Is it possible to defend Saddam?

[Crystalfox0]

Well what I really want to know is if you were to make a case to defnd him, what would be your case?
I want to know because one of the clubs I'm in is going to have a mock trial for him in front of the school, and I was chosen to be on the defence. Any advice would be apreciated. THANKS!!!:D :D :D

[Psycho Fox]

Well what I really want to know is if you were to make a case to defnd him, what would be your case?
I want to know because one of the clubs I'm in is going to have a mock trial for him in front of the school, and I was chosen to be on the defence. Any advice would be apreciated. THANKS!!!:D :D :DWell no WMD found. The US bullied nations to vote for the war even when their populas wanted them to stay out of the war. The US only repersents 3% of the world even with allies the US did the war as a minority.

Oh and Saddam didn't do anything he didn't do when he was paid by the US.

[Tienshin]

Well no WMD found. The US bullied nations to vote for the war even when their populas wanted them to stay out of the war. The US only repersents 3% of the world even with allies the US did the war as a minority.

Oh and Saddam didn't do anything he didn't do when he was paid by the US.
Yeah, but then there is all that other stuff that you seem to be throwing under the rug, you know, like the mass murder of the Shi'ites after the Gulf War. Sorry but Saddam is not innocent, no matter how you try to spin Operation Iraqi Freedom.

[Psycho Fox]

Yeah, but then there is all that other stuff that you seem to be throwing under the rug, you know, like the mass murder of the Shi'ites after the Gulf War.
And the USA rewarded such activites when Iraq did it during the Iran war.

Sorry but Saddam is not innocent, no matter how you try to spin Operation Iraqi Freedom.Yes but the US is not boy scout a either. Plus you can't fight for democracy while ingoring it at the same time.

[SlyBoy]

Yes but the US is not boyscott either.
Uh, don't you mean Boy Scout, not Boy Scott? :D

[Psycho Fox]

Uh, don't you mean Boy Scout, not Boy Scott? :DI did mean Boy Scout and I changed it.

[SSJPabs]

Yeah, but then there is all that other stuff that you seem to be throwing under the rug, you know, like the mass murder of the Shi'ites after the Gulf War. Sorry but Saddam is not innocent, no matter how you try to spin Operation Iraqi Freedom.You're missing the point of the posts and the topic. In anycase, what charges are you defending him from? I'll try to raise some points that might be of use.

First you might want to read UN Resolution 1441 http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm This will of neccessity have to be a legalistic defense. After all, Saddam committed horrible acts of murder and torture and violated WMD restrictions for many years, in addition he was embezzeling (sp?) government funds.

Shia and gassing the Kurds
Possible Arguement: It was armed rebellion incited by a foreign power against the national government. (That was at one point lawfully in power although that was what, 40 years ago?)

Possible Counter Arguement: The government had no legitimacy, and the citizens had a right to self-defense against ruthless oppression.

Possible Counter to the Counter: Did the citizens have rights to bear arms? Or not?

So you can argue that he had a part of his nation living in armed rebellion (the Kurds of the PUK, and KDP) in the north and so that his nation was in a state of war from that time until Gulf II and many things are different in a state of war.

Aside in invasion:

UN 1441
Key Graf: Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

The key here is that Iraq DID comply with UNMOVIC, inspectors were allowed in they did not say their progress was being obstructed (am I wrong, please link me to something if I am) and moreover there were no weapons so Saddam wasn't hiding ANYTHING related to WMD.

Example: If you say to me: Show me Your Gun and I don't have a Gun does that mean I'm hiding my gun from you?

The key defense from an invasion of the Coalition, is that there was no reason to assume that Iraq wasn't IN compliance with 1441. Technically as far as I understand it with only a quick reading of 1441 (I know I know, sorry I'm pressed for time) there was no legal basis according to 1441 for an attempt to force compliance at the time.

