WAR: Saddam Trial Defense Lawyer Kidnapped

They have found him.




[edit on 21/10/2005 by Umbrax]

Originally posted by Umbrax
They have found him.

Thanks to all for the updates. Now the question is, who would want him dead?

You raised some interesting points, Valhall, but they also raise some questions.

Originally posted by Valhall
One thing to point out though is that of the 12 or so lawyers, this guy was the one that was very vocal about the world court not providing the required information the defense team needed.

For instance, was he vocal about a FACT, or about his perception, or about his spin? That is, was the world court not providing info, or was he just stalling and mounting a good defense (as is the job of any good attorney)?

Do you believe his claims? Did he offer evidence to back himself up? Do you have any more info on this?

Sorry, I know we can all go to Google, but if you have information at hand, perhaps you wouldn't be averse to sharing.

Hamburglar,

Did you see my follow up post where I corrected myself? This is not the lawyer that was talking in the NPR report. Also, in that second post I gave the link to the audio file for the NPR report, so you can listen to it there. The information in that report is all I know.

No, Valhall, I hadn't. There is no embarrased smiley, or I'd use it now. Sorry.

So then, now that we seem to be fresh out of line on that idea, are there any other opinions as to why this guy might have been murdered?

Originally posted by Hamburglar
So then, now that we seem to be fresh out of line on that idea, are there any other opinions as to why this guy might have been murdered?

I would say it is a delaying tactic, since it will take months for a new attorney to get up to strength on the case. That is of course unless he had more then just one lawyer which I doubt. Now the question is who did it? My guess is one of Saddams henchman who have killed for him in the past

This confirms what I was thinking.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A fearful defense team demanded Friday that the trial be delayed or moved out of Iraq.

Yahoo News

Now for the reason on moving the trial out of the country, that would mean another court would have to hold the trial since Iraqs jurisdiction ends at its borders. It would also mean that the case would have to be tried in the world court which does not have the death penalty.



[edit on 10/21/2005 by shots]

Why does it help?
It'll set the trial back so those "insurgents" loyal to Saddam can keep on fighting to get him "free". This of course helps both sides out if you spend a moment to think about it.

There are three possible scenarios IMO-

1. The insurgents were anti-Saddam & Friends (not all of them are on the same page), so they executed someone willing to defend such monsters.

2. The insurgents are pro-Saddam. If they had killed a prosecuting attorney, odds are the trial would go ahead, sicne the Iraqi governement and America was Saddam convicted and executed presently. But by killing a defense attorney, they just bought a month or more. For the trial to appear legitimate, the new defense attorney will need time to study the case and prepare.

3. The insurgents were just idiots, and kidnapped a random guy connected to the trial.

All three seem equally likely in my eyes.

Nonsense

I can't make sense of this. And now this guy is dead, and another family has lost another man, another son, another husband, whom they loved.

If anyone can explain how killing this man made a lick of sense, I'm listening.

To buy time? Maybe, but killing defense attorneys is a loser's game.

To me, this just stinks of senseless, demonic killing.

If anyone can prove me wrong, I'll be grateful.

Majic, if the U.S/New Iraq, could get a trial of Saddam and have the internatioanl community say it is legit that is a big start in the building of a new Nation. They will do whatever it takes to cause problem for the defence team and I wouldn't be shocked if many more of them die or get attacked during the trial...

The Weakest Link

Yeah, I suppose from the point of view of those opposing this process anything which disrupts the trial in any way would be considered better than no interference at all.