Article Right Here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/me...ney/index.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(CNN) -- A French attorney who has represented other notorious figures said Sunday that he will defend ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in any future trial.

Jacques Verges said he received a letter from Saddam's nephew, Ali Barzan al-Tikriti, asking him to take the case. Eleven other lawyers of various nationalities will work with him, Verges said.

"The nephew of Saddam Hussein designated me as the lead lawyer to defend Saddam," Verges said.

He said he is also representing Tariq Aziz, the former deputy prime minister of Iraq.

Among witnesses he plans to call to testify, Verges said, are Western leaders who backed Saddam's government during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

It's not the first time Verges has defended a notorious client. In 1987 Verges represented Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie, who was convicted for committing crimes against humanity.

Verges also was a longtime friend of Pol Pot, the infamous Khmer Rouge leader who was the architect of Cambodia's 1975-1979 "killing fields" regime. Pol Pot died in April 1998.

Saddam was captured December 13 near his hometown of Tikrit and has remained in U.S.-led coalition custody in Iraq. U.S. officials have described Saddam as being less than cooperative during interrogations.


Saddam Hussein was arrested December 13 and is being held by the U.S.-led coalition.
"He's turned out a pretty wily guy who seems to be enjoying the give and take with his interlocutors," Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said earlier this month. "He sure thinks he's smarter than everyone else, that's for sure."

In early March, a team of U.S. Justice Department officials traveled to Iraq to start organizing evidence that could be used against Saddam once he goes on trial.

The team includes 50 prosecutors, investigators and administrative staff of various Justice Department entities, including the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Marshals Service.

The team will assist the Iraqis in trying to sort through any evidence that can be used in war crimes trials against former regime officials, including the former Iraqi president.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mere words can not describe how much I *hate* this Jacques Verges! He's obviously Anti-Israel ( http://www.idf.il/iraq/english/default.stm ) Blood thirsty, and a greedy scum bucket! If the Iraqi People don't want Saddam back, they should pick up their Pitchforks and Torches and pay this buttwipe a little visit!

Sorry, I'm a little angry. I'm not trying to flamebait.

Edit: Wednesday March 31, 2004: I've come to Realise I was wrong. This guy is probably going to send Saddam straight to Death Row.

[ 03-31-2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: The Whackmiester ]

Somebody's got to defend him. At least Verges has a solid losing record. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Everyone has the right to an attorney, including saddam.

Yep, what good is a system of justice if we get to choose who gets a lawyer and who gets execution without representation?

Mark

<FONT COLOR=ORANGE>This guy's doing us all a service. Fat chance that he'll get world leaders to testify though. Not going to happen. Of course, I'm sure he'll want to call Dubya to testify as well. </font>

Why is he an idiot for wanting to ensure a fair trial?

Many relatives of the lockerbie bombing feel that the trial of the 'perpetrators' was unfair and produced a 'political' result. They do not feel that they recieved all of the answers and, as a result they were left with too many unanswered questions and the feeling that the 'real' perpetrators may not be behind bars.

A fair trial is in the interest of the victims and their families.

Because he is defending a BLOODTHIRSTY TYRANT!!! Let him loose and what's he gonna do? Three things: Kill, Kill, and KILL!!! He deserves a taste of his own medicine!

Maybe you should take the red pills instead of the blue ones.

[ 03-29-2004, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

<font color=orange>Still he should be tried in a court of law. The odds of him actually walking are very poor at best! He'll also an example to others of ilk about what is waiting for them someday. Try him.</font>

For all the conjecture on the lawyers grand motives of true justive for all, it would seem his motives are far baser. Money, fame, and an opportunity to express his political views against Donald Rumsfield on a stage where the world will be listening. Even if Saddam loses badly, the lawyer still wins.

Doesn't matter, equal justice is all that matters. I'm pretty sure Sadam will not be found not guilty.

Money, fame and express political views against Donald Rumsfeld on a stage where the world will be listening? There are probably few lawyers that could resist it. And there is something wrong with that as a concept(Sadam notwithstanding)?

Mark

Always. ;)

Political grandstanding won't help Saddam. And, as his attorney, that would be his REAL job. In fact, to act against Saddam's interests is called malpractice.

I want Saddam to have the best possible defense in the world. I want it to be as fair as possible. The fairness and impartiality of the judicial system is the only thing that gives us a foundation for meting out punishments for crimes.

The Iraqi people have a long and proud history, and I think it's important to take a VERY close look -- through the judicial process -- at how this man brought the Fertile Crescent to its knees over the past decades.

Sorta pointless havin a trial Whacky iffn you don't let him have a lawyer of choice. Even your most bloodthirsty of murderers gets a trial in the courts before they get punished. You take out that frameworka t choice and you become what Saddam was - a tyrant acting at whim.

LOL - Grojlach - I had to laugh at the pills joke ;) .

Do you have proof of this 'losing record?'

Jacques Verges
From AmIAnnoying.Com

(March 5, 1925- )
Born in Thailand
Raised on the Reunion Islands
Resides in France
Son of a French diplomat, and Vietnamese woman
Defended Klaus Barbie (1987), Carlos the Jackal (1994), Kekal faction (1995), Roger Gaurady (1996), Slobodan Milosevic (2002), Tariq Aziz (2003) and Saddam Hussein (2004)
Member of the Communist Party (1942)
Organized communist youth in Prague Czechoslovakia (1950-53)

He believes anyone deserves his day in court and takes on unpopular defendants.
Just about all of his clients are found guilty.
He claimed on Germany's Deutsche Welles TV that he was Milosevic's attorney (October 25, 2002). He was never hired but did file a friend-of-the-court brief.
Deutches Welles claimed he had a passionate interest in evil.
Although he is a leftist, he defends extremist on both sides of the political landscape.
Saddam Hussein's nephew Ali Barzan al-Takriti hired him.
He was a member of Charles de Gaulle's Free French Forces during WW II.
He studied law at the Sorbonne.

