If America were united, it would be a good move for us.

every one no matter what they done is entitled to a defense, however the person defending must not be biased against him

Not a big deal at all.

What difference does it make? The verdict is decided in advance and if he didn't have any Iraqi lawyers, Uncle Sap would have appointed him an American anyhow. This is another sad day in American Jurisprudence that we would participate in this farce.

Something tells me Ramsey Clark has something to do with this.

The attorney defending Saddam Hussein is former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. Frankly, I dont see what the problem with this is. Yes, he may be a murderous thug who has the blood of thousands of people in his hands. Yet, he does deserve a fair hearing. If we truly want to represent the values that democracy and human rights entail, then we give him his hearing, as opposed to taking him out back and shooting him by firing squad. I think that it would have been better to have brought Saddam before the International Criminal Court. In that venue, the hearings would have had a greater international impact, not to mention, more legitimacy before international law. Keeping him in Iraq ensures that he remains a symbol for the insurgency. By internationalizing it, the process of naming and shaming becomes more effective.

What defence does he have? Then again, I thought the same thing about O.J.

As a lawyer, your job is to represent people not judge them. Justice depends on everybody, guilty or innocent, being able to present their case and a neutral abitor deciding the case based on facts and arguments presented. Kudos to the attorney for being willing to take on a challenge in the interest of broader interests of justice. If Hussein isn't tried fairly, then his sentence and punishment means nothing.

Once again, I gotta feel that opinions Im reading here would differ Just a little if it were thier families that were killed or tortured. It sounds like some would meet the guy outside the court room and say "hey buddy, lets go have a beer and talk about your noble efforts here"! A trial lawyer does pick and choose the cases he/she takes correct? What kind of attorney sees the advantages of representing someone who very difinitely is a Murderer. Is anyone arguing that? I guess thats why I could never be a lawyer. I do understand that in our system someone has to do it. And Ill even agree that it is a good system. Im just Damn glad its not me.

Who on earth would be shocked by this? You need to get out of the house more often. . .

Entirely legitimate. And entirely proper too.

We always got a few yahoos, but I can't hold the American people at fault for the actions of LAWYERS.

Unamerican or without precedent? What kind of craziness is that? If you make that assertion, you don't understand a basic part of the essence of your own country. The American justice system, which is the world's finest, is built upon the idea that every person charged with a crime is entitled to a defense and Due Process of Law. A government entity in the U.S. cannot take from a person his life, liberty or property unless numerous procedural safeguards are met and unless the defendant is provided with an opportunity to be heard and present (if he so wishes) evidence on his own behalf. Further, at trial, he has a right to examine/cross-examine evidence and witnesseses offered against him. Every civil and criminal defendant in the U.S. gets Due Process, everyone. We don't pick and choose based upon popularity because there is a fundamental concern about the excesses of, and tyranny by, the government. Is Saddam Hussein being tried in American court? No. Is it shocking or unanticipated that Americans would help defend him, however? Not to a person using his brain. This is not a demonstration of our decline, decadence or weakness. It is an illustration of what I have contended all along: We are better than they are. More decent, more fair and more just. Boy, if anyone has problems with a U.S. lawyer assisting the Hussein defense team, you really ought to reflect for a moment. What could possibly be a greater pronouncement to the world that the evil and hideous terrorist attacks upon Americans in September of 2001 failed to break our fundamental values or destroy our way of life, than by helping Saddam defend himself in a court of law? It is not America at its worst. It is America at its finest, most idealistic, and least hypocritical.

I don't understand this rating system. There is indeed an American lawyer on Saddam's defense team. How can one do anything but agree with that? It's a fact. If you disagree then you just haven't been keeping up with the news. If the question were actually asking what I think of that fact then I'd say it's a good idea. Why not? Part of what makes the American justice system great is that everyone is entitled to a defense. (I assume that Iraq has adopted a simliar system.) Jeffrey Dahmer had a defense team. So did all those WWII Nazis. In the end it won't matter whether Saddam had an American on his defense team or not. In the end we in the west will be satisfied that justice was done and almost everyone in the Islamic world will look at his trial as a farce. The outcome of the trial is almost beside the point.

He's not there because he "likes" Hussein.He is there to see that he gets a fair trial.That's the only way to sentence him without causing MORE problems.