(I have removed this post from "News From the Colonies" in order to make its own topic.)

Now that's entertainment: Verges to defend Hussein

The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3574503.stm) reports that French lawyer Jacques Verges has agreed to act as counsel in the defense of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Mr. Verges, whose past clients include Klaus Barbie, Carlos the Jackal, and Slobodan Milosovic, has stated that the request to defend Hussein came from Ali Barzan al-Tikriti, nephew of the former dictator.

The 79 year-old lawyer holds a controversial reputation. Born in Thailand, worked with De Gaulle's Free French, eventually became a Communist, defended Algerian terrorists and even married one. Somewhere in there his license to practice law was revoked and he served time for "anti-state activities." Verges has been ... uh ... "strongly critical" of Israel.° Anti-colonialism or anti-Semitism? His Wikipdeia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Verges) bio also recalls that he caused an Algerian police commander to admit in court to using torture.

In December, 2003, Verges was asked to defend Tariq Aziz, and at the time announced that he would be willing to defend Hussein if asked.

And now, he has been asked.

All in all, the question doesn't strike me insofar as, "How can one defend Saddam Hussein?" Rather, someone must, if the ideas of "justice" and "rule of law" are to have any meaning to the rest of us.

And this ... a man who some might go so far as to call pompous--and why not?

It's going to be morbid. It's going to be bombastic.

And that means, it's going to be ... well ... entertaining.

I mean, really ... if you're defending Saddam Hussein ... well, we shouldn't expect Verges to merely go through the motions. We might see a whole new dimension of audacity, one not only hitherto unseen but also unimagined, except perhaps in the mind of Jacques Verges.

It will be a whole new brand of "shock and awe."

Gather 'round. Grab some popcorn.

Notes

° strongly critical of Israel - One just might get the impression he hates Israel. In fact, one might get the impression that he hates Jews. While I can follow the line of how his anti-colonialist and pro-Communist views can lead him to conflict with Israeli ideas, we might add that he is apparently well-known for "blurring the line between 'Zionist' and 'Jew' (http://members.aol.com/voyl/barbie/verges.htm)."

• BBC. "French lawyer 'to defend Hussein'." March 27, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3574503.stm
• Wikipedia. "Jacques Verges." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Verges
• November, Joseph. "Jacques Verges." See http://members.aol.com/voyl/barbie/verges.htm

And so the show begins . . . .
Verges fires salvo at Bush administration; a unique perspective from Iraqis

With no details regarding just how, where or when Saddam Hussein will be tried, or what exactly he will be charged with, the deposed Iraqi president's lawyer, Jacques Verges, has already fired off his first rounds in Hussein's defense.

Aimed squarely at the Bush administration, the controversial lawyer sometimes called "the Devil's Advocate" may or may not be giving hints as to the show yet to come. Verges spoke to the Associated Press: "We know that Mr. Bush has said he's guilty. But what does that mean? Mr. Bush is not a judge. We cannot accept him as a judge. He is an enemy of Saddam Hussein."

Additionally, Mr. Verges accuses the Bush administration of violating the Geneva Conventions. "It's against the Geneva Conventions to interrogate a man, examine and exhibit him like an animal at a fair, with a doctor acting more like a veterinarian - looking at his teeth, his hair, his tongue." Additionally, Verges criticized a lack of information given to Saddam Hussein's family regarding his health and wellbeing, and also said he hoped to take his client's case to the International Criminal Court, where he believes Coalition partners such as Britain and Spain, can be held responsible.

Meanwhile a question exists as to whether or not having Verges as a defender will help Saddam's case. Some Iraqis believe that the fact of Verges' defending Hussein proves his guilt. Nureddin Dara, a Kurdish judge and IGC member noted that Verges "has always defended gang leaders and Saddam is one of them."

Comment: You know, some will be tempted to point to the obvious. Is there anyone who believes Saddam Hussein is "innocent"? Verges defends the indefensible in part because in doing so he finds a stage from which he might proclaim, and a backdrop against which he might contrast, the problems of human society that lead to such conditions in the first place. We won't necessarily hear the dog-tired argument that Hussein is not guilty because it takes a village to raise a child. But this early posturing will have some influence on the nature of the charges against Hussein. Depending on how the charges are phrased--really, a comma or letter or single word--Hussein can become instantly defensible from a legal point of view.

Verges doesn't despair his stunningly low win rate in court per se. It's true that if we went solely by his win/loss record, he may be the worst attorney this world has seen, including Lionel Hutz.° He is pursuing an agenda, and so we must realize that he does, to a certain extent, use his clients, exploit them to his own political cause. What? He lost a defense of an Algerian terrorist but caused such an uproar that she was released under public pressure; he would go on to marry her ....

We can expect that, knowing Saddam is, indeed, indefensible from any semblance of reasonable morality, Verges will instead use the trial to further his anti-imperialist sympathies.

