Right Thinking From The Left Coast
You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life - Albert Camus

Traitor General
by Lee

And the latest traitorous left-wing scumbag to feverishly work to undermine US political goals is…

Saddam Hussein’s attorneys will ask an Iraqi tribunal Monday for permission to add former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark to the courtroom defense team.

Khames Hameed al-Ubaidi said Clark was in Baghdad and will meet with the defense team on Sunday night or Monday morning, when the trial is scheduled to resume.

If Clark is not allowed to participate in the courtroom, he will act as a legal adviser, al-Ubaidi said.

A U.S. official close to the Iraqi High Tribunal said there have been no motions made by Hussein’s attorney to have an international lawyer work on the defense team. But the official said that if the proper motion for that was filed it would probably be accepted.

Clark was attorney general under President Lyndon Johnson and has been a civil rights attorney and activist in recent years. Clark, who opposed the Iraq war, met with Hussein in February 2003, just before the U.S.-led invasion began.

“Our plan is to go to court in Baghdad on Monday morning representing the defense counsel as defense support. A fair trial in this case is absolutely imperative for historical truth to justice obviously,” Clark told the Reuters news agency before leaving Amman, Jordan.

The historical truth to justice?  As if there is any doubt as to his guilt.  Well, maybe only in the minds of the American left.  After all, Saddam once shook hands with Donald Rumsfeld!

Posted by Lee on 11/28/05 at 04:22 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 11/28/05 at 06:32 PM from United States

"Truth to Justice”?
Is that the new craptastic phrase to add to the “truth to power” assinity?
Does this asswipe have access to any intel that the US generates?
He is despicable.

Posted by Drumwaster on 11/28/05 at 06:59 PM from United States

As if there is any doubt as to his guilt.

The first goddam time I hear any of those asshats calling him “an alleged murderer”, I’m gonna put a boot through the TV screen. This has been the only time in History that Saddam has denied his crimes.

Fortunately, the Iraqis are no more likely to set him free as they are to suddenly turn into the Middle Eastern version of the Rockettes and dance their way across Beijing’s Forbidden City.

Posted by on 11/28/05 at 07:13 PM from United States

Isn’t defending an enemy of the US an act of treason or sedition?

Posted by on 11/28/05 at 07:14 PM from United States

After all, Saddam once shook hands with Donald Rumsfeld!

Which was when Rummy sealed the deal on selling Saddam the 11 secret herbs and spices of the KFC recipe!
8O

Posted by on 11/28/05 at 07:43 PM from United States

General Clark, sir, Captain Irrelevancy is waiting to talk to you.  He says you owe the US people the 5 minutes you gone over on your 15 of fame.

Posted by InsipiD on 11/28/05 at 08:02 PM from United States

A few points:

1.  You don’t see anyone with GOP affiliations ever fighing to defend turds like Hussein or Milosevic.

2.  I don’t know why we’re worrying about Saddam’s acquittal.  Nearly everyone on earth is essentially a witness.  Hell, we saw SCUDS go into Israel live on CNN.  He’ll be found guilty on countless charges, if not all of them.

3.  The infamous Saddam-Rumsfeld handshake is proof that he needed to go.  After all, if the fascist neocons would turn on a pal like Hussein...never mind.

4.  Why is it that Saddam needs a fair trial at all?  Why would it not be sufficient to hold him at Gitmo until death without a trial?

Anyone who still doesn’t see the necessity of Saddam’s ouster needs to think about gassed Kurds, industrial meat shredders, theft of public property, and kidnap’n bukkake parties at palaces.  Poking fun at Saddam’s expense should be the only thing that keeps people from crying at what he did.  I’ve even found it easier to leave Doritos alone since finding that Saddam loves them.

Posted by Sean Galbraith on 11/28/05 at 08:02 PM from Canada

Putting aside this mediawhore… I think it is fantastic that someone has stepped up to act on Saddam’s behalf. Even mass-murdering dictators deserve a vigorous defence if a judicial system is to be worth anything. Of course he is guilty and will be found guilty… but that isn’t the point.

