November 4, 2006
WHEN THE CLIENT'S GUILTY YOU ARGUE AGAINST THE EVIDENCE:
Hussein Verdict Near After Trial With 'Serious Shortcomings' (Ellen Knickmeyer, 11/04/06, Washington Post)
"It was quite a messy trial, as the whole world knows," said Michael P. Scharf, a professor of international law at Case Western Reserve University who advised Iraqi officials during the trial. But "all the arguments about a fair trial are pretty much moot if the evidence is not in question," he added.
The saddest sacks on the Left are those who can't accept that and argue that "fairness" makes any moral difference. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 4, 2006 8:28 AM
Comments
If the Democrats win the House, John Conyers will probably want to bring Saddam over to Washington so he can testify against George W. Bush at the Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings.
Posted by: John at November 4, 2006 8:35 AMWhy apply a different standard to Saddam than they've been applying to our domestic thugs and murderers for decades? Mumia Abu Jamal still breathes God's air and may yet win the Nobel Peace Prize.
Posted by: Random Lawyer at November 4, 2006 9:07 AMHopefully Conyers will have to have Saddam exhumed to come over to the U.S.
Posted by: AWW at November 4, 2006 11:54 AM
« HEY, HERE'S AN IDEA--LET'S THROW MONEY AT THE PROBLEM! |
Main
| WHEN THERE ACTUALLY IS A CHICKEN IN EVERY POT AND TWO CARS IN EVERY GARAGE: »