It's good to see someone standing up for principle:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein admitted in court on Wednesday that he gave orders that led to the execution of Shi'ite Muslims in the 1980s, but justified the punishment as his right as Iraq's president, saying: "Where is the crime?"...Looks like Hussein's lawyers have been getting some tips from Bush's lawyer:
Defense counsel have argued that Saddam, a Sunni who justified his harsh rule by the need for national unity, was Iraq's president at the time and that he acted within the law.
"What we saw today was not Saddam admitting guilt, but admitting to the fact that he acted in accordance with his official duties and powers," said Nehal Bhuta, a legal expert from Human Rights Watch who has been monitoring the case.
Mr. Chairman, the terrorist surveillance program is lawful in all respects. As we have thoroughly explained in our written analysis, the president is acting with authority provided both by the Constitution and by statute.If Bush ever ordered summary executions of dissidents, razed their orchards, and slaughtered a bunch of innocent villagers, Hinderaker and his kind would be right there arguing that he has the constitutional right to do all of it to protect national security.
[That's all, folks]
|