NationStates Jolt Archive

This may be the most difficult defense to put up for a lawyer. How could you possibly put up a good defense for one of the worst human being in history. Any ideas on possible angles to get your client anything but the death penalty?

I would argue on the basis of the law that says that the President of Iraq isnt allowed to be tried for anything that happened while he was President.

Concentrate on the pre-1991 crimes and call in a lot of awkward witnesses. :p

You may not escape getting convicted, but at least you would enjoy watching Rumsfeld sitting opposite you, being forced to confirm the video evidence where he meets you and whether it is his signature on the arms contracts.

Plead insanity!

I would argue on the basis of the law that says that the President of Iraq isnt allowed to be tried for anything that happened while he was President.

I think that would be negated because of Yugoslavias President was tried. Same with Chiles Pinochet.

I think that would be negated because of Yugoslavias President was tried. Same with Chiles Pinochet.
yea, but i think it was in place before Saddam got into power, unlike the other two who created it to cover themselves.

I could, of course, be wrong.

Plead insanity!


That would be a quick response by most people i think. But he has demonstrated that he knows what he is doing. In order to plead insanity you have to prove your client doesnt know right from wrong and or comprehends what he is doing.

That would be a quick response by most people i think. But he has demonstrated that he knows what he is doing. In order to plead insanity you have to prove your client doesnt know right from wrong and or comprehends what he is doing.

Sorry cheap, worthless but we all need a bargin statement every now and again ;)

lol, if I was Saddam's defense lawyer I'd run up to the judge, fall on my knees and start crying and begging for mercy just before the guards come and chop my head off.

This may be the most difficult defense to put up for a lawyer. How could you possibly put up a good defense for one of the worst human being in history. Any ideas on possible angles to get your client anything but the death penalty?

The worst human being in history? come on...

I think that would be negated because of Yugoslavias President was tried. Same with Chiles Pinochet.

What about Italy and France? Haven't their current leaders passed laws so they can't be prosecuted?

The worst human being in history? come on...

He is in the top 10 of his class as far as piece of craps go. Thinking Hitler,Stalin,Mao,Pol Pot etc.

What about Italy and France? Haven't their current leaders passed laws so they can't be prosecuted?


Interesting havent heard that. Any type of story to confirm?

What about Italy and France? Haven't their current leaders passed laws so they can't be prosecuted?

I'm pretty sure Burlesconi (sp?) did, though I think that it was deemed illegal by the EU(?).

Not sure about Chirac though. Wouldn't surprise me though.

The worst human being in history? come on...

He did qualify his statement with "one of the worst"

Anyway, you could always cite all those Frenchies and Germans that called the war illegal. People get off for crimes if they are arrested illegally in the US, why not in Iraq?

Of course this is hypothetical. I personally want to see the guy hung by his feet, as he is stoned by representatives from every ethnic group in Iraq.

This may be the most difficult defense to put up for a lawyer. How could you possibly put up a good defense for one of the worst human being in history. Any ideas on possible angles to get your client anything but the death penalty?
I would advise my client to plead guilty, shut up and pray for the mercy of Allah.... just before I quit.

Interesting havent heard that. Any type of story to confirm?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3392973.stm

Best I can do at the moment.

I'd resign and tell him to get a real lawyer.

Or, I could of course help him to somehow escape somewhere where he has a chance of getting at least the semblance of a fair trial.

I'd resign and tell him to get a real lawyer.

Or, I could of course help him to somehow escape somewhere where he has a chance of getting at least the semblance of a fair trial.


Could he actually get a fair trial anywhere?

Claim that he was the victim of a cou by his own military who removed from power and began invading countrys, gasing people, raping, pilaging etc while using him as a figurehead.

temporary insanity would not be a valid plea

so i would have him plead long-term insanity... pay a few expert witnesses to come in and testify that he's got antisocial personality disorder, mixed with a wicked slab of narcissistic personality disorder.

lol, he's gonna fry.

Could he actually get a fair trial anywhere?

Well, The Hague is where his lot usually get sent.

I know this is going beyond thin but exactly how much did Saddam actually order? We don't know how involved generals (eg his 2 sons) were involved in making orders. So possibly speading blame down the ranks?

God I think thats the thinest thing I've come up with

Well, The Hague is where his lot usually get sent.


