambodia, Sudan, South Africa, Lebanon etc. Is he saying that there is not a scintilla of evidence that millions of people in these current and former regimes are NOT being oppressed and have EVERY adequate means of legal recourse?

Do as I say, not as my fellow hypocrites do.

[DaiHuy]

Guess I would have to ask when the U.S.S.C. obtained jurisdiction over Iraqi legal proceedings.

[Bogolyubski]

Unbelieveable. I hear Osama laughing uproariously. The farther we get from 9/11, the closer we are to 9/10.

[torchthemummy]

"The farther we get from 9/11, the closer we are to 9/10."

Great line. I like my tagline but let me tell you, I was tempted to make a change. I guess it's too half-glass-empty for me. Plus it would bely my belief that many, come November, will be closer to 9/11 than 9/10.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

So there will be two short buses-one for Saddam and his henchmen, and the other for his legal defense team?

What do you call a lawyer for Saddam in Baghdad?

A target of opportunity.

[PilloryHillary]

Gee, I wonder who this whack job will vote for in November?

[Dilbert56]

So many retorts needed.

Only one Dick Cheney available to pass them out.

[mattdono]

I don't know about everyone else, but I am ok with this for Saddam...

That seems about right to me.

[CaptRon]

I'm sure he considers himself a trail-blazer in the legal field.