How soon before nobody will represent the butcherer of Baghdad and his goons? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9966676/
It is already happening. The lawyers want a trial in another country but I don't think American will agree with that. In present court he can not speak or ask any question in his defense before what he wants to say is approved by the judge and the court itself is not public. Can you imagine what he might say if he had the possibility to speak and ask questions in a public court some where in Europe, or how many names he can name in present or past American administration as his collaborators in his war or human right crimes?
And when a lawyer is about to get a firm grip on the case get a new one in, heh. That way he'll deffo end up dead.
Hell, he already has the whole democratic party representing his interests 90% of them have law degrees
If I were a personal injury lawyer, I'd hope to just get winged...that'd give me plenty of people to sue LOL
Do you really think that these dictators don't keep files on people they were dealing with? Here is the videoclip of Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein meeting. You can also look at what James Baker secretary of state in previous Bush administration writes to Tariq Aziz, Iraq's foreign minister. This is 13 month after Iraq has gassed Kurdish villages. AS I SAID IN OUT MEETING, THE UNITED STATES SEEKS A BROADENED AND DEEPENED RELATIONSHIP WITH IRAQ ON THE BASIS OF MUTUAL RESPECT. THAT IS THE POLICY OF THE PRESIDENT. IN THIS REGARD, THE PRESIDENT HAS ASKED ME TO SAY TO YOU AND THROUGH YOU TO PRESIDENT HUSSEIN, IN THE MOST DIRECT WAY POSSIBLE, THAT THE UNITED STATES IS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY EFFORT TO WEAKEN OR DESTABILIZE IRAQ. HAVING LOOKED INTO THE MATTER, AND DISCUSSED IT WITH THE PRESIDENT, I CAN TELL YOU THIS WITH THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY. SUCH AN ACTION WOULD BE COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE PRESIDENT'S POLICY, WHICH IS TO WORK TO STRENGTHEN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND IRAQ WHENEVER POSSIBLE. IF YOU ARE IN A POSITION TO PROVIDE MORE DETAILED INFORMATION I HOPE YOU WILL DO SO. I WANT TO BE VERY SURE THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THIS IN THE MIND OF THE IRAQI LEADERSHIP. Message from James Baker to Tariq Aziz
gworld you're just jealous you didn't get to meet with Hussein and tell him what a fan you are of his.
But it seems all people that you support got to meet him. Who knows, may be if one day Saddam gets a chance to speak freely, we will know how "friendly" he was with these people and how much money these people made out of this friendship.
You are looking at the whole thing thru a very skewed hole. Look at it from a 1980 perspective. The Iran-Iraq war is going on; and Iran is holding American hostages. Who is the US going to meet with in order to attempt to try and secure the release? The enemy of my enemy is my friend is very much at play here. Not to say that boosting Iraq at the time was the right thing to do, but you can't predict future events. You also have the Soviet Union (at the time) giving weaponry to Iraq. Would you really want Iraq to look at the Soviet Union as its ally without any US intervention at all? If you say yes, you're nuts. Bringing it up - in some sort of sham attempt to say that Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam is some sort of tacit approval of what Saddam did is silly. Sometimes, especially in foreign affairs, you take the lesser of 2 evils.
Nice story, except none of it is true. 1- Hostages were released in 1980, The meeting with Rumsfeld was in 1984 after Iraq has used chemical weapons on Iranian troops against all international treaties. 2- James Baker letter to Iraq Government is from 1989 after Iraq has gassed the Kurdish villages and killing innocent women and children. 3- At the same time as USA was selling weapons to Iraq and giving intelligence information in form of satellite pictures to Saddam Hussein, they were selling weapons to Iran through Israel as middle man. They wouldn't sell weapons to Iran if they considered them a treat, would they?
You aren't reading. I'm telling you to look at it from an 80's perspective. In the 80's, Iran was the problem (and still is) - Iraq was seen as more of a useful tool than anything else. The Reagan administration obviously feared that the radical Iranians are looking to overrun the Middle East and take over the oil fields. This could not be allowed to happen, so again - The enemy of my enemy is my friend - the Iraqis are supported in the war with Iran. Of course everyone knows that Saddam is a thug here, but - again - sometimes you take the lesser of 2 evils. No one will ever claim that the Middle East has ever been dealt with perfectly, but you take what you can get. If Bush would have stood up to the UN in '91 and ousted Saddam then, this whole mess would have been over more than a decade ago.
I will be truly astonished if Saddam ever gets his day in court. If he does, his aired testimony is going to be clipped to the follicle. He has far too many dirty secrets to tell that would embroil the UK, the US, France and others in difficult explanations of murky deals. And no... don't bother asking me for proof. I can't be bloody bothered. The whole thing is just too dirty for words.
Let me see if I understand your posting. What you are saying is that Bush and American administration speeches about freedom and democracy for people in Iraq and how bad Saddam was, is nothing but a bunch of BS. Saddam is the same man as he was before but when USA has use for a murdering dictator then they are friends but when they have out lived their usefulness or government has other agendas then they become bastard dictators that should be killed.