I toyed with discussing the true story of Pocahontas behind the movie, "The New World" but I found many different versions of the "true story" between the Indian version and the English version and the Christian version, so I decided it was best to leave it well enough alone.
It is a fascinating story, whatever the true version is. Did you know she was converted to Christianity and baptized? She changed her name to Rebecca Rolfe and died at the age of 21 or 22. (Depending on who's version you're reading) She even had a child, Thomas Rolfe.
I also have been thinking of discussing why Ramsey Clark feels the need to defend Saddam Hussein. But I am torn. I understand that we in America believe it is every person's right to have counsel, even murderous dictators like Saddam. At the same time I feel that he doesn't deserve defense.
By the way, did you know that Saddam has 23 other lawyers defending him besides Ramsey Clark? I suppose my whole post would center around the question of, "Why does Ramsey Clark feel the need to be one of the defense team?"
Feel free to offer any and all opinions you may have on either of these subjects.
By the way, I went to see "King Kong" over the weekend, and in spite of the critics, I enjoyed it immensely. It was basically the same story as the original version made in the 30's but the plotline was more detailed. I liked it. I also had gone a few weeks ago, to see "Narnia", which I also liked. I don't think I could be a movie critic. I like movies too much.
6 comments:
I'm not bothered by Ramsey Clark's defense of Saddam (although, given the mortality rate of Saddam's defense counsel, I imagine Clark is pretty nervous).
What bothers me is the trial itself. This court was set up solely to conduct this one trial, and it lacks legitimacy. It was created after the crimes had been committed.
Of course Saddam is guilty. Does anyone think the court will find him innocent? I'm just not comfortable with these international courts.
If the international community decides they want to try a U.S. President for violating international law, can they set up a court and do that?
I think the best argument for this trial is that the U.S. is trying to get Iraqis used to the idea that people (no matter how evil) have a right to a trial before they are executed.
"This court was set up solely to conduct this one trial, and it lacks legitimacy."
What would you prefer? A U.S. District court? An Iraqi court, that was probably appointed by Saddam?
How about no court at all?
Why don't we just hang him and get it over with?
What are you thoughts, D.M?
If only he had died in combat! But he didn't, so something has to be done.
Of the alternatives you suggest, I think a trial by an Iraqi court would be best, because:
1. The applicable law (Iraqi law) would have existed prior to the commission of Saddam's crimes. So, no ex post facto problem.
2. The court would have jurisdiction over Saddam, because he's an Iraqi citizen.
3. The trial would send a message to the Iraqi people that from now on everyone in Iraq is subject to the law.
The problem here is the one you mention - the judge might be a Saddam appointee.
Two possible solutions:
1. Require a jury trial, and
2. Require the judge to recuse himself if he is, in fact, a Saddam appointee.
An Iraqi trial wouldn't be perfect, but I like it better than the international court.
It would have been far better if the soldiers had "cleared" the spider hole with a frag grenade...
The situation as it is now lends itself to critism from many different directions (unfortunately). Like, dm, I guess the most credible solution is an Iraqi court, not an international court. International courts having even the slightest power is scary beyond belief.
Am I missing something? I thought it was an Iraqi court & not an international court.
Wasn't it something like an international court at Nuremburg for the Nazi war crimes trial?
Post a Comment