Posted by Drumwaster on 11/28/05 at 08:21 PM from United States

Isn’t defending an enemy of the US an act of treason or sedition?

Technically? No.

Practically? Probably not, unless they are volunteering for the job, a la Hanoi Jane or “Seared” John.

Posted by Sean Galbraith on 11/28/05 at 09:51 PM from Canada

I would venture that it is especially not treasonesque when said enemy is in custody awaiting trial.

Posted by on 11/28/05 at 10:05 PM from United States

Actually I’m not suprised at all. Remember, this ass clown went to Iran during the Hostage crisis to “Apologize” to Khomeini(?) for making him mad and taking our Embassy Hostage.

Posted by Drumwaster on 11/28/05 at 10:14 PM from United States

Do we have to let him back into the country?

Posted by on 11/28/05 at 10:27 PM from United States

Which is great, now Canada will never have to fear invasion from Sadam again.

“Eh, relax buddy, you need a rest, guy!”

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 03:19 AM from United Kingdom

Sean - I totally agree. Although I’d not like to be the guy who gets the job, I’d like to see the best defence lawyer in the world have a go at defending him, and end up throwing his hands up and saying “There is no way I can defend what you did. you are a genocidal fuckhead, and you throughly deserve whats coming to you.” The most important thing now is how the history books treat him and the legacy his trial leaves behind for would-be genocidal fuckheads.

Posted by Mitch Cumstein on 11/29/05 at 06:00 AM from United States

Sean and britishcress have it right. Of course everyone knows that he is guilty just like we all knew that Jeffrey Dahmer was. That’s beside the point.

We damn well better make sure that the fucker gets a fair trial. This is what we’re supposed to be fighting the terrorists for - defending our freedoms. And holding a fair trial, even for one of the world’s worst mass-murderer scumbags, is what makes America great.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 07:45 AM from United States

After the Boston Massacre in 1770, the British soldiers accused of killing several unarmed American civilians were put on trial, and defended by none other than John Adams.  He got a shitload of flak for that, but he did it because he believed that everyone deserves a fair trial.

Such is the case with Saddam.  Yes, he’s a genocidal maniac, but we can’t betray the very principles we’re trying to bring it to Iraq.  He needs to have a fair trial.  Otherwise, we turn our backs on the rule of law.

Posted by Lee on 11/29/05 at 08:33 AM from United States

After the Boston Massacre in 1770, the British soldiers accused of killing several unarmed American civilians were put on trial, and defended by none other than John Adams.  He got a shitload of flak for that, but he did it because he believed that everyone deserves a fair trial.

Absolutely, and nobody is disputing that Saddam is entitled to a fair trial with a vigorous defense.  The point is that this is Ramsey Clark, a major radical left-wing asshat.  Taken in and of itself his defense of Saddam is perfectly acceptable.  Taken in totality with some of the other things this guy has done, and some of the other anti-American positions he has taken, it’s pretty fucking treasonous.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 12:46 PM from United States

The point is that this is Ramsey Clark, a major radical left-wing asshat.  Taken in and of itself his defense of Saddam is perfectly acceptable.  Taken in totality with some of the other things this guy has done, and some of the other anti-American positions he has taken, it’s pretty fucking treasonous.

So if a conservative was representing him you’d have no problem with it? You aren’t making any sense. The guy needs a lawyer, even for a kangaroo court such as this one.

Posted by Dan Kauffman on 11/29/05 at 04:23 PM from United States

The historical truth to justice?  As if there is any doubt as to his guilt.  Well, maybe only in the minds of the American left.  After all, Saddam once shook hands with Donald Rumsfeld!

But-but doesn’t that make him GUILTY? I wish the Left would make up their minds. ;-)

Next entry: Sex, Drugs, and Careers

Previous entry: Fowl Science

<< Back to main