 Former US Attorney General and leftist fool Ramsey Clark says his decision to join Saddam Hussein's defence team springs from his conviction that the United States has already destroyed any hope of legitimacy, fairness or even decency by its treatment and isolation of the former President and its creation of the Iraqi Special Tribunal to try him.
| His victims, however, remain dead, so they had no comment. |
In an article published by the Los Angeles Times on Monday Clark, who also tried hard to save Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's life but failed, points out that international law requires that every criminal court be competent, independent and impartial. The Iraqi Special Tribunal lacks all of these essential qualities. It was illegitimate in its conception - the creation of an illegal occupying power that demonised Saddam Hussein and destroyed the government it now intends to condemn by law.
| Whereas Sammy's gummint was legit -- after all, 100% of the people voted for it. |
According to Clark, "The intention of the United States to convict the former leader in an unfair trial was made starkly clear by the appointment of (Ahmed) Chalabi's nephew to organise and lead the court. He had just returned to Iraq to open a law office with a former law partner of Defence Undersecretary Douglas J Feith, who had urged the US overthrow of the Iraqi government and was a principal architect of US postwar planning. "The concept, personnel, funding and functions of the court were chosen and are still controlled by the United States, dependent on its will and partial to its wishes. Reform is impossible. Proceedings before the Iraqi Special Tribunal would corrupt justice both in fact and in appearance and create more hatred and rage in Iraq against the American occupation.
| Other than in the hearts of the Kurds and Shi'a who will ululate and toss candy into the streets the day Sammy swings. |
"Only another court - one that is actually competent, independent and impartial - can lawfully sit in judgment."
Clark, whom some in this country view as a nitwitfricking lunatic maverick, argues that is Saddam's trial and that of other Iraqi officials, affirmative measures must be taken to prevent prejudice from affecting the conduct of the case and the final judgment of the court. While conceding that this would be a major challenge, he adds that "nothing less is acceptable to him and his socialist tools." He writes that any court that considers criminal charges against Saddam must have the power and the mandate to consider charges against leaders and military personnel of the US, Britain and the other nations that participated in the aggression against Iraq, if equal justice under law is to have meaning. |