For the rest of the stuff you can argue that no one in power (exceptions: Wolfowitz, Perle) ever argued for removal of Saddam because he was a human pestilence until AFTER invasion when it was difficult to find weapons... So you COULD possibly, be able to side track it into an arguement about that, although the judge if at all good would get on you quick for it. Wow, my mock trials were always about murders and personal liability not defending Saddam. Tough stuff.

[Psycho Fox]

First you might want to read UN Resolution 1441 http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm This will of neccessity have to be a legalistic defense. After all, Saddam committed horrible acts of murder and torture and violated WMD restrictions for many years, in addition he was embezzeling (sp?) government funds.

Shia and gassing the Kurds
Possible Arguement: It was armed rebellion incited by a foreign power against the national government. (That was at one point lawfully in power although that was what, 40 years ago?)

Possible Counter Arguement: The government had no legitimacy, and the citizens had a right to self-defense against ruthless oppression.

Possible Counter to the Counter: Did the citizens have rights to bear arms? Or not?

So you can argue that he had a part of his nation living in armed rebellion (the Kurds of the PUK, and KDP) in the north and so that his nation was in a state of war from that time until Gulf II and many things are different in a state of war.

Also there is protocol. The USA did not bring the gassings before the United Nations as a primiary reason for invasion. The US primary reason was 1441 and the gassing was a agument to push the issue. Gassing was not an issue on its own for invasion meaning you could redirect the court to 1441 which would be better for your defence.

[Speedy Boris]

As a lawyer you have the option to decline cases where you have a strong moral objection, so I wouldn't even defend Sadaam in the first place. :p

[Lucky Bob]

An insanity plea might work.

Anyway, the best thing to do in Saddam's interest is to have a U.N. trial. A free platform where he can voice his mindless diatribe to the world.

It's worked for Milosovic.

He'd probably get ten years if found guilty, too.

[Liger Zero]

In a UN tribunal, defense would definitely be possible. Including an insanity plea. That's why it'd be the #1 colossal mistake made by the United States to have him tried by the UN.

Throw him to the Iraqis, and they'll tear him apart. In a US military tribunal, he'll be lynched. I'm inclined to throw him to the Iraqis.

In a US civilian court, there's no way he'd get a sensible defense. He could probably get France to hire him a good team of lawyers though. For enough money, anybody'd defend him. But if that didn't happen, I pity the poor court-appointed fool sent to defend him.

[Nimbleness]

Just curious.... Does anyone know if he's going to be tried in an Iraqi court or a world court; or at least which would be more likely. I was talking about this with my Social Studies teacher today.

[SSJPabs]

Just curious.... Does anyone know if he's going to be tried in an Iraqi court or a world court; or at least which would be more likely. I was talking about this with my Social Studies teacher today.There was some rumbling about an Iraqi court with international observers present but there hasn't really been any information for several weeks. But since the Red Cross visisted him, he's presumably still alive to be tried but that's all we might know.

[Crystalfox0]

Well first to answear SSJPabs question, The charges against Saddam are crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, and war crimes. As to the question to where he's being tried, It's going to be held in an American court:sweat: . So nice of them to stack the odds against me. But it gets better; the audiance is going to be given stones *really wadded up papper* to throw at Saddam when he enters. The only part that is worse than being Saddam's attorny is being Saddam himself.

[Liger Zero]

Well first to answear SSJPabs question, The charges against Saddam are crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, and war crimes. As to the question to where he's being tried, It's going to be held in an American court:sweat: . So nice of them to stack the odds against me. But it gets better; the audiance is going to be given stones *really wadded up papper* to throw at Saddam when he enters. The only part that is worse than being Saddam's attorny is being Saddam himself.
They should just tell the jurors to bring extra pairs of shoes to throw.

[Psycho Fox]

Well first to answear SSJPabs question, The charges against Saddam are crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, and war crimes. As to the question to where he's being tried, It's going to be held in an American court:sweat: . So nice of them to stack the odds against me. himself.I see a problem with that Saddam being have been on the CIA pay roll can just say the CIA made him do it and if the US is proven to be part of the "crime" that kinda complicates the case. Saddam can bring the US down with him on war crimes.