Why did American lawyers take up the job to defend Saddam Hussain?
112654
Maybe for the challenge.  Everyone knows Saddam gassed the Kurds and invaded Kuwait.  But some lawyers are competitive that thrive on the challenge.  Here you have the opportuniry to represent a head of state, accused of crimes against humanity and the peace that are irrefutable, but what does it feel like to be responsible for an entire country, while surrounded by neighbors like Iran and Syria, where there is a strong presence felt from world powers like China, Russia and the U.S.  This is a cuthroat region where everyone wants or needs a piece of the action because of the oil reserves in the region.  What is the history of the region?\n\nA lawyer cannot change facts or perform magic.  Even Clarence Darrow had a case where he had his clients plead guilty to murder, and instead argued at sentencing in an effort to save his clients from capital punishment.  That's what I would do if I represented Saddam.  I would argue that he's not a sadistic criminal that deserves the death penalty, instead he was a politcal strongman that did his best to protect his country in a region where it's kill or be killed.  I would argue that life in prison is sufficient punishment.
1125304
Yes.  Like the first poster said, it was AMZ (Abu Musab Al Zarqawi).  That's not even his real name, but nobody cares.  What matters is that AMZ was a very bad person. Unlike some other terrorists who have a legimitate grievance against the US, AMZ just wanted to kill Americans.  He's not even from Iraq.  He's from Jordon.  He went all the way to Iraq for no other reasons other than to stir up civil war and kill Americans.  It's too bad we couldn't catch him alive, but we're definitely better off now that he's dead.
834802
The sad ending to this story is someone who will make Saddam look like Santa will become the new dictator and life will be much worse for the Iraqis- we already made it worse for them.  And no, I do not believe America should be the "judge and jury" for any sickos that pop up- we are hated by all countries now and targeted our country for every terrorist and wacko out there.  When you see a cesspool, you should already know what is in it, you do not need to stir it up to have the shit float to the top, that is what our government has done in Iraq.
425673
I agree with deedlebay, w.o.m.d. were just a cloak to get into Iraq. Hello people I thought we were going into war to defend our country because of 9/11. We have people from America and other countries dying everyday and we still haven't got Bin Laden?!? \nNot only that but Saddam is on trial for events that happened in the 1980's not for the innocent lives that were lost on Sept.11th. Where is their justice?
887190
I think it is a lot of reasons.\n\n1) Jealousy-lawyers make a LOT of money.  When you break down an hourly wage, its crazy compared to the average person.\n\n2) A lawyer can take a logical reason and make it illogical.  eg A person commits a murder.  Admits it.  Then the lawyer will give all sorts of reasons to justify the murder so the person isnt penalized as severely.  Or, in the case of laws, they have to assume for so many things it jumbles up the org reason for the law\n\n3) People see lawyers as defending people that have done horrendous things.  Child molesters Murders Terrorists  Under law everone deserves a fair trial...but its darn hard to watch an inempt prosecuter "let" someone get away with something, or watch a defense lawyer defend the wrongful actions of someone and see them get off\n\n4) The bad lawyers are the ones you see most often or hear about.  The corrupt ones.  For every good lawyer, the public remembers the 20 "bad" ones.\n\n5) Lawyers, because of their education and wealth, exude a class system that those who dont have either, resent.  Some of the lawyers seem to look down on those "without" and that furthers the resentment.\n\nDo they deserve the reputation?  As with any generalization...some do, some dont.  :)
173560
Well, this American citizen did not believe the invasion was justified before the war began. International law and long-established moral principles do not allow for an invasion of a sovereign nation without a clear threat to one's own security. Our security not only was not threatened by Iraq, but every indication now is that we are less secure than before.\nDisregarding my reasons for initially opposing the war, the developments over the past two years have only increased my opposition. Once we invaded Iraq, we had an obligation to provide security and to help rebuild the economy and infrastructure. Things have certainly not gone well.\nFinally, given that we waged a war that I can't defend, the amount we are in debt because of the war is completely unacceptable. \nBefore the war, we were told the rationale was WMDs. We were told there were enough troops on the ground to provide security. We were told Iraq's oil would pay for most of the war.\nAll of these miscalculations or distortions make it more difficult to support the administration's views on the war.\nI'm male and over 50.