I personally dont think that the Iraqi people would like the idea of Saddam tried in the world court other than in Iraq.

Get the guy who defended OJ, die Saddam black, and pull the race card.

"Satan made him do it."

What would _I_ do?

Circumseppuku.

I'd say:

"You Honour. Members of the Jury...

I still get paid if I lose right?..."

This may be the most difficult defense to put up for a lawyer. How could you possibly put up a good defense for one of the worst human being in history. Any ideas on possible angles to get your client anything but the death penalty?

Oh that's easy .... case precident. I'd blame it on "bad intelligence".

I would run up to the judge, snag his gavel, and beat Saddam with it.
Or, possibly, I could beat him with a lawbook while we were consulting before the trial.
Or I would drown him witht he water pitcher.

"You're on the Saddam Defense team, what do you do?"

Tell him to throw himself on the mercy of the court! Aaahahahahahahhaha! :D

I would argue on the basis of the law that says that the President of Iraq isnt allowed to be tried for anything that happened while he was President.
i would start with THIS

then try my best to make it a referendum on the american invasion, emphasizing the chaos that now exists in iraq.

Make a Martyr of him.

There is no way in hell an American supervised court of specially chosen Iraqis would actually listen to contrary evidence, so why bother?

Sit down with him, tell him that there's no way he'll get off, that he'll be hung while a bunch of US-Couchpotatoes holler at their TV-Screens.

Then bring in as much evidence about US help in his various crimes, prove that the war in Iraq was illegal, that there were no WMDs and then call in the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who never had a problem with Saddam and who just lived their everyday lives without ever caring they lived under a dictatorship (hell they even had to go to the vote every few years, just like in the US).
Afterall, that would be a refreshing new way of looking at his time in power...

Circumseppuku is still my best choice if I'm stuck defending him.

If I were Saddam's defense lawyer...I would present him with a nice, large plate of... wait for it...

CYANIDE LACED COOKIES!

:p

Inability to get a fair trial (come on, we all know that this Iraqi one is going to be a kangaroo court, he faces trial there and he will fry), try to get a change of venue to the ICC, where at least his largest punishment will be life. Then claim that most of the cases in which he is accused of murder (eg, the mass graves not related to genocide) are state functions, properly killed after due process under the laws of the country, and the genocidal actions were not his actions, rather Irans. I think that he can get enough in to knock down genocide (enough doubt), and most of the charges of crimes against humanity. Good luck against the war crimes charges though.

I would correctly point out that the Kurds had rebelled multiple times, in the pre-Saddam era, and they persisted in being a threat into the years of my regime, and that as such, they had to be dealt with effectively and quickly.

A terrorist Kurdish militant band was based in northern Iraq, and terrorist Shiite separatists were based in southern Iraq, they were a threat to the very national integrity of the Iraqi nation, they wanted to cut it up into pieces and carve their own empires out from it.

Saddam Hussein is no different than Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had to put down a rebellion, and he used Sherman to "March to the Sea", Hussein had to put down many rebellions, why is it wrong for him to have general fire gas at insurgent bands?

I think he won't receive the death penalty, but reclusion for life
which I found better, also because it would probably be more dangerous killed than alive; he would soon become a Martyr, and this is not what the nations want
except maybe Bush :rolleyes:

"You're on your own, Mr. Hussein. Give Uday Qusay my regards"

Ask to be dismissed because I am far too biased...

I think that his defense will be based on the fact that the crimes he is accused of happened before the First Gulf War, in the late 80's, and that he did them under the silence of the USA (which gave him the weapons) because they thought they could still use him as sort of "mercenary government" against Iran
the USA didn't declare him war after that, but only after the invasion of Kuwait
and he will oppose that he was only be blamed for war crimes only after he menaced the interests of the oil companies, saying that he never was seriously criticized after the massacres of the Kurds

but he can oppose what he want, he won't make it this time
the maximum he can achieve is to avoid death penalty

I would get as much publicity for myself as I could, Saddam's toast, and will be hanged, being as guilty as hell, but I've got a career to think about.

This may be the most difficult defense to put up for a lawyer. How could you possibly put up a good defense for one of the worst human being in history. Any ideas on possible angles to get your client anything but the death penalty?


Smuggle him out in my briefcase to Switzerland.

Or plan a rescue mission and smuggle him in bomb parts, weapons, ect.

