[odduc]

This piece of shit has just announced that he will help to defend Saddam Hussein. Well, Ramsey, I hope you have taken all of your belongings with you to Jordan because we don't want you back here in the U.S.

[highsider]

Its not as though Saddam needs more lawyers - he has 25.

That said, if there is going to be a trial, Saddam has to have proper representation, and we cant hate the lawyers for doing what has to be done. I remember a number of bigshot lawyers saying they would be willing to defend Osama bin Laden. Its a ghastly, unspeakable thing, but it has to occur in order for our justice system to work properly.

[odduc]

Sure Chris, but don't you find it a little disturbing that an American(it hurts me to say this of Ramsey Clark) is representing an enemy of the USA?
And, I also think that Ramsey Clark has some sort of alterior motive because of his public contempt for our President.

[highsider]

Truthfully, I had never heard of Ramsey Clark until I heard this on the news the other night.

But, like I said, does Saddam really need another lawyer? I think he should be allowed only one, and since he's being tried in Iraq, the lawyer should be an Iraqi.

So you know what? I'm with you - fuck that guy. He's just being an ass; its not like no one else is defending Saddam. He's probably just going out of his way to be anti-Bush, which, at this point, is pretty pointless.

[Karaya One]

Ramsey Clark is a nut job who hates this country.

He wants to prosecute for war crimes each and every soldier who was involved in the Fallujah operation!

And this twit was a Secretary of State!

[highsider]

Originally posted by Karaya One
Ramsey Clark is a nut job who hates this country.

He wants to prosecute for war crimes each and every soldier who was involved in the Fallujah operation!

And this twit was a Secretary of State!

While this guy does indeed sound like a total shithead, I dont think its fair to say he "hates this country".

[Stoneman]

Why does 'our' justice system hafta work in trying Sadaam??? Why not use the same brand of 'justice' he himself carried out for all his years???

[Rice-rocket1]

Originally posted by Stoneman
Why does 'our' justice system hafta work in trying Sadaam??? Why not use the same brand of 'justice' he himself carried out for all his years???

[Stoneman]

Yup. I say send him to summa the torture baracks he had his henchmen occupy. Let summa the families of his victims exact some revenge...

'Course, he's so fuggin' twisted he still thinks he was doing the world good for carrying out his attrocities...

[highsider]

Originally posted by Stoneman
Why does 'our' justice system hafta work in trying Sadaam??? Why not use the same brand of 'justice' he himself carried out for all his years???

I dont actually understand what jurisdiction they are trying him under; my understanding was that he was supposed to be turned over to the Iraqi government. If that really were the case, I would think they'd have done away with him in some creative manner by now.

[Stoneman]

Originally posted by highsider
I dont actually understand what jurisdiction they are trying him under; my understanding was that he was supposed to be turned over to the Iraqi government. If that really were the case, I would think they'd have done away with him in some creative manner by now.

That's what I mean!

[bigred875]

Originally posted by Stoneman
Why does 'our' justice system hafta work in trying Sadaam??? Why not use the same brand of 'justice' he himself carried out for all his years???

[benVFR]

Originally posted by Stoneman
Why does 'our' justice system hafta work in trying Sadaam??? Why not use the same brand of 'justice' he himself carried out for all his years???

Are we scum just like Saddam? We will never get people to learn how to be civil if we stoop to their level...

Saddam should get all the representation he can. It is not as if he is actually going to win, but the process is important as it is the only thing that separates us from Saddam. Both he and the US have killed lots of Iraqis, but we are at least trying to be lawful about it.

[highsider]

Its a strange jurisdiction he's being tried under. I dont understand it at all.

Another interesting thing I heard on the news the other night is that they were actually gathering DNA evidence against him. I dont understand this; if they need to catch him up on a murder charge, why not just charge him with the deaths of American soldiers?

[benVFR]

I don't know the laws of war but how does your soldiers killing soldiers who have invaded your country constitute murder?

(I don't understand why they need to get him on murder though)

One of the tricky things is if we hold Saddam responsible for the atrocities commited by our troops, how do we absolve our own government of the atrocities commited by our troops? I'm sure most people in the US will not care about this, but you better believe the people in the middle east will. If Saddam is responsible for death/torture in Iraq, why is Bush not responsible for the torture acts commited at Abu Ghraib? If we need to win the "hearts and minds" battle with the average middle eastern citizen, we need to deal with this. If we don't we are destined for more terrorist attacks.

Can't people see the whole thing is to set an example for Iraq and the middle east on the proper way to run a society?

Seems our conservative friends would like to see him tied up on national TV broadcast to the middle east and have him castrated, electrocuted, and drawn and quartered. What kind of example would that set?

[highsider]

Originally posted by benVFR
I don't know the laws of war but how does your soldiers killing soldiers who have invaded your country constitute murder?

(I don't understand why they need to get him on murder though)

Its a contextual thing; if we continue to stand on the premise that we invaded because they were in violation of a UN resolution, and George Dubya told Saddam to beat it five days before we invaded, then Saddam is a war criminal guilty of murder of Ameircan soldiers.

I dont necessarily agree with that, but since they're trying him, why not use that for simplicity's sake?

[odduc]

. If Saddam is responsible for death/torture in Iraq, why is Bush not responsible for the torture acts commited at Abu Ghraib?

There is that blame America first attitude, again. I'm still not getting this.

[benVFR]

Can you at least understand that the US must conduct itself with higher morals than Saddam, the terrorists, etc.. ??

We are guilty of some of the same things they are in this war, and that is not the American way, nor is it something we can be proud of.

As far as I can tell the Administration does not share your sentiment. They either did not want Abu Ghraib and other "problems" to happen, or they did want to happen and were hoping the truth could be hidden.

I would like to belive they didn't want it to happen at all. But now that it happened and got out, it is a tough problem, and they are treating it as such, not dismissing it with a flippant attitude like you do.

[odduc]

I simply do not see Abu Ghraib as a big deal because the prisoners in question were the very same enemy soldiers trying to kill our guys before their capture. The only reason why the administration is treating this as some sort of major problem is because the same people who reported the fake Bush National Guard documents reported this publicly. And, they did have an agenda. Now, the administration must do something so as to appease the critics.

BTW, how many of those prisoners in Abu Gharaib were tortured to the point of death or even injury for that matter? I don't see how making a prisoner put underwear on their head constitutes torture. Show me one instance in which the treatment of prisoners in the hands of US soldiers resulted in the prisoner's death. For crying out loud, our interrogators can't even shout at the prisoners anymore for fear of violating some sort of unwritten politcally correct warfare guidelines!