679726
The United Nations, not the US, told Saddam force would be used if he didn't allow nuc. inspectors in.  This goes back to the treaty Saddam signed after the Gulf war.  After 17 UN resolutions the US and England questioned the UN. "Why is the UN threatening the use of force and not following through?"  Oh, because the UN is corrupt.  Our so called allies (France, Germany and Russia) are involved in Saddam-side-deals behind our backs.  The US had no choice but to leave the UN.  You can't negotiate with anyone who lies to you.  How do you know when they are telling the truth.  Why would you ever make an agreement with someone who burned you in the last agreement you made with them???  How much confidence would you have in that agreement?  How do you feel as an American that our allies, regardless of our acting pres., feel a just a little hurt by UN (France, Germany and Russian) actions.  Our friendship is worth so little, they would allow side deals with Saddam while pretending to stand tough on the Food for Oil deal. The selfishness of our "allies" in the UN is responsible for US, British and Australian involvement in this war.\nIt's unfortunate some people in the US can't recall events that took place a few years ago.  Get the facts, don't let anyone wash your brain.  Ask the tough questions...
1012055
though there is no iota of doubt regarding Saddam suppressed and massacred shies, his trial has not been conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice as defense witnesses were beaten up lawyers died under mysterious circumstances. another thing is whether he be given death punishment or life imprisonment that is to be decided by the Iraqis only. the us has no role to play in awarding punishment to other heads of countries. if that is the case what sort of punishment is to be given to bush for the death of countless innocent Iraqis by invading that country with a false charge that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. in this regard we are to learn from the Nepalis  who dethroned their autocratic king without interference of external forces
963610
Because Saddam tried to have Dubba's Daddy killed, and that called for a Texas size response.
14451
This is not exactly a Law & Ethics question.  Nevertheless, no, Iraq is not bound for its own self-destruction, at least no more so than when Saddam Hussein was running the country and slaughtering his own people.
687984
They are defending private profit for multinational oil and infraestructure corporations, by removing the Saddam Hussein regime, which became an enemy of the US once he decided to nationalize Iraq's oil fields in 1990.\nNevermind the fact that the US supports dictatorships in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, or that during the 1980's, while the Kurds were being gassed, the US armed and supported Hussein, people still don't realize that the "defend democracy" argument is bullshit.\n\n\nMan, I really hate you people. Please don't prove my point! Smarten up!
864286
No\nWow that John is a character,Saddam payed the families of Palestinian suicide bombers,just like the government of Iran,Syria and a few others.That's not suicide bombers in Iraq.They had none and BTW they had working power and electricity
834093
He doesn't want to be President-his current job is much better. He's in Saudi Arabia as we speak, being wined & dined by the King & the Prince while assuring them they're safer than than their fellow Sunni, Saddam. And there's absolutely they'll be burned alive like the Sunni clerics the other day. As long as the oil keeps coming...(Saddam cut off the oil-this from Feb 2003 in Oil & Gas magazine: The Iraqi oil is classified as a “non-secure” source, yet the US is the largest consumer of Iraqi oil. )
883443
I presume that you meant US rather than UK.\nI wish I could argue with you but on this occasion Britain went to war without just cause and the Iraqi bogey man must therefor punished while the real enemy of this country still sits in Downing Street at our expense.\nIf the US believed that they had a genuine case, Saddam would have been tried by the International Court instead of by patsies in occupied Iraq.
790507
Its not your job to defend yourself.  Thats for the attorney calling you as a witness.  Answer the question you are asked, keep it sort, but add nothing more.  Assuming you are a witness for the defense, the plaintiff's attorney or prosecutor will try to entice you into answering more than the question, so they can get testimony admitted they could not get otherwise, or impeach yourself.  It is up to the defense attorney to object if the questions are not proper, go afield, or are harrasing.  If you cannot recall your prior testimony, just say you don't remember.  Your attorney can have your prior testimony shown to you to help your recall.  Have fun.
1060614
well in iraq the people defending theirtowns are freedom fighters and  us americans are foreign invaders. it all depends on your perspective.\n\nfrom my perspective i see it as us soldiers (kids) being sent off to fight a war that they shouldnt because they have been ordered (forced, either do it or be put in jail) to. the iraqis are just defending their home and most of them that are fighting are probobally fighting because of our presence there.\n\nits a pretty messed up situation, but our leaders (bush) dotn care, they just want iraqi oil.
773990
yes look at Iraq under Saddam and the lawlessness caused by the American invasion