Saddam’s defense lawyer and more importantly, U.S. Traitor Ramsey Clark appeared on—where else—NBC’s The Today Show this morning. He was interviewed—of course—by Katie Couric. When asked about Saddam’s crimes and if he thinks he is guilty, Clark not only doesn’t give his opinion, he doesn’t even address the amount of people Saddam killed.
COURIC: He is being charged with the killing of 148 people in the village of Dujail in 1982 and he’s also likely to face subsequent charges of the gassing of 5,000 people in the Kurdish village in 1988. The Iran-Iraq war, in which a million people were killed, the invasion of Kuwait, and the violent suppression of the Shiite uprising back in 1991. Do you believe he is guilty of any of these crimes or any crime at all?CLARK: Katie, I believe in the presumption of innocence. Not as a rule of law but a rule of life. If you can’t presume someone is fair, you can’t judge them can you? Not to presume fairness is to prejudge, that’s prejudice. So of course you presume. What you think a lawyer is supposed to go around, “I think he’s guilty of this or that or maybe this”. Can a lawyer do that for his client? What kind of relationship can you establish with your client? If you don’t have a good relationship, how can you represent him effectively?
DOWNLOAD – .WMV
DOWNLOAD – .MP4 (VIDEO IPOD)
The Political Pit Bull linked with Ramsey Clark Is A Scumbag
T. Longren linked with Katie Couric Interviews Ramsey Clark
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register to comment here.
6:25 pm [ Quote ]
i think limbaugh might have already brought this up, but wouldn’t it be delicious if clark supeonas several demo politicians as witnesses for the defense?
6:43 pm [ Quote ]
Now I certainly don’t support anything Saddam did, but you can’t expect someone’s lawyer to go ahead and state that their client is guilty before a trial, no matter how obvious it is. If you simply think that Saddam does not deserve any sort of fair trial, that’s fine, but since he is getting one there is no use blaming the lawyers. We are a society of laws and even the most horrendous criminal deserves a legal defense if we want to have faith in the judicial system.
As to the question of why on Earth did Clark decide to go and defend Saddam, that’s simply beyond me.
7:46 pm [ Quote ]
Katie Couric Interviews Ramsey Clark
After watching that interview, I can safely say that Ramsey Clark believes every word Saddam says. Whatever Saddam says, Ramsey Clark takes it as fact. He’s more of a puppet than I thought he was. There was some undisputable senility in Ramsey…
8:29 pm [ Quote ]
Ramsey Clark Is A Scumbag
Obviously any American that would choose to represent Saddam Hussein is a scumbag. But I guess I am too young …
9:04 pm [ Quote ]
What is sad is that out tax $$ could be paying for this guy to defend Saddam.
10:17 pm [ Quote ]
isn’t one of the central features of our criminal justice system that everyone is allowed the right to an attorney, no matter how guilty or evil or vile they are? aren’t we trying to set up a constitutional democracy like our own in Iraq?
11:58 pm [ Quote ]
Of course, more likely to be called as a character witness on behalf of Saddam Hussein would be Rummy, who of course was all smiles when meeting with Hussein in the now infamous photo from December, 1983. Later in the 80’s, the Regan Administration of course, supplied Iraq with the chemical components they used to gas not only the Iranians, but also their fellow Kurdish countrymen.
12:17 am [ Quote ]
I really don’t get how the word traitor gets used so freely it doesn’t even make any sense. Does anyone seriously believe that Saddam Hussein doesn’t deserve a competent legal defense? Honestly, considering the importance of his trial I think it would be Un-American for Saddam Hussein to have less then a competent legal defense team. And no competent lawyer is going to say his client is guilty of anything on national television.
While there is little doubt about the ultimate outcome of what this trial must be, that doesn’t mean we know everything about Husseins reign and I look forward to seeing new information revealed by the courts proceedings. If Hussein is guilty (and we all know he is), then he’ll be found so by the court. In which case the only reason why I can anyone getting upset over this is if they didn’t believe in a trial by jury system of justice complete with prosecution and defense, and how much more traitorous can you get then that?
9:06 am [ Quote ]
ah… the Dems with their “Fair Trial” talk… let’s look at what their party chairman has to say on the subject:
“I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials,?
