You know, I have the feeling Saddam’s TV Trial is going to be the dictionary definition of a kangaroo court, but Saddam’s lawyer’s legal strategy sounds pretty amusing:
Hussein’s lawyers have outlined their defense which, according to defense team member Abdul Haq al-Ani, consists of four “pillars”:
- The first argues that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and as such, Saddam Hussein is still legally president. If so, then under the Saddam era constitution he is entitled to immunity.
- The second suggests that Hussein’s alleged war crimes were no different than George W. Bush‘s response to 9/11: A response to insurrection.
- The third pillar is to actually call Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Donald Rumsfeld to testify. It will attempt to highlight the support the United States gave to Iraq in the 1980s.
- The fourth will be to present an unflattering portrayal of American foreign policy.
So that’s “you can’t try me, I am the law”, “Bush is just as bad”, “You guys didn’t think this was a crime before”, and “how much can I embarrass you”.
I don’t see any of those as sound legal arguments, but I bet they work great as pre-trial bargaining chips.
I wonder if North Americans will get a translation of Saddam’s defense–or if Fox News and CNN will only carry the prosecution.
