Why the HELL is our former Attorney Gen on the Saddam Defense Team??

S

Supertac

New member
Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark went to Iraq to represent Saddam Hussein in his trial. Am I the only one outraged by this?
 
+ 1 to Weeg.

Also, Is the former Attorney General a Democrat? I seem to remember a thread in which the dems like Saddam. That is why I ask.

I'm starting to think that there is some sort of conspiracy to get him set free and then well, that's where my theory ends. I've gto nothing until something else happens. It just confuses me that they want to actually try to get him off scot-free.
 
I really, really can't believe who the people of America have become. It's a sad day when you step back and realize that it's not just the politicians, it's the people that elect them.
 
Ramsey Clark??? Clinton's guy right??? Maybe if Saddam is found innocent it helps Hillary's 08 run:rolleyes: . Something is fishy, if you were an attorney on Saddam defense team, would you allow an attorney in who worked for the same government that arrested your client and is holding him captive??? Wouldn't you be nervous that Ramsey Clark would have some loyality to his country, and leak information to the prosecution??? Usually an attorney, judge, or juror is barred because due to some past relationship that would make him/her bias, but maybe he is so anti-Bush there is none.
 
Same reason that Donald Rumsfield was once shaking Saddam's hand. All politicians are corrupt. They vary whether they are nut cases of the right or the left. :D
 
I don't see why one would be outraged; if you believe in justice then you have to believe that everyone deserves a solid defense. The whole "innocent until proven guilty" not apply because it's another country?
 
For the same reason that he attended the "Crimes of America" convention, held in Tehran by the Iranians at the exact same time that Iran was holding American hostages in the overtaken American embassy in the same city?

For the same reason that he defended Slobodan Milosevic in the Yugoslaian dictators trial for war crimes and atrocities?

For the same reason that he defended the leaders of the PLO in the civil suit brought against them by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, wheelchair-bound American tourist who was cold-bloodedly murdered by PLO terrorists during the hi-jacking of the Achille Lauro?

For the same reason that he defended Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, mastermind of the genocide in Rwanda?

Because he's lost his ****ing marbles.

LawDog
 
Ol ramsey is just a radical looney. he has the credibility of used toilet papr

WildappleadaykeepsthecommiesawayAlaska
 
I don't see why one would be outraged; if you believe in justice then you have to believe that everyone deserves a solid defense. The whole "innocent until proven guilty" not apply because it's another country?
Click to expand...

I'm outraged that someone who worked for our gov't would support saddam. Not unbelievable, just outrageous.
 
You make a good point. Though perhaps he doesn't actually support Saddam, he just wants people to have good representation and knows that the people he has represented in the past wouldn't get it because of the gravity of their crimes.
 
I know this is a stretch, but has anybody considered the idea that he wants to make sure that Saddam gets a fair trial? You know, innocent until proven guilty, competent representation, due process?
 
You make a good point. Though perhaps he doesn't actually support Saddam, he just wants people to have good representation and knows that the people he has represented in the past wouldn't get it because of the gravity of their crimes.
Click to expand...

Look up "Ramsey Clark" online...you will see why he's defending Saddam.

For the same reason that he attended the "Crimes of America" convention, held in Tehran by the Iranians at the exact same time that Iran was holding American hostages in the overtaken American embassy in the same city?

For the same reason that he defended Slobodan Milosevic in the Yugoslaian dictators trial for war crimes and atrocities?

For the same reason that he defended the leaders of the PLO in the civil suit brought against them by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, wheelchair-bound American tourist who was cold-bloodedly murdered by PLO terrorists during the hi-jacking of the Achille Lauro?

For the same reason that he defended Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, mastermind of the genocide in Rwanda?

Because he's lost his ****ing marbles.

LawDog
Click to expand...

Exactly right....except if you say he's lost his marbles, that means half our country has lost it's marbles as well...........sadly, that would be an accurate statement.
 
IIRC, Ramsey clark graduated very near the bottom of his class - FWIW.

Anyway, he's probably doing it pro bono - right?? Certainly, he wouldn't do it just for the money.:rolleyes:

;) :)
 
Judging from his record, maybe he wants S.D. to go down the same path with his other more famous clientele? ;)

So maybe it's a good thing...
 
Clark has never demonstrated loyalty to this country, quite the opposite .Always a left wing fruitcake !! As Attorney General he did everything to cripple the office.
 
CNN had a story about this either yesterday night or this morning, can't remember. They said he just uses these trials to call attention to perceived failings in American foreign policy according to him. The Iraqis didn't want him at the trial, they think he will use it as a platform to denounce the U.S. instead of defending Saddam. They also showed footage of him meeting with Saddam in 2002. How is it that people not representing the government (Ramsey Clark and Sean Penn come to mind) can go seemlingly freely to countries where U.S. citizens are not allowed to travel to and talk to their dictators, acting like they are presenting the side of the people of America? I didn't vote for Ramsey Clark or Sean Penn, so I don't want them going elsewhere and telling the murderous thugs in charge that they are right and the U.S. is wrong. :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
I don't see why one would be outraged; if you believe in justice then you have to believe that everyone deserves a solid defense. The whole "innocent until proven guilty" not apply because it's another country?
Click to expand...

I know this is a stretch, but has anybody considered the idea that he wants to make sure that Saddam gets a fair trial? You know, innocent until proven guilty, competent representation, due process?
Click to expand...

Yep, and yep.

I would rather him have the best possible defense now, so we don't get a few years down the road and have to hear about how the trial was rigged ebcause he got some guy fresh out of law school. A very credible defense is one way to ensure that there is nothign that can be construed as fixing the trial.
 
Yep, and yep.

I would rather him have the best possible defense now, so we don't get a few years down the road and have to hear about how the trial was rigged ebcause he got some guy fresh out of law school. A very credible defense is one way to ensure that there is nothign that can be construed as fixing the trial.
Click to expand...

I think many ppl are misunderstanding my aim in this thread. I'm not pushing the arguement of fair trial here. Even though I don't think a foreign dictator that we toppled in war deserves one, that's besides the point.

My concern was that there's people in our gov't that REALLY DO SUPPORT SADDAM. This guy isn't the only one that would defend Saddam if they could.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top