There is no way to get him off death row. NO WAY.

I'm not saying there aren't some defenses that woulden't be interesting, or even technically correct, but international opinion is so biased he is going to be found guilty no matter what.

This may be the most difficult defense to put up for a lawyer. How could you possibly put up a good defense for one of the worst human being in history. Any ideas on possible angles to get your client anything but the death penalty?

Easy, it has been proven on this forum that Saddam didn't gas the kurds during the Iran war. It was the Iranians. Using that, the lawyerswill recobnstruct the evidence shown to oprove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was innocent of that crime.

After that, you move on to the next crime he is guilty for.


Oh that's easy .... case precident. I'd blame it on "bad intelligence".

Actually that defends his attack on Kuwiut becuse his intelligence from Us said yeah go head attack, it is legal. Than we changed out mind and said it wasn't.
So bad intelligence solves that crime. If Bush administration says "bad intelligence" can't be used as a defense I'll be laughing.

Originally Posted by Nadkor
I would argue on the basis of the law that says that the President of Iraq isnt allowed to be tried for anything that happened while he was President.

Ashmoria: I would start with THIS

then try my best to make it a referendum on the american invasion, emphasizing the chaos that now exists in iraq.


This is a good idea. While what he sometimes did can be seen bad, it instilled order in the choas and disorder that are Iraq. Look at Ceasar or Mark Anthony who did similar things for order. You could probably get a good argument. Don't know if it would help but hey the longer they talk the more chance Jury has doubts.


Leonstien: Make a Martyr of him.

There is no way in hell an American supervised court of specially chosen Iraqis would actually listen to contrary evidence, so why bother?

Sit down with him, tell him that there's no way he'll get off, that he'll be hung while a bunch of US-Couchpotatoes holler at their TV-Screens.

Then bring in as much evidence about US help in his various crimes, prove that the war in Iraq was illegal, that there were no WMDs and then call in the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who never had a problem with Saddam and who just lived their everyday lives without ever caring they lived under a dictatorship (hell they even had to go to the vote every few years, just like in the US).
Afterall, that would be a refreshing new way of looking at his time in power...

Agreed this might help.

I would correctly point out that the Kurds had rebelled multiple times, in the pre-Saddam era, and they persisted in being a threat into the years of my regime, and that as such, they had to be dealt with effectively and quickly.

A terrorist Kurdish militant band was based in northern Iraq, and terrorist Shiite separatists were based in southern Iraq, they were a threat to the very national integrity of the Iraqi nation, they wanted to cut it up into pieces and carve their own empires out from it.

Saddam Hussein is no different than Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had to put down a rebellion, and he used Sherman to "March to the Sea", Hussein had to put down many rebellions, why is it wrong for him to have general fire gas at insurgent bands?

This goes back into my Ceasar/Mark Anthony statements.

To sum it up to you biased people:
Every man has a right to a fair trial even if you were a jew and it was Hitler.

United States of America was formed under this pretense and belief. It is sad that that no longer reins in my country. People here talk of viligantism. others of breaking the law of a fair trial.

Sad some of you would rather kill him than be fair.
I mean Come on. Come on. Come on! (South Park episode Kimmy said that to Cripes and Blood and got them to unite)

to the origional post- Quit. Go get a cheeseburger.

I would attempt to compare him to other leaders, such as Stalin or Hitler, so that he wouldnt look so cruel with what he did.

I would attempt to compare him to other leaders, such as Stalin or Hitler, so that he wouldnt look so cruel with what he did.


Interesting defense. I personally dont think being mentioned in the same sentance as Stalin and Hitler would help him much. I could see it now. Your honor he didnt kill nearly as many people as Hitler did. I mean he only gassed a few thousand people. Hitler gassed millions!

He could argue that he made the laws, so what he did was legal for him to do at the time. If they ping him under international law, he could claim that the war that ousted him was illegal too. There are probably several snags with that though.

Most likely he'll bring down as many people who supported him over the years with him. The whole trial will go for fkin years anyway.

