Former U.S. Attorney General (Under Lyndon Johnson) Ramsey Clark probably wishes he had thought long and hard before even considering becomming Saddam Husseins Defense Attorney. After all, a number of Saddam's co-defendant's counsels have been abducted and/or assassinated. Their families have been targeted. Although it is unclear who the perpetrators are, it would seem that it is people who have had grievances with the former regime. It is also possible that it is actualy Ba'ath loyalists who consider the trial a sham, a public spectacle, and htat the verdict is a foregone conclusion. They would consider this not so much due to the obviyus weight of the evidence, which is weighted heavily toward the prosecution, but because the American occuppiers have all ready pre-ordained the outcome.
General Clark would probably echoe those sentiments, and has moved that the trial be held elsewhere, both for reasons of assurrances of a fair trial, and for the very legitimate security concerns.
He now has some extra time to make this case. Following his last appearrance, Saddam was told that the trial would be put off until the 6th of December. Not a lot of time, and I have grave doubts as to the trial being held anywhere but in Iraq.
Saddam was as obstreperos as ever. He complained bitterly about having to walk up six flights of stairs in shackles due to the elevator being out of order. The judge seemed sympathetic enough and told him he would tell the Americans to fix the problems. Saddam was adamant as he complained to the effect that the judge was an Iraqi, the Americans were occuppiers. You do not tell them anything, he insisted, you order them. These Amricans, he compkained, had manhandled him.
This from a man who, if the accussations are correct, had dissenters to his regime gassed bythe hundreds, if not thousands, had prisoners thrown from the tops of two or three story walls, had other prisoners arms and legs put through a wood chipper, and had wives and daughters of rivals ,both real and suppossed, raped.
No wonder Ramsey Clark feels as though he has his work more than cut out for him if the trial is held in Iraq, bu thwile he is concerned about fairness for Saddam, he had better be at least as concerned for his own safety. With Saddams fellow defendants lawyers being killed, it stands to reason that Ramsey Clark himself is not safe. And the danger may come from other quarters than opponnents of Saddams out for revenge.
Ramsey Clark, as a former U.S. Attorney General, knows full well what the relationship of the U.S. gvernment with Saddam was prior to the year of the First Gulf War. And he is well aware of the very cordial relationship that seems to have existed between Saddam and Vice President Dick Cheney, back in the days when Saddam was considered a necessary evil to balance the very real dangers of the fundamentalist Ayatollahs of Iran. It was during htis period, of the Reaan admiistration, and the earlier years of the Bush administration, that Saddam acquired, largely through the initiatives of then Secretary of Defense Cheney-well, ironically, weapons of mass destruction.
It is even conceivable that Dick Cheney could even be called as a witness to Saddamns trial. Such a tactic would be considered grandstsnding, of course, and this would probably be the case, but it would grandstanding with a point. Of course, Cheney would refuse to testify, and it is unlikely that he could be forced to do so, nor is it likely that former President George H. W. Bush could be forced to appear at the former Iraqi dictator's trial.
The question becomes, what is the precedent in Iraqi law that would enable the Iraqi judge to compel the testimony of men such as this? The answer is, of course, there is no such precedent. Iraqi law is, as it were, being made up out of whole cloth. And so, unless there is a provision in the newly drafted Iraqi legal code that specifies one way or another, the Judge could make precedent any way he chooses.
Ramsey Clark of course is well aware of this, and is probably aware that such a legal maneuvering would throw the entire proceedings into turmoil, into a tailspin as it were. He would certainly be aware of the points of American law that would make it possible or not to call such defendants, and he obviously will take advantage of any pretext on behalf of this client. Like any good lawyer, he is determined, no doubt, to get Saddam off the hook, and will use any legal trick or maneuvering at his disposal.
That is why he had better be damned careful. After all, a random sniper shot, or a suicide car bomber, or even a sudden kidnapping, could very easily be seen as the mark of the same anti-Saddam (or Pro-Saddam) insurgents who have all ready taken the lives of the Iraqi defense attorneys mentioned previously.
Ramsey Clarks knowledge of the ins and outs of American governent, intenational laws and precedent-and his probably ready familiarity with Iraqi/American relations and history, is comparable to knowing where the bodies have all been buried, and are rotting and reeking. Saddam could care less at this point about those bodies being uncovered. But others may not share his lack of concern.
A great part of the Iraqis present dislike for Americans, after all, may be found in the simple fact of the realization that, love him or hate him, Saddam started out as America's spoiled and tantrum throwing child, until he stepped over the line we drew too late across the sand.
2 comments:
There probably are good reasons for not doing this, but I can't understand why they don't do this some place safer than Iraq. Sure that doesn't ptotect the families much, unless they were brought to some safe place too, but obviously you can't hide forever.
I'm starting to agree with Don Imus, a radio/tv talk show host here in America (MSNBC,6-9 a.m. EST). Maybe we should just give the place back to Saddam, tell him, "sorry about your kids, but you don't really seem that broke up about them, just keep the oil flowing and don't attack your neighbors, otherwise knock yourself out. Just remember, we can always come back if you go too far."
After all, what's otherwise eventually going to replace him is probably going to be just as bad-or worse-anyway.
Post a Comment