Really? What does this man have? Does he have a defence? I've been thinking about this since the capture (you know the flu). And I can't come up with a defence, either I am incompacitated due to my illness, or there just isn't a defence for this man.

http://www.spitemag.com/media/saddam.gif
I was drunk ok *sobs*

He should ask for leniency if he testifies in Rumsfeld's trial. :rolleyes:
Even if he was going to get a fair trial, which is highly unlikely, having killed so many people its unlikely that he'll be able to have any kind of defense against all of them.
I don't think an insanity defense will be allowed even if he would agree to it.

Well we know he isn't going to get a fair trail, I mean if he's tried in Iraq. :eek: Also today Bush said that wishes to see Saddam get the ultimate punishment (no not life) the death sentence, you know the easy way out. I think that maybe one of his defences would be to blame some of it on circumstance, and international pressures. I think...and insanity...for 23 years? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by nico
Well we know he isn't going to get a fair trail, I mean if he's tried in Iraq. :eek: Also today Bush said that wishes to see Saddam get the ultimate punishment (no not life) the death sentence, you know the easy way out.
All this moralizing from Bush, given that he has a number of Saddam's accomplices in his cabinet is really disgusting.


Originally posted by nico
I think that maybe one of his defences would be to blame some of it on circumstance, and international pressures. I think...and insanity...for 23 years? :rolleyes:
why not? for all we know he could be a paranoid schizophrenic.

Saddam’s defense could be his dictatorship offered the best possible service to Iraq under the circumstances. He could argue that Iraq left to its own devices was likely to have continuous dictatorship, on the basis that the country has factions that would tolerate each other only with the threat of (and occassional use of) ruthless force. That is, a kind of civil war that only martial law can quell. He could argue that he didn’t have the resources to prevent a democracy from dissolving back into a dictatorship, perhaps with someone less benevolent than himself at the helm. Indeed, he could point to US plans to closely monitor Iraq for years to prevent just such a return to dictatorship. Hence he could argue that his rule was the best choice for Iraq.

All this moralizing from Bush, given that he has a number of Saddam's accomplices in his cabinet is really disgusting.

Our morals are not Bush's morals, to us it is disgusting yes. But to the Butcher of Austin it's fitting for the Butcher of Baghdad.

why not? for all we know he could be a paranoid schizophrenic.

hmm...but he will get a sentence.

As far as charges of violating UN sanctions, Saddam could argue that the sanctions were designed to prime the country for attack, something no country’s leader should be expected to abide by. He could argue that even proof that Iraq had no WMDs would have threatened his country’s national security. If asked why he didn’t allow the US to peacefully implement democracy in Iraq, Saddam could point to ample historical evidence showing that the US (and by extension the UN) cannot be trusted, including the evidence of the terrible toll on Iraqi civilians that the sanctions themselves extracted. He could point out that the US, his onetime chief ally, double-crossed him on Kuwait. He should demand that a full accounting of Iraq’s oil exports be made public at the trial, to reveal the US’s true reason for the attack and to strengthen his position that he could not have trusted the US to implement democracy.

Saddam knew from the moment he took power that when the time came he could expect absolutely no mercy from anyone. Those were the terms under which he ruled, and I don't think he will try to justify anything he's done in western legal terms.

Saddam has a well-developed taste for revenge, though, and I am sure that he would like an opportunity to speak his piece in open court. He can do more damage to the U.S. cause by describing his relationship with the Reagan and Bush I administrations than the insurgent forces could do in a year.

In addition, if he can antagonise his captors into carrying out a judicial execution, then you get instant martyr. Our pResident has already gone on record as favoring a sentence of death. This will of course whip remaining pro-Saddam feeling into a frenzy, and will also help turn more fence-sitters towards anti-Americanism. In the Arab world the people will not like an American-driven execution of Saddam, regardless of how much they hate him and wish him dead. Bush fails to understand that Arab hatred of Saddam is divorced in people's minds from the means of his death. Parading him on camera was bad enough; putting him against the wall will infuriate the Sunni triangle. It will be a gift to the Shia and Kurds in the coming civil war.

Excellent analysis. I have to agree with everything you said. But especially I stress the part of his capital punishment. This will indeed infuriate the Sunni population in Iraq. Civil war, I don't doubt it, and I think we'll see the death of Saddam as a prop or ploy to be used by other factions within Iraq to taunt the Sunni's are there once powerful leader. It would be kind of like when the Taliban killed that rebel leader *name?* he is now literally enshrined in the mountains of Afghanistan. It will create a martyrdom scenario that no one wants.

He has no defense. The only thing left for Hussein to do is wait until his trial, make a spectacle of himself, and take Rumsfeld, Chirac, the memory of Ronald Reagan, and a whole host of others down with him. The Russians? It seems a scandal of such proportions would be a minor concern, all things considered.

I, for one, look forward to it. Saddam Hussein's actions have been indefensible, but I do hope he'll do the world the favor of not letting anybody hide in the shadow of his evil.

X-Files viewers consider: Why did the Cigarette Smoking Man save Fox Mulder's mother?°

Or, as Peter Gabriel has it, "What a show."

Notes:

° Fox Mulder's mother - Didn't see that one coming, did you?

He has no defence. He had been ruthless to his own Baath colleagues, fellow muslims and his own citizens. Yet it was his utter foolishness to displease Uncle Tom unlike other dictators who keep US in good mood. In that matter he is a nut wanting to play Saladdin or likewise role to be remembered, it seems. He never realised that for that honor what he should have done and what he had been doing was opposite.

"I Vas Only Following Orders."

LOL,

Who would defend this dood?.. Not any lawyer in Irag for sure, but as Tiassa said, if it came down to trial his only defence is the offence and testify against Rummy,Regan etc...

Saddam:

Hey!! I was just a doing what the CIA ordered me to do, who else do you think put me in power?.

Rummy was a close friend, he gave me some cool toys to kill people with!.

I got paid to be there, didn't you see the 750K, Bush had turkey with me on Thanksgiving telling me of his plan.

I was going to throw the bombs, but then I got high, now they cought me and I know why, because i got high, because i got high, becuase i got highhh.

Godless.

Lawyers would stampede to defend Saddam. Imagine the publicity.

Imagine being a lawyer for Saddam - and being accused of treason for trying to defend him! That would be something else.

This why I think not too many lawyers would want to represent this guy, yea a lot of publicity would be good, but at the risk of life, endigment, redicule.

Which ever lawyer that does represent Saddam, this guy would win the trophy of "having balls" for a week or two.

Godless.

saddam is just like milosevic... he thinks of himself as the good guy and that all his actions are justified. his defense would be "it was necessary to fill up these mass graves" and "it was my right to use those chems on those civilians"