The LA Times has a column by Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General, explaining why he is willing to defend Saddam Hussein. In principle I have no problem with Hussein having a good lawyer (I assume the former Atty Gen is good at his trade), but I have a lot of problems with the reasons Ramsey Clark gives for it, so let's get out the fisk-knife and give it a good going over.
Why I'm Willing to Defend Hussein
Former Atty. Gen. Ramsey Clark explains his offer to help the deposed dictator.
By Ramsey Clark, 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.
Hussein already has some lawyers, so the first question is why does he need another? Perhaps this will be explained but I'm already skeptical
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."
If I may beg to differ, I think it was more like: what, other than free publicity, is he going to get out of this?
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.
Well yes, that is true. But did Hussein ask for you? from what is written above I rather gather that you flew to Jordan on your own initiative with no invitation from Hussein or his family
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.
Again the general principle is sound but the details are rather less good. President Bush may indeed have called for Saddam's execution but the reason for that call is that the president believes that Saddam Hussein is guilty of crimes against humanity. The president is not alone in making such statements, I would guess that a majority, probably an overwhelming majority, of Iraqis would agree with him, even though they may disagree with other things the president may say. If it turns out that Hussein is not guilty of such crimes then the President will no doubt admit his error. Unfortunately though the discovery of a large number of mass graves in Iraq, not to mention the documentary evidence of poison gas attacks against Iranian military and Kurdish civilians makes this rather unlikely, but the point of a court case is to determine guilt and to render an appropriate sentence. If the US had wished to see Hussein dead without legal process they could have simply dumped him in the middle of a Baghdad square unarmed and alone or shot him when he was caught. Neither of these things occured which seems to indicate that the Bush regime is not quite so cavalier about Hussein's rights as you imply.
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.
So Saddam Hussein, who invaded, without provocation, two of his neighbours and who ran a regime which seems to have terrorzed its own population was demonized by the US? That seems rather like claiming that Hitler was "demonized" by Churchill or that Pol Pot was "demonized" by the Vietnamese. I do agree however that the trial will write history, affect the coutrse of violence etc. If Huseein is not executed after due legal process then tyrants around the world will heave a sigh of relief and the Iraqi population will fear for its future safety.
Hussein has been held illegally for more than a year without once meeting a family member, friend or lawyer of his choice. Though the world has seen him time and again on television — disheveled, apparently disoriented with someone prying deep into his mouth and later alone before some unseen judge — he has been cut off from all communications with the outside world and surrounded by the same U.S. military that mistreated prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.
So? we aren't talking about a person accused of a minor traffic violation here. We're talking about a person accused of commanding the killing some hundreds of thousands of people, of illegally obtaining billions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks, of depriving his citizens human rights laid down in the UN Charter to which Iraq is a signatory. etc.
Preparation of Hussein's defense cannot begin until lawyers chosen by him obtain immediate, full and confidential access to him so they can review with him events of the last year, the circumstances of his seizure and the details of his treatment. They must then have time to thoroughly discuss the nature and composition of the prosecution and the court, the charges that may be brought against him, and his knowledge, thoughts and instructions concerning the facts of the case. And finally, they must have the time for the enormous task of preparing his defense.
I think you seem to be confused here. I am no lawyer and could very well be wrong but as I understand it the circumstances of his capture and imprisonment have no bearing on his guilt or innocence under the likely charges. They may have something to do with his subsequent sentencing but there are all sorts of precedents that indicate that once caught you are caught no matter if the capture itself lays others open to charges. Overall what seems to be proposed here is a defense based on procrastination and obfuscation. This is not the defence one usually proposes to someone who is innocent
The legal team, its assistants and investigators must be able to perform their work safely, without interference, and be assured that their client's condition and the conditions of his confinement enable him to fully participate in every aspect of his defense.
Blah blah blah. As noted above these sorts of procedural complaints look like the ones used to try and get a guilty defendant off the hook.
International law requires that every criminal court be competent, independent and impartial. The Iraqi Special Tribunal lacks all of these essential qualities. It was illegitimate in its conception — the creation of an illegal occupying power that demonized Saddam Hussein and destroyed the government it now intends to condemn by law.
