Jacques Verges – His Client List
The French lawyer, who is said to have been a friend to Pol Pot, (the Khmer Rouge leader behind Cambodia’s genocide) is set to defend Saddam Hussein at his trial has forged his reputation at the side of some of the world’s most notorious figures.
In World War II, he earned a reputation as a war hero with General Charles de Gaulle’s Free French resistance, but later he became a Communist.
During the Algerian war of independence, he defended Algerians accused of terrorism against France.
One of his clients was Djamila Bouhired, who was sentenced to death in 1957 for planting bombs in cafes in Algiers. He managed to have her sentenced commuted, and married her when she was released in 1962.
Later, in the 1970s, he became the champion of extremists from both left and right, defending Palestinian violence against Israel and neo-Nazi bombers.
When offered the 1987 case of Klaus Barbie, the former Gestapo chief known as the Butcher of Lyons, he leapt at the chance to expose what he saw as establishment hypocrisy. But he could not prevent Barbie’s life imprisonment on 341 charges, which included deporting Jewish children to concentration camps.
Carlos the Jackal – Illich Ramirez Sanchez, the Venezuelan who became known as Carlos the Jackal after making a career out of bombings, kidnappings and hijackings, was another client. He was sentenced to life in jail in 1997 for killing two French secret agents and a Lebanese revolutionary in 1975.
Mr Verges says he was involved in a law suit brought by Slobodan Milosevic at the European Court of Human Rights in 2002 challenging his detention by the Netherlands to face war crimes charges at The Hague.
And I thought lawyers who are ambulance chasers were bad.
This man’s entire career consists of defending those who have committed acts of terrorism, genocide, crimes against humanity and much more. He befriends them. He marries them. He defends them.
Is it any wonder he wants to defend Saddam Hussein who will face charges of both crimes against humanity and genocide and much more?
It would be better if Saddam’s lawyers had a less controversial past. I want to see Saddam get a fair trial in Iraq before he is put to death.
In your statement it seems you have already convicted him – - You wrote: “You’d like to see Saddam get a fair trial before he is put to death”
I’m not saying he is innocent in any way – - just your statement seems to already be a bit of a contradiction in your having sentenced him to death.
Perhaps inferring that in Zelda’s mind there is no question og the outcome.
I too would like to see him get a fair trial before he is put to death. this way, there will be absolutely no doubt in anyone;s mind that the outcome of the trial was fair.
Ted
Right to a fair trial is a right for United States citizens – - yes there are many nation’s throughout the world who state and support the practice of fair trials – - however there are also those nation’s where fair trials are a very rare thing. In the case of Saddam Hussein it is as though the world is judge and jury – - Those for his being put to death and those who actually want him returned to power. No matter how fair the trial is there will be those who will never accept the outcome.
Actually, to hell with Saddam. He has already gotten more than he deserves, and much more than most people get.
My reasons for wanting a fair trial have more to do with the Iraqi people. I want a trial that exposes all that he did, all the people and nations that he dealt with (including America), and as many people as possible that he killed or had killed.
I believe that a fair trial will help the Iraqi people move on and assist them in creating a fair democracy that doesn’t repeat Saddam’s tyranny.
I agree with Zelda. A fair trial is a bare necessity. To be sure, there are those who will never accept the outcome, but then the U.S. and the Iraqi people won’t (and shouldn’t) do a fair trial for obtaining overall international assent anyway. Giving even the most evil creatures a fair trial is something nations living by the rule of law and adhering to basic standards of fairness and humanity should do as a matter of principle and for their own dignity. Think of the Nuremberg trials; think of the Eichmann trial in Israel. Can you imagine how hard it must have been for some of the Holocaust survivors to see Eichmann being able to publicly make “his case” once more? But by enduring it and by imposing fair rules even in a case like that Israel showed great moral strength. That moral strength helps it overcome other obstacles as well (albeit in a non-tangible way). Same is true for a Saddam trial. If Iraq is supposed to be a role model of democracy for the Middle East they cannot start building their state without applying the rule of law (democracy being inextricably intertwined with the rule of law) when it is perhaps the hardest ever to do so. Because that’s when it really counts. But to go through this trial (which literally will be a “trial” for the Iraqi people as well) with patience and discipline, will strenghten the growth of democracy in Iraq a great deal.