Ladies and gentleman your Democratic Chairman…
To be clear, months before Delay was indicted, after years of trying, desparately begging multiple grand jurys, and only getting charges, some of which have already been dropped… Dean was sentencing Delay… but he sure wanted a fair trial for UBL who would “most likely” be found guilty? Wow.
“Tom DeLay ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence.”
9:07 am [ Quote ]
woops, pasted the quote about Delay in the wrong place.. but you get the picture
10:43 am [ Quote ]
Interesting, rabair. It would appear that the diversion bug is spreading to both sides of the political aisle.
10:44 am [ Quote ]
So guess you all feel the same way about defense attorneys around the country then right? Sorry, I dont mean to insult your intelligence but traitor, come on
I guess you all would like to forget that we used to be buddies with Saddam and WANTED him to overthrow Iran. Take a guess whos administration was around when all of this was happening…The Gipper
! Who gave him the weapons and the gas?
Secondly, what the hell do the US do to groups who plot or threaten to overthrow us…WE Eliminate them. We dont ask questions, we move on them and crush them ASAP. AND RIGHTFULLY SO
If I remember correctly, he wiped out the Kurds because they wanted to overthrow him: No one was spared including women or children. Same as Hiroshima. (Yes the two are just about the same, I wont back down from that comment)
Now I dont know if these comments will stay or not but my problem with both parties libs and conserves is that too many within the parties are really loyalists. So caught up trying to defend their parties, that when an injustice IS done, a blind eye is turned and a bunch of excuses and “logical” reasoning turns up. The fact that you lash out at others while blind to your own parties faults make you loyalists….a bunch of blind followers.
11:12 am [ Quote ]
Not true.
US military support shifted overwhelmingly towards Iraq when it appeared that Iranian human wave attacks would eventually overrun Saddam’s forces and both lands would be combined to form a super Islamic state under Sharia law with ownership of massive quantities of recoverable oil.
Up until this point the US, along with the French, Russians, Brits etc. benefited from selling arms to both sides of the conflict.
The Iraqi invasion of the southwestern portion of Iran was not an attempt to overthrow Tehran but was specifically aimed at capturing the Shatt al-Arab waterway, for economic purposes, and other islands and territories for historial reasons.
3:07 pm [ Quote ]
admittedly that may have come off like a diversion remission… but I just don’t have much to say about this. I mean anyone who doesn’t see how ridiculous this is, is choosing not to. A former US Attorney General doing this is just an outrage. But whatever, my point was to show the pattern. Remember he was attorney general under a Democrat… Well your party chair today, as I said doesn’t want a fair trial for Delay, long before indictments were ever brought, but does for the “likely” to be found guilty Bin Laden. Just a pattern is all…
4:08 pm [ Quote ]
rabair, can you show me an instance where any Democrat has actually stated that they don’t a fair trial for Delay? Howard Dean is certainly very stupid, and while he himself is convinced that Delay is guilty, I have not heard him or anyone else argue that Delay shouldn’t get a fair trial.
LoK, sadly the pattern of calling your political opponents traitors is here to stay. Just recently GOPUSA sent a mass email to its members refering to McCain as “pro-terrorist” because of his stance on torture. Apparently in the new Republican party anti-torture = pro-terrorist.
As far as the guys here who call the Dems traitors and such, well, they seem to be convinced that the Dems want nothing but failure for the US and nothing will change their mind. I think the Dems ned to get their act together, stop making stupid comments, but I would never call them traitors – a traitor is someone who knowingly and with intention helps the enemy. You might disagree with the Dem’s approach and ideas about the current situation, but to accuse them of knowlingly and intentionally working for the defeat of America is just lame and well, counterproductive for the Reps’ cause anyway.
7:47 pm [ Quote ]
the robot, while I don’t like to use the word “traitor”, I think one could make the case that many Democrats fit your description… that aside….
You’re kidding right? Asking me about the Dean/Delay/Fair Trial thing? Did you not see, and have you not seen the quote in the past:
“Tom DeLay ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence.?
Again, this was long before the indictments, which have already proven to be shakey and it was a huge uphill battle just to bring them with multiple grand jurys when it was all done. And again, this was after he said:
“I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials,?
Anyway, back to that first quote… does that not answer your question? Dean said Delay should go back to Houston to serve his jail sentence.. as if he had one to serve. He convicted him long ago, and mentions nothing about going to trial… He also wouldn’t take back the comment:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7925421
Need I point out again, that this is the Democratic Party’s chairman?