Idiot French Lawyer Wants to Defend Saddam Hussien in Trial

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

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.

[Melusine]

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]

[Donut]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: 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.

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!)

[Memnoch]

Originally posted by The Whackmiester: 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!

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 ]

[skywalker]

Originally posted by The Whackmiester: 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!

So, what is so special about Wednesday?


Mark

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[Donut]

Well maybe they'll be free from next January!

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

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.

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

[Night Stalker]

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)