Mark

[img]graemlins/hidesbehindsofa.gif[/img]

I think he just sees those who are obviously guilty of heinous crimes and does his part to help put them away! ;)

[ 03-29-2004, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Everyone thought O.J. was going to jail too.He sure as hell was guilty! Maybe just get my cousin Vinny he'd be a good choice.

So, if this guy defends Saddam Hussien, that means Saddam has a one-way ticket to death row, right? Maybe I was wrong. Everyone, if you feel the need, copy your posts on this topic because this one's going to hell on Wednesday!

Meaning? Don't tell me you're going to start deleting threads again. Honestly Whackmiester, it's just not cool... if that is what you are intending to do.

Saddam gets a fair trial, as all people should. Enough said. You don't have to like the fact, but you do have to accept it.

Don't delete the thread. Too many opinions are here. And what if someone was away for a week or so, came to the board, and it appeared that nobody had talked about this? They could begin another thread and the entire thing would start all over again. And then people would start saying "Well, SOMEONE" deleted the thread and words would be exchanged and then we'd ask if anyone wanted to step outside. And then the volcano would erupt, spewing hot lava over everything until the calvary came.

Whackmeister, have you learned nothing from the previous time when you deleted a thread against forum etiquette and pissed off a whole lot of people? If a topic is not going the way you like, tough luck. Ask a mod to lock it.

Groj - thanks for making me snort out tea through my nose. [nostalgia]I'll see you in court!![/nostalgia]

As for the topic at hand, I agree with what most people here (Timber, Skywalker, Skunk, Sir T) had to say. Don't need to add anything to that. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Under UK law nobody would be able to refuse to testify. If Rumsfeld & Bush refuse won't that mean that he gets off? He can't possibly get a fair trial because everyone has already decided he is guilty.


(Sorry - of course the Queen can refuse!)

G'day Whackmeister. I would strongly encourage you not to delete this thread, mate. You may have initiated it, but it stops being your thread once you post it on this forum. Be considerate of others who have posted here and don't delete it just because you don't like the way it's heading. Trust us to make the call on whether it deserves to be deleted or not. So far I've seen nothing here to suggest that it be deleted. At thsi point deleting it without cause would not be in the best interests of yourself and of the forum. Cheers mate. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-30-2004, 05:02 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

So, what is so special about Wednesday?


Mark

Oh, yeah, that rule that in UK courts no one can refuse to testify. Here, we have 5th Amendment protection that you don't have to bear witness against yourself, which extends to the marriage privilege. There is also the priest's privilege and the privileged nature of attorney/client communications (those probably exist in England, right, Donut?)

Anyway, any lawyer would think of the tactic of calling every administration official to the stand and parading them around to make a nice circus. Won't happen, though. As for the crimes Saddam committed against his people, they really don't have relevant information, so a court won't require Billy-Boy & Co. to hop a plane for Iraq.

I'm sure some of you would like them to all testify, just as some would love to see the full panopoly of administration officials spend 1 week each in front of the 9-11commision. At some point, don't we recognize that these people have a job to do while not making courtroom appearances to appease us all? I mean, there is a country to run.

Well maybe they'll be free from next January!

;)

Well, until Kerry shows me more, I hope not. His tax plan was a good mark for him in my book, though, so my mind can be changed.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">Correct me if I am wrong but can't a judge issue something saying that you must testify. You can refuse but if the judge thinks its important enough to the case they can issue a document saying testify or face these consequences in which case you still have the right to refuse but you will be punished for it. I don't know but if judges can decide who the president is surely they can do this. Then there are the issues of national security which end up tossing amendment protections out the window. Oh you feel so protected but are you?

Isn't that what subpoenas are for. So basically same crap just a different pile. The UK courts system just seems to take away the paperwork. I mean both governments get you in ther end anyway, if you refuse to testify.</font>

[ 03-30-2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

There is this thing call Executive Privelige the President may exersise that may also be extended (correct me if I'm wrong Timber) to Cabinet Members. Anyway, a sitting President may not be called to testify in court.

(I think Slick Willie was shafted in that sense)

G'day Whackmeister. I would strongly encourage you not to delete this thread, mate. You may have initiated it, but it stops being your thread once you post it on this forum. Be considerate of others who have posted here and don't delete it just because you don't like the way it's heading. Trust us to make the call on whether it deserves to be deleted or not. So far I've seen nothing here to suggest that it be deleted. At thsi point deleting it without cause would not be in the best interests of yourself and of the forum. Cheers mate. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Then Lock it!

You heard him Genieslave - lock it, NOW!!

*cough*What's the magic word?*cough* :rolleyes: [img]tongue.gif[/img]

You mean ...Close Sesame?

Wait a minute ...is it ...please? :D


Mark

[ 03-30-2004, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

This is a civil discussion of a current topic, Whackmiester. There doesn't seem any reason to lock it. No flames, nothing against ToS, and everyone is participating in the spirit of the forum. Are you just unhappy because people disagree with your views?

In Schnappsboy's terminology that's probably "now, dammit!", judging by the regular tone in his posts.

Back to the topic at hand, you can imagine the number of jokes late night TV hosts have been churning out with a French lawyer wanting to represent Saddam. ;)

<font color=orange>Be real hard for a Judge in Iraq to compell the President of the United States or anyone else from the United states or Great Brittain (Just for you Donut! :D ), since he would have any jurisdiction what so ever over said person.</font>

Pissed off is an understatement. I for one am still enraged that my words were deleted.

Why Yorrrick, did it drop your postcount ? :D

Eh? Where?