I think that his defense will be based on the fact that the crimes he is accused of happened before the First Gulf War, in the late 80's, and that he did them under the silence of the USA (which gave him the weapons) because they thought they could still use him as sort of "mercenary government" against Iran
the USA didn't declare him war after that, but only after the invasion of Kuwait
and he will oppose that he was only be blamed for war crimes only after he menaced the interests of the oil companies, saying that he never was seriously criticized after the massacres of the Kurds

but he can oppose what he want, he won't make it this time
the maximum he can achieve is to avoid death penalty


If it was a truly fair and unbiased trial, I could get him to walk, and I would do everything to the best of my abilities, using all of my arguing skills, debating skills, research and knowledge of the cases, going over every document, etc, to see that he does walk.

I think this is a matter of the UN and the USA once again trampling all over sovereign nations in a "we know best" campaign.

My idea has always been, "Iraqis know what is best for Iraqi" and then I think, "America knows what is best for America", not the UN, the USA.

My idea has always been, "Iraqis know what is best for Iraqi" and then I think, "America knows what is best for America", not the UN, the USA.

Elaborate.

How does the UN not know what is best when it comes to international relations. The UN as an institution can't know anything. It's a collective of all the member states, including Iraq and the US, so I would say the UN does know best in pretty much every international issue there is.

I would coach him to go like so.

http://rockpapersaddam.com/

Switch sides.

try what defense teams have tried many times before, confront the government with the need to obtain classified records in order to mount a defense, he was once a golden boy of the US government, and the government might be convinced to drop the case rather than reveal classified information.
Why not try accusing the prosecution of slander, I refer to the Saddam in his underpants photo, argue how that is an attack on his character, that guilty or innocent, he does have the right not to be personally attacked in such a manner

would coach him to go like so.

http://rockpapersaddam.com/

That was great. Thank you Non Aligned States. You made my day. :D

Well, I would rather cut my throat than be a lawyer but. . .I would subtly sabotage his defense and leave him absolutely no hope of being found innocent. I want in on this conspiracy of big government and corporations people see everywhere. If it is there, I want in and maybe that would be the ticket.

Discredit the prosecution. Forget the case, just haul Rumsfeld & co up to testify to their complicity in his actions. Basically stir up a shitstorm for the US, like Galloway but taking longer about it (keep it in the public eye).

As it stands the tril will go like this.

Judge: Prosecution, state your case.

Prosecutor: This guy is a right bastard, you know it, i know it. Prosecution Rests.

*Jury applaud*

Judge: Defence.

Defence Well...

Judge&Jury in unison: STFU!!!!

Judge: *puts on black cap* You know the drill.

All: BURN HIM!!!!!

First im sure hell go with the Maniacial approch and say he was doing it for mankind!

I hope he gets let off!
if you want to Knock off a Political Leader do that but dont make up some Fluffed up story to appease the World!

He should get a Get a Jail Free Card and then at least Iraq can have some sort of Peace opposed to Chaos.

I would argue that a fair trial would be impossible in Iraq, and ask that he be tried internationally. He wouldn't get off, but he would escape the death penalty, which is pretty good relatively speaking.

I'd say:

"You Honour. Members of the Jury...

I still get paid if I lose right?..."

Seconded. :p

This may be the most difficult defense to put up for a lawyer. How could you possibly put up a good defense for one of the worst human being in history. Any ideas on possible angles to get your client anything but the death penalty?

No. I would, however, try to drag it out as long as possible so I could bill the crap out of the government, and then afterwards I would pen a book about "how unfair" it all was, make millions, and retire to the Cayman Islands.

I have a strange feeling that this trial will be closed due to all the high profile people that will most likely be in it.

The defence could also try to paint it as a "I was framed!!!" thing. He could attempt to paint the US as a "Oil Hungery" nation that just attacked him for the oil under "False" accusations of WMDs.

Just chop his head off yourself and get it over with (I would personally start a pettition to parade you through the streets insted of throwing you in jail). :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :) :)

This may be the most difficult defense to put up for a lawyer. How could you possibly put up a good defense for one of the worst human being in history. Any ideas on possible angles to get your client anything but the death penalty?

Agreeing with what you said. I'd do the only sensible thing..ask for my money upfront, before the trail starts!

He was just following orders, your honor.

This may be the most difficult defense to put up for a lawyer. How could you possibly put up a good defense for one of the worst human being in history. Any ideas on possible angles to get your client anything but the death penalty?Insanity... the power and riches he experienced as ruler drove him over the edge, and now with the loss of his sons, he really is insane and should be confined to his palace somewhere remote to live out the rest of his life under isolation and home arrest.

