Mr. Clark, I respectfully disagree

Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General of the United States during the Johnson administration, has come out again against the tribunal that is conducting the trial against Saddam Huessein. He says that the court's attempt to protect witnesses have been "absurd" and that the case is in "chaos".

Essentially, he wants the tribunal disbanded and the case transferred to another country. Why?

Mr. Clark has stated that he has been denied access to documents which he maintains are centeral to his client's defense. He also states that his team needs more time to prepare the defense of the former dictator.

However, in this case, Mr. Clark is wrong. Hussein is being charged, primarily, with crimes he committed against his own county and his own citizens. Why should he not be tried by them? An argument could be made that there is not a person there who could be what is known in the United States as an "impartial jurror".

At the same time, the litany of reasons to try him in Iraq by Iraqis is stronger. The crimes he is being accused of happened in Iraq. The witnesses to the crimes are in Iraq. A procedure is in place that would seem to give him more rights that we are affording "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo. More importantly, Iraqis need to see that they can deal in justice and not simply revenge. Finally, if we are to say that Iraq is not being colonized by the United States, then we must allow them to administer their own laws.

For some differing view points about the trial there are pro-tribunal editorials here and anti-tribunal editorials here.

Mr. Ramsey wants the trial moved for one reason: his client is guilty. He wants to stave off the day of decision, whether it come from a judges' tribunal or a jury of impartial jurrors as long as possible. Perhaps he has the hope that he mire the process down to the extent that The Hague allowed to happen during the trial of Milosevic.

Is the Iraqi Special Tribunal perfect? No. Trials are messy things and perfection is sought but rarely ever attained in them. However, it is also seems that it is not a kangaroo court, instead a serious attempt to afford due process to a person who failed to give that to his own people.

Some thoughts about people in the legal profession

Today, and not for the first time, I reached out for some help on a case that I just took on. The guy who I asked for help from has a small firm with his partner not too far from where I am. Although he and his partner are busy trying to make their firm go, they took a good chunk of time out of their afternoon to help me on my case.

I never saw that when I worked for a mid-sized firm. There the concept was that if it didn't generate billables, it was not to be done. Nothing was done because it was you were really that interested in. It was done for only reason: making money.

Just reminding me how much better it is to interact with people who like what they do and want to help others do it well.

Stress Toy Abuse

Alright, normally I don't like to link to advertisements, but this one is too funny. Especially in light of the research I am doing today.

No endorsement intended.

Trial Interuptus

This has been a long, long week. I've covered two settlement conferences. I've helped prep one trial for Monday and was the back up lawyer for a second (which in hindsight I should have taken on as my own).



I know, I know, clients have to have their say over whether the trial happens or not. And whether they like the deals or not. But come on. Will some of these clients keep that righteous indignation and obstinancy going past trial call instead of taking deals which, quite frankly, are not that good for them. On the other hand, they all avoided having unlawful detainers on their record.

Thats another two incidents of trialus interruptus.

In case you're wondering how a solo can end up as the backup, I think I should add I was doing a burst of pro bono work for the VLSP. And if you happen to be standing around when something needs help, you tend to get asked to pitch in. Barring a real problem, I'm liable to say yes to most pro bono cases.

Eventually I will get back to doing paying work. For now, its kind of fun jumping in and helping others.

Lucas Capitulates?

Where was I the other day? Apparently George Lucas has finally given in and is going to release the original Star Wars trilogy on DVD.

The original. Not the altered. Not the "Han-is-only-shooting-in-self-defense" version.

I'm not sure the last time I actually looked forward to a DVD release.

Convict me when I'm guilty alright?

Is that asking too much?

Not when you think there is a possibility that I might be guilty. Not when you find something that might, could be incriminating. Not when you know where I have been for the past year.

Argh.

He won?

Earlier today, the jury in the Zacarias Moussaui case came back with a sentencing verdict. Instead of death, they decided he should spend the rest of his life in jail.

When he heard the news, Mr. Moussaui apparently pumped his hands in the air declaring, "America, you lost... I won."

So... let me see. He did not get to fly a plane into a government building. He did not manage to kill even a single person. If it had not been for institutional inertia and, in hindsight ill-advised divisions of responsibility and jurisdiction, he would have given away more of the conspirators. He did not get the matrydom he so fervently wanted and volunteered. And he thinks he won.

This guy is starting to remind me of Franz von Papen.