In other words, he's leaping onto a burning, sinking ship in order to throw some fire back and hopefully burn some of the other guilty parties while he's about it.

Notes:

° Lionel Hutz - a fictitious character from The Simpsons, played by the late Phil Hartman. See episode ##5F06 (http://www.snpp.com/episodes/5F06) when Hutz, an attorney, explains his second career in real estate: "You see, the law business is a little slow, and since most of my clients wind up losing their houses, this was a natural move for me."

• BBC. "Jacques Verges: The Devil's Advocate." March 29, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3578421.stm
• Associated Press. "Saddam's French lawyer criticizes Bush." March 28, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apeurope_story.asp?category=1103&slug=Saddam's%20Lawyer

all he is, is a rambling old man
his supporters call his method of lawyer-ing "the Verges 'attack the prosecution' technique"
lmao
he's not interested in defending his client, only in having a forum for making speeches and deliver his own political ideas.

that's a narcisistic quality.

but it doesn't matter. his win:loose ratio is close to zero. with a lawyer like that you might as well have a 3rd grader represent you

that's a narcisistic quality.He is out to change the world for the better. That does require a certain amount of narcissism.

As Jay Leno said, who better to defend a man who hates America than a man who hates America more than he does?

This is entertaining.

He is out to change the world for the better.
then he is in good company ;)

Ignoring the fact that he's an anti-American defending an anti-American, one must feel a bit of sympathy and respect for fighting for such a lost cause already. :)

Got spunk?

It's fighting time: Verges or Rashdan?
Jordanian lawyer claims right to represent Saddam

Believe it or not, the story takes on a new twist today as Jordanian lawyer Mohammed Rashdan threw his hat spectacularly into the ring. Mr. Rashdan told AFP that he had been contacted by Saddam Hussein's wife, and charged that Verges had no right to representation.

Verges, for his part, responded: "I am not going to spend my time in shopfloor quarrelling . . . . I have more urgent matters to tend to, with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Criminal Court."

Mr. Rashdan represented Saddam in issues pertaining to the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and apparently still considers Hussein the legitimate ruler of Iraq.

__________

• Agence France Presse. "French, Jordanian lawyers jostle to represent Saddam." March 30, 2004. See http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1076747.htm

I'm guessing this trial won't be nearly as entertaining as it could be. With Saddam's only defense being that if he's being tried the US needs to be tried too, whatever judge they pick is sure to bar all such arguments.

With Saddam's only defense being that if he's being tried the US needs to be tried too, whatever judge they pick is sure to bar all such arguments.I'm not sure which of the attorneys claiming representation will care less. One thinks Hussein is still the President of Iraq, and the other is just looking for an arena to carry out a separate fight.

The problem is that it will be very hard to show Saddam's responsibility for many, many crimes unless we draw the circle so big that people like Bush, Rumsfeld, and Saddam's other accessories are included.

That's what's hard about charging him in the first place. People have to figure out what happened, anyway, and then figure out how it all ties into him. Yes, we know he's a guilty bastard, but anything short of due process will hamstring the righteousness of our arrogant Western pseudosaviors who have no use for rule of law except to protect themselves in a most cowardly manner.

I'm of the opinion that the world gets the most benefit out of this situation if Verges represents Hussein.

I'm not sure which of the attorneys claiming representation will care less. One thinks Hussein is still the President of Iraq, and the other is just looking for an arena to carry out a separate fight.

The problem is that it will be very hard to show Saddam's responsibility for many, many crimes unless we draw the circle so big that people like Bush, Rumsfeld, and Saddam's other accessories are included.
Thats precisely why they won't allow a real trial, they know his lawyers only defense will be to attack the west, and they know they'll demand testimony from rumsfeld, bush sr, etc. who will be cross-examined by whoever turns out to be saddam's lawyer. There's no way in hell they'd testify and their refusal to testify would create very bad press for them, opening them to accusations that their keeping Saddam from being brought to justice.
That's what's hard about charging him in the first place. People have to figure out what happened, anyway, and then figure out how it all ties into him. Yes, we know he's a guilty bastard, but anything short of due process will hamstring the righteousness of our arrogant Western pseudosaviors who have no use for rule of law except to protect themselves in a most cowardly manner.
I don't think it will hamstring them, for a couple of reasons. For one thing, it will be in an Iraqi court, so they can always say the trial was carried out according to the wishes of the Iraqi people. Second, the American public will be easily swayed by platitudes about how they don't want to let saddam or verges make a mockery of the trial by turning it into a forum for their anti-americanism, and we all know Bush doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks.

I'm of the opinion that the world gets the most benefit out of this situation if Verges represents Hussein.
If I'm wrong about it being a show trial, I agree with you. If I'm right I dont' think it will matter all that much.