Could he actually get a fair trial anywhere?
The Hague is the traditional place for evil dictators to face fair trial.

I personally dont think that the Iraqi people would like the idea of Saddam tried in the world court other than in Iraq.
That doesn't really matter. We sent Milosovic to The Hague, so we should send Saddam there too.

i would start with THIS

then try my best to make it a referendum on the american invasion, emphasizing the chaos that now exists in iraq.
There can be no referendum. The invasion is done. You mean you want to put the invasion on trial.

Then bring in as much evidence about US help in his various crimes, prove that the war in Iraq was illegal, that there were no WMDs and then call in the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who never had a problem with Saddam and who just lived their everyday lives without ever caring they lived under a dictatorship (hell they even had to go to the vote every few years, just like in the US).
Afterall, that would be a refreshing new way of looking at his time in power...
Just because a few hundred thousand Sunnis in Iraq had no problem with Saddam, does not excuse his crimes against the Kurds and Shias.

Just because a few hundred thousand Sunnis in Iraq had no problem with Saddam, does not excuse his crimes against the Kurds and Shias.

I agree with pretty much everything you say, especially the Hague part.
I also don't think that his crimes are justified. I do disagree with most people's definitions of his crimes, but that's another matter.
Nonetheless, the story of the people who didn't suffer, but were fairly indifferent to Saddam's rule was clearly not heard very loudly in the past few years.
I also believe that there were Shia and Kurds who weren't directly affected by his actions.

Nonetheless, it doesn't matter what the defence does. It is a show trial. You can either agree with the such a Kangaroo Court and abandon legal principles in favour of killing someone you think is bad, or you have to accept that he may be innocent (you actually have to assume so until proven otherwise).

This may be the most difficult defense to put up for a lawyer. How could you possibly put up a good defense for one of the worst human being in history. Any ideas on possible angles to get your client anything but the death penalty?

Easy. Claim all Saddam's victims were "enemy combatants."

They were all suspected traitors or terrorists. Apparently that justifies whatever Saddam did to them.

I would whip out a copy of B.F. Skinner's classic work Beyond Freedom and Dignity and argue that free will is an illusion and so Saddam Hussein is not responsible for anything he did.

I would whip out a copy of B.F. Skinner's classic work Beyond Freedom and Dignity and argue that free will is an illusion and so Saddam Hussein is not responsible for anything he did.

hehe not a bad defense. Although laughter may erupt when this defense is first presented. Or is that an illusion of laughter?!

I'd probably just quit, and pay off somebody else to do it.

Advise saddam to commit suicide since he will be executed at the end of the trial anyways

I would use the Chewbacca Defence.

http://accordionguy.blogware.com/Photos/2004/12/chewbacca.jpg

I'd blame society. All those violent American movies and TV and music and video games. It works here in the US, so why not give it a try.

Personally, I'd let the B@stard fry!!!!!!!! :D
Or you could stake him out in the desert and let nature take its course. :D

the answer is simple...
shoot him in the head. :sniper:

Considering half the opinions expressed here, I hope they never become a defense laywer. When a defense lawyer kills his client, you have to wonder what they teach in law school.

Nonetheless, the story of the people who didn't suffer, but were fairly indifferent to Saddam's rule was clearly not heard very loudly in the past few years.
I suppose so. To be fair, he did bascially take half of Iraq up to being middle class, and literacy/education rates there are among the highest in the region.

Easy. Claim all Saddam's victims were "enemy combatants."

They were all suspected traitors or terrorists. Apparently that justifies whatever Saddam did to them.
Well, that's what the US Gov does so it would probably work!

Personally, I'd let the B@stard fry!!!!!!!! :D

the answer is simple...
shoot him in the head. :sniper:
Worry not, I'm sure that this is what's actually going to happen!

I'm on Saddam's defence team. I quit.

Considering half the opinions expressed here, I hope they never become a defense laywer. When a defense lawyer kills his client, you have to wonder what they teach in law school.



I'd give him the best damn defense I was capable of. After all, just because the media and George W, say he's a bad man who ought to be killed ASAP, doesn't make it so.

Anyway, the sooner they kill him, the sooner they have him silenced forever.

He knows a lot, more than enough to bring their governments down in scandal after scandal.

Better that he live...