At least one of the reasons why the trial has been delayed, as you should be aware if you read the news, is that it is intended to try Hussein under Iraqi justice. A prerequisite for which is the election of an Iraqi government and production of an Iraqi constitution etc etc. "International law" in terms of trying heads of state for crimes committed by their regime is not as clear cut as you seem to imagine. The fact that the Hague trials have certain proceedings does not mean all courts should have the same behaviour. Moreover (and ignoring the demonization slur dealt with above), had you read the news, you would have seen that the only way to bring Huseein to any court was to overthrow his government since, while in power, he treated foreign laws, courts and resolutions with total contempt.
The United States has already destroyed any hope of legitimacy, fairness or even decency by its treatment and isolation of the former president and its creation of the Iraqi Special Tribunal to try him.
Among the earliest photographs it released is one showing Hussein sitting submissively on the floor of an empty room with Ahmad Chalabi, the principal U.S. surrogate at that moment, looming over him and a picture of Bush looking down from an otherwise bare wall.
The intention of the United States to convict the former leader in an unfair trial was made starkly clear by the appointment of Chalabi's nephew to organize and lead the court. He had just returned to Iraq to open a law office with a former law partner of Defense Undersecretary Douglas J. Feith, who had urged the U.S. overthrow of the Iraqi government and was a principal architect of U.S. postwar planning.
The concept, personnel, funding and functions of the court were chosen and are still controlled by the United States, dependent on its will and partial to its wishes. Reform is impossible. Proceedings before the Iraqi Special Tribunal would corrupt justice both in fact and in appearance and create more hatred and rage in Iraq against the American occupation. Only another court — one that is actually competent, independent and impartial — can lawfully sit in judgment.
More blah blah blah, repeating the same claims as before. The one thing that I totally reject is that "Proceedings before the Iraqi Special Tribunal would corrupt justice both in fact and in appearance and create more hatred and rage in Iraq against the American occupation.". On the contrary seeing Hussein dead will I expect provoke rather more positive feeligns in the majority of Iraqis and will boost their morale and desire to fight the terrorists who wish to reinstall a Saddam-like regime.
In a trial of Hussein and other former Iraqi officials, affirmative measures must be taken to prevent prejudice from affecting the conduct of the case and the final judgment of the court. This will be a major challenge. But nothing less is acceptable.
I'm tempted to quote from Horace Rumpole about "reasonable doubt". I have no doubt all the proprieties will be observed but I completely fail to see how any objective court can fail to come to the conclusion that Hussein is indeed guilty of crimes agaimnst humanity and is, to put it bluntly, better off dead.
Finally, any court that considers criminal charges against Saddam Hussein must have the power and the mandate to consider charges against leaders and military personnel of the U.S., Britain and the other nations that participated in the aggression against Iraq, if equal justice under law is to have meaning.
Why? Hussein is to be accused of mass murder of his own people and violationsof the rules of war by use of chemical weapons. Until someone shows convincing evidence of mass graves within the US or poison gas attacks against US enemies this attempt at moral equivalence is totally bogus. Writing an article that is published on the same day that Auschwitz is remembered makes me wonder whether Ramsey thinks that Churchill should have been on trial in Nurembrg too despite failing to try to kill all the Jews in the British Empire. Admittedly Saddam Hussein comes up poorly in the list of 20th century dictators who've killed their own people - Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot are all way ahead but Hussein is in this category whereas Bush Blair etc cannot be placed there.
No power, or person, can be above the law. For there to be peace, the days of victor's justice must end.
Neither Bush nor Blair are above the law, in their own country. Until his overthrow Saddam Hussein and his cronies were above the law in Iraq.
The defense of such a case is a challenge of great importance to truth, the rule of law and peace. A lawyer qualified for the task and able to undertake it, if chosen, should accept such service as his highest duty.
Oh great a duck-billed platitude to finish up with. The only thing I can guess from this is that Saddam's family and other lawyers didn't welcome you with open arms and have no intention of cutting you in on the publicity. So since you don't have the chance for future publicity you decide to write a column to grant you a little trailing shred of it. Good move, since it shows you to be a hypocritical publicity seeking idiot.