I Hate lawyers

[78RATS 0]

fuckers

Rat for Life - Fly till I die
When them stupid ass bitches ask why

[quade 3]

Tempest in a teapot.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[dbattman 0]

I hate lawyers too. However, the system depends on the accused having the best defense possible. Otherwise it would just be another kangaroo show court.

[78RATS 0]

I agree with the proposition that everyone deserves adequate counsel and a defense, but arguing Saddam Hussein's detention is unconstitutional is retarded.

Rat for Life - Fly till I die
When them stupid ass bitches ask why

[AndyMan 7]

So... you would rather he NOT have a fair trial....?!?

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

So... you would rather he NOT have a fair trial....?!?

_Am

Absolutely he should have a fair trial. It should be conducted under Iraqi, not US law. It should be presided over by the same judges and attorneys he provided for others during his reign of terror. They should also use the same sentencing guidelines Saddam used.

[larsrulz 0]

Quote

So... you would rather he NOT have a fair trial....?!?

Saddam is in legal custody of the sovereign nation of Iraq. It doesn't much matter what this guy attempts to do as the US Supreme Court has no say. If Iraqi courts wish to make his detention declared unconstitutional by their constitution, then so be it. And it doesn't matter that the US still has physical custody of him, the Iraqis have (and should have) final say in this matter.

I got a strong urge to fly, but I got no where to fly to. -PF

[SkyDekker 1,155]

Quote

Absolutely he should have a fair trial. It should be conducted under Iraqi, not US law. It should be presided over by the same judges and attorneys he provided for others during his reign of terror. They should also use the same sentencing guidelines Saddam used.

funny, the latest story from the US is that they invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussain was so cruel, yet you are willing to proceed with his standards.

[AndyMan 7]

That's a fine opinion. I understand it, and respect it.

In Iraq, the lawyers are threatened with beheading for even defending the guy.

In America, the lawyers are "fuckers" for asking what could be a valid question.

Same idea, the only difference is degree.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[CrazyIvan 0]

I'm glad that Saddam is in custody and AWAY from the U.S.A, otherwise we would be watching on TV all these "celebrities" such as O.J, and Charles Manson trying to "explain" Saddam's side.

Of course...that'd be played on FOX

__________________________________________
Blue Skies and May the Force be with you.

[dbattman 0]

Where's Johnny Cochrain on this one?

If the beret does not fit you must acquit.

[CrazyIvan 0]

Quote

Where's Johnny Cochrain on this one?

If the beret does not fit you must acquit.

I rest my case.

__________________________________________
Blue Skies and May the Force be with you.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

One of the things the lawyer in the article mentions is the deprivation of Fifth Amendment rights among others.

I am curious about something. Where is it delineated and spelled-out WHICH Constitutional rights (assuming the subject in question is entitled to them at all) a person retains even when he is a criminal suspect, or a convicted criminal?

I mean, there is no question that we do NOT grant SECOND amendment rights to convicts, and we don't even grant full FIRST amendment rights to them, necessarily (control of what they're allowed to read in jail, for instance, and what they're allowed to write in their correspondence, and whom they may associate with). So given that there is an obvious curtailment of which rights from among the Bill of Rights criminals have, WHERE IS IT SPELLED OUT EXACTLY HOW WE DETERMINE WHICH WILL BE TAKEN AWAY AND WHICH WILL BE RETAINED BY THE CRIMINAL?

I mean, why are they still permitted to have FIFTH amendment rights but not second, or first, or fourth...? A guy in prison can't refuse a search of his cell or his person. He can't have a gun. His papers are not secure, and he can clearly have his correspondence intercepted, screened, and censored. Why then is it beyond question that he DOES retain, say, the right to counsel, or the right to remain silent, and not testify against himself? These are, after all, also Constitutional rights.

So?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[captain1 0]

You either hate them or love them, just like cops.

[mattsplat 0]

How do you save a drowning lawyer?

YOU DONT!

[Zennie 0]

Don't say that with Robert too close around.

Saddam is not a United States prisoner, he is a prisoner of the nation of Iraq, and has been since we handed over sovereignty. We're merely his prison guards at this point.

Saddam has no standing to any relief under any US law because he is subject to Iraqi... not US... law.

This will get laughed out of court.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[78RATS 0]

The filing at the Supreme Court, dated Tuesday and titled "Saddam Hussein v. George W. Bush," asks the court for permission to file an indigent appeal on his behalf.


hahaha

Rat for Life - Fly till I die
When them stupid ass bitches ask why

[lawrocket 3]

It won't get laughed out of court. Probably just denied.

I think you are right about the justiciability of this claim. It's moot. He's no longer under US control, to the issue just is not for consideration. The Court cannot even say, "What the US did is messed up" because to do so would be an advisory opinion.

Also, note that there is no such thing as a frivolous motion in a criminal defense case. Anyone here who has ever been a defendant shouldn't mind a lawyer trying everything...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[78RATS 0]

Americans died to capture that turd. To have some mouthpiece saying his "detention is unconstitutional" really pisses me off.

Claiming he's indigent is just funny.

Rat for Life - Fly till I die
When them stupid ass bitches ask why

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Americans died to capture that turd. To have some mouthpiece saying his "detention is unconstitutional" really pisses me off.

Claiming he's indigent is just funny.

How does a soldier's death affect the constitutionality of an action by the US Government?

IMO his capture wasn't worth the death of a single American, nor the expenditure of $1 of my tax money, let alone $1,000+ for EACH man, woman and child in the USA.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zennie 0]

Quote

Claiming he's indigent is just funny.

Well, he *did* look like some of our streetcorner panhandlers when we captured him.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[SkyDekker 1,155]

Quote

He's longer under US control

I am assuming you meant he is no longer under US control.

Do you actually believe that?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

He's longer under US control

I am assuming you meant he is no longer under US control.

Do you actually believe that?

Thanks. I made the edit. Saying he's no longer under US control is technically true, and the law is all about technicalities.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,155]

Quote

Saying he's no longer under US control is technically true, and the law is all about technicalities.

Then define control. The US physically restricts his movement, that is control to me.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The filing at the Supreme Court, dated Tuesday and titled "Saddam Hussein v. George W. Bush,"

Why isn't it "Saddam Hussein v. The United States of America"? Wouldn't that be a more real title? What is this, a civil case?

Looks like another partisan political posing with the intent to bash the pres, rather than a real effort of a good lawyer on behalf of his client.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants