Stupid French Lawyer A**hole want to defend Saddam

[Dorian Gray]

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1041039/posts
A French lawyer known for his notorious clients said on Monday he would be ready to defend Saddam Hussein and that the former Iraqi leader must be presumed innocent at any trial.

Jacques Verges, who has represented Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie and international guerrilla Carlos the Jackal, said hiding Saddam away was against international conventions. U.S. troops captured the deposed leader on Saturday, but his whereabouts remain a mystery.

"If he had to be prosecuted tomorrow, he would have to be presumed innocent," Verges told French radio station Europe 1, adding that Saddam should be allowed to receive visitors if he is held as a prisoner of war.

Asked if he was ready to defend Saddam, Verges said: "Yes." But he made clear he was only speaking hypothetically.

Saddam could be tried by a special tribunal set up last week by Iraq's U.S.-appointed Governing Council with a mandate covering war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

Charges against him could focus on the campaign against Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s, the use of chemical weapons on Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians, the suppression of the Kurdish and Shi'ite uprisings in 1991, the punishment of the Marsh Arabs and the forced expulsions of ethnic minorities in the north.

Verges warned such charges could implicate Western leaders who once backed Saddam.

"If he is judged and treated like a pariah, clearly his defence counsel would have to say 'but this pariah was the friend of all the Western heads of state. He was not only their friend but their ally'," Verges said.

Referring to allegations of atrocities, Verges said: "It must be established whether everything that happened was rumour or not, and what the responsibility was of the allies of the former Iraqi government."

Verges has taken on tough cases before. Barbie, known as the "butcher of Lyon", was jailed for life in 1987 for crimes against humanity in Nazi-occupied France.

Carlos the Jackal, whose real name is Illich Ramirez Sanchez, is serving a life sentence in France for a string of deadly attacks in Europe in the 1970s and 80s

Why do I think he's an a**hole? He has defended Klaus Barbie and Slobodan Milosevic, so he doesn't need the reputation, and he is an attorney so he doesn't need the money. This pretty much leaves just wanting to stir up trouble and be a jackoff as his only motivation.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1041039/posts


Why do I think he's an a**hole? He has defended Klaus Barbie and Slobodan Milosevic, so he doesn't need the reputation, and he is an attorney so he doesn't need the money. This pretty much leaves just wanting to stir up trouble and be a jackoff as his only motivation.

This is a good thing. His French attorney will surrender at the start and it'll all be over.

[reprise]

It's a hell of a lot better option than Saddam's case being defended by a lawyer who doesn't want to represent him, or by a lawyer appointed by the prosecution (a la David Hicks).

[Grammatron]

Look, in order to defend Saddam they had to find somebody who is more evil. Lucky for us there is France!

Yes I am kidding.

[Neutron Jack]

Everyone deserves a good defense, especially those that everybody "knows" are guilty. That's why we bother with all the evidence and trial stuff.

[fishbob]

Somebody has to defend Saddam. Everybody will hate the defense attorney after the trial anyway, so who better than a french guy that everybody hates already. Jacques Verges, who has represented Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie and international guerrilla Carlos the Jackal

[Troll]

If I have to hear that he was abused as a child and as such it's not his fault, I'll volunteer to be the executioner.

*edited to add the following*

Provided he's found guilty. I mean we all know he's innocent until proven otherwise.;)

[LFTKBS]

Yeah, let's not even have trials anymore.

[Troll]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Yeah, let's not even have trials anymore.

Wel that would be stupid. Nobody is advocating not having a trial. We're merely the court of public opinion. Or are you saying let's not have opinions anymore?:p

[Jocko]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Yeah, let's not even have trials anymore.

Oh please, can't you find someone worthy for your heart to bleed for?

Sometimes... just SOMETIMES... an expectation of a guilty verdict has more to do with the odious prick in the dock than it does with any failings in the justice system.

[Mr Manifesto]

So you guys think he shouldn't have representation. Sad.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
So you guys think he shouldn't have representation. Sad.

Do you actually read the posts? I want him to have representation and a trial. A fair trial at that. I'm in the court of public opinion and am voicing my opinion. He's guilty, it's obvious, I'll now channel my..... what the hell do they call that.....spritual guide(?) or something, and predict he's found guilty. Happy now that you got the elongated version?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Jocko
Sometimes... just SOMETIMES... an expectation of a guilty verdict has more to do with the odious prick in the dock than it does with any failings in the justice system.

I couldn't agree more, but that's not an opinion the courts can hold. Saddam must have the best representation possible to preserve the presumption of innocence and because of the gravity of the charges. Oh, and so no pickle-brained toss-pot can point to a flawed judicial process as evidence of Western bias :D

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


I couldn't agree more, but that's not an opinion the courts can hold. Saddam must have the best representation possible to preserve the presumption of innocence and because of the gravity of the charges. Oh, and so no pickle-brained toss-pot can point to a flawed judicial process as evidence of Western bias :D

Abso-frickin'-lutely. That's why I'm not a judge. Well, one reason why I'm not a judge.

By all means, give him the best France has to offer. I know it will make no difference in the long run since the SOB is as guilty as sin itself. Let him pontificate about American support in the 80's, let him go on about whatever he wishes. The conculsion is preordained, not by biased justice, but by his own savage conduct.

I have no doubts and no fear regarding this point. May he find the best guns-for-hire in the business - his history is beyond spin.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1041039/posts


Why do I think he's an a**hole? He has defended Klaus Barbie and Slobodan Milosevic, so he doesn't need the reputation, and he is an attorney so he doesn't need the money. This pretty much leaves just wanting to stir up trouble and be a jackoff as his only motivation.

Yeah. He's French so obviously it isn't a personal commitment to abstract notions of justice or anything.

Making a government meet its legal burden before killing someone is "stir[ring] up trouble and being a jackoff." Totally.

We all know that all lawyers care about is their personal reputations and money. At least they better. I say we round up all those lawyers that take on thankless obscure tasks that pay poorly out of a sense of civic and moral duty and ship them off to France with the rest of the silly troublemakers and jackoffs. That way the next time someone is obviously guilty of a vile crime and nobody wants to represent them we can just gas them without having to deal with this "trial" nonsense.

[Ed]

Naturally he should have a competent, spirited defence. Whether the french guy is the best, I do not know.

[BTox]

I think they should assign OJ's "Dream team" to Saddam. And the entire trial should be televised. Who wouldn't want to hear Johnny Cochran say "if the WMDs don't exist, you must aquit"?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Yeah, let's not even have trials anymore.

The "innocent until proven guilty" thing applies to the COURT and the JURY, who must assume innocence. It doesn't mean nobody in the world has the right to have any opinion about Saddam's crimes before the verdict.

It is quite compatible to say that "everybody knows he's guilty" (according to public opinion) and that on the other hand he is "assumed innocent until proven guilty" (in a court of law).

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Saddam must have the best representation possible to preserve the presumption of innocence and because of the gravity of the charges. Oh, and so no pickle-brained toss-pot can point to a flawed judicial process as evidence of Western bias :D Precisely.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Yeah. He's French so obviously it isn't a personal commitment to abstract notions of justice or anything.

Making a government meet its legal burden before killing someone is "stir[ring] up trouble and being a jackoff." Totally.

We all know that all lawyers care about is their personal reputations and money. At least they better. I say we round up all those lawyers that take on thankless obscure tasks that pay poorly out of a sense of civic and moral duty and ship them off to France with the rest of the silly troublemakers and jackoffs. That way the next time someone is obviously guilty of a vile crime and nobody wants to represent them we can just gas them without having to deal with this "trial" nonsense. Most well put.

[Dorian Gray]

Who said "don't have a trial"? I am just saying that no one should be so adamant and voluntary about defending Saddam. Surely there must be the equivalent of a public defender who gets lujacked into defending him?

And Verges' goal is not just to defend Saddam, but to expose and reveal the entire history of the West's involvement with Saddam and Iraq, and then to hold those countries partially accountable for his actions. If he were to do that, then it is possible that the picture might look like this:
1) No WMDs found
2) The US, et al, is to be partially held responsible for the actions of Saddam Hussein during the time we, et al, supported the Hussein regime.

Wouldn't that make a simple 'banish him to Iraqi Elba for the rest of his life' or whatever into 'what a big messy steaming pile of s**t'?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Who said "don't have a trial"? I am just saying that no one should be so adamant and voluntary about defending Saddam. Surely there must be the equivalent of a public defender who gets lujacked into defending him?No defense of that specific lawyer, but we should [i]all[/] be adamant about Saddam getting great defense and a fair trial. The best test of the system of laws and courts is in being fair to even the most obviously guilty.

And Verges' goal is not just to defend Saddam, but to expose and reveal the entire history of the West's involvement with Saddam and Iraq, and then to hold those countries partially accountable for his actions. If he were to do that, then it is possible that the picture might look like this:
1) No WMDs found
2) The US, et al, is to be partially held responsible for the actions of Saddam Hussein during the time we, et al, supported the Hussein regime.That's an interesting interpretation, especially since the world's complicity in dictatorships is already part of the public record. The U.S. would be only one of many, of course...France, Germany, no doubt the British have a hand in contributing to Iraq's record over the last several decades.

Wouldn't that make a simple 'banish him to Iraqi Elba for the rest of his life' or whatever into 'what a big messy steaming pile of s**t'? LOL

[Ladewig]

Who wouldn't want to hear Johnny Cochran say "if the WMDs don't exist, you must aquit"?

No. Johnny Cochran wouldn't say that. It would be something more along the lines of

"If the WMD's cannot be found, then innocence must abound."

"If the weapons we cannot ascertain, then innocent we must find Hussein."

"The question we must ask Saddam
is did you have a flying bomb
and was it hid in Surinam
under the leaves of a sago palm."

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Who said "don't have a trial"? I am just saying that no one should be so adamant and voluntary about defending Saddam. Surely there must be the equivalent of a public defender who gets lujacked into defending him? Yes. Those that believe that everyone is entitled to a fair trial shouldn't be so unfeeling and stupid as to actually get up and do something to back those beliefs up. They should instead shut up and make someone else who doesn't feel the same way get forced into defending those that no one wants to defend. Is that what you mean?

I'm just curious. I know someone who that is giving up a lot of money partially because he holds these kinds of beliefs, that everyone deserves a defense and it would be wrong to not do something about that. He volunteers to defend the worst of the worst and tries his best in every case. Is it morally wrong that he doesn't get out of way and let someone far less qualified and motivated handle these cases?

And Verges' goal is not just to defend Saddam, but to expose and reveal the entire history of the West's involvement with Saddam and Iraq, and then to hold those countries partially accountable for his actions. If he were to do that, then it is possible that the picture might look like this:
1) No WMDs found
2) The US, et al, is to be partially held responsible for the actions of Saddam Hussein during the time we, et al, supported the Hussein regime.

Wouldn't that make a simple 'banish him to Iraqi Elba for the rest of his life' or whatever into 'what a big messy steaming pile of s**t'?

You may be a little mixed up as to what the word "defend" means. It doesn't mean show up in a suit, yell "I object" a lot, and wince as the guilty verdict is read. Defending Saddam would entail doing what one can to either disprove some of the allegations, or more likely try to show mitigating factors. The "holding other countries accountable" is exactly what defending Saddam would entail. It is exactly what any competent defense attorney would do. That is the defense.

Somehow you want a "fair trial" where Saddam isn't allowed a complete defense. That is not a "fair trial," that is a "show trial."

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Ladewig


No. Johnny Cochran wouldn't say that. It would be something more along the lines of

"If the WMD's cannot be found, then innocence must abound."

"If the weapons we cannot ascertain, then innocent we must find Hussein."

"The question we must ask Saddam
is did you have a flying bomb
and was it hid in Surinam
under the leaves of a sago palm."

Bwahaha!!!

If the U.S. did pay his bill
Then Saddam you must not kill

If no al-quida link is found
Calls of "not guilty" must sound

[Dorian Gray]

Yes. Those that believe that everyone is entitled to a fair trial shouldn't be so unfeeling and stupid as to actually get up and do something to back those beliefs up. They should instead shut up and make someone else who doesn't feel the same way get forced into defending those that no one wants to defend. Is that what you mean? Let me put it to you this way: no.
I typed a post using words and everything! See if you can figure out what I meant from what I said.

You may be a little mixed up as to what the word "defend" means. It doesn't mean show up in a suit, yell "I object" a lot, and wince as the guilty verdict is read. Defending Saddam would entail doing what one can to either disprove some of the allegations, or more likely try to show mitigating factors. The "holding other countries accountable" is exactly what defending Saddam would entail. It is exactly what any competent defense attorney would do. That is the defense. That is exactly what I said, too. Man, for someone who prides himself on law, you sure can miss the absolute obvious.

Somehow you want a "fair trial" where Saddam isn't allowed a complete defense. That is not a "fair trial," that is a "show trial." Will you tape your knees to the chair you are sitting in and just read the words I am typing, please? Nearly everyone wants all trials to be conducted fairly, with representation for both sides. I just view someone who jumps up with his hand raised shouting "OOOHH OOOOH Me! Me! Pick me!" With more than a little suspicion.

See, an attorney is free to choose which defense he will take. A French attorney might just exaggerate the US and UK part of the defense, and downplay the France part. It would make more sense for it to be an Iraqi, even a Baathist Iraqi, defending Saddam, in order to achieve the highest level of fairness, not to mention, it would keep the trial completely an Iraqi one.

It seems like if you had your way, you'd have the CIA department heads responsible for intelligence operations in and for Iraq from 1983-2000 defending Saddam, plus the equivalents from every other country, in order to pull out each and every possible case in which Saddam Hussein's responsibility for his atrocities was mitigated or absolved.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Let me put it to you this way: no.
I typed a post using words and everything! See if you can figure out what I meant from what I said. Nope, you would rather he have "some public defender" that is "lujacked" into representing him than someone that wants to do the job. I'm sorry if that's not what you meant, but that is what you typed.

That is exactly what I said, too. Man, for someone who prides himself on law, you sure can miss the absolute obvious.

No it isn't. You complained he was more interested in pointing out the culpability of other countries than putting on a defense. This is nonsense as the two are one in the same.

Will you tape your knees to the chair you are sitting in and just read the words I am typing, please? Nearly everyone wants all trials to be conducted fairly, with representation for both sides. I just view someone who jumps up with his hand raised shouting "OOOHH OOOOH Me! Me! Pick me!" With more than a little suspicion.

See, an attorney is free to choose which defense he will take. A French attorney might just exaggerate the US and UK part of the defense, and downplay the France part. It would make more sense for it to be an Iraqi, even a Baathist Iraqi, defending Saddam, in order to achieve the highest level of fairness, not to mention, it would keep the trial completely an Iraqi one.

First, you have no idea how the trial will take place, whether it will be international or Iraqi, so your last sentence is pure speculation. Second, defense counsel presents the defense most likely in his opinion to help his/her client. A defense counsel that chooses a defense based on his geopolitical leanings is not doing his job. Basically you are assuming every defense lawyer will commit a rather glaring breach of his ethical duty to his client based on his or her nationality. This seems a faulty assumption. Every lawyer is going to have a personal opinion. Part of being a lawyer is ignoring that and simply performing the task at hand, in this case representing the client. I'm sure even the French can handle that.



It seems like if you had your way, you'd have the CIA department heads responsible for intelligence operations in and for Iraq from 1983-2000 defending Saddam, plus the equivalents from every other country, in order to pull out each and every possible case in which Saddam Hussein's responsibility for his atrocities was mitigated or absolved.

You mean try to defend him? Yes, I would try to get evey piece of information that I could to try to mitigate or dispute his culpability. Limitations on discovery and evidence are not the worry of a defense attorney. That is for the judge and whoever it is that makes up the rules and proceedures for the trial.

These department heads would not be responsible for defense, as your first sentence seems to suggest, rather if possible I would want to discover that evidence and subpoena those witnesses to find out everything I could, and present any evidence that would help my client.

Why is that hard to understand?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Suddenly
No it isn't. You complained he was more interested in pointing out the culpability of other countries than putting on a defense. This is nonsense as the two are one in the same.

Not putting words in your mouth or trying to start anything. Just a simple and honest question.

Are you saying the defense's best argument is going to be trying to find a cause to blame for Saddam's behavior rather than the man himself, ie. "The US, UK, France, Russia and others led him to believing he should or could kill his own people in the manner he did"? Or the Malvo brainwashing defense or whatever famous defense comes to mind.

If they do go that route I can't see it doing anything to any of the other countries really since it's common knowledge about arms supplies and each country has condemned his behavior towards his own people. In fact I would think it would make a case for them not wanting it to be an International tribunal because his own people may be the only ones apt to alleviate some responsibility on his part and assign some blame to the others they may see as aiding him in his crimes.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Troll


Not putting words in your mouth or trying to start anything. Just a simple and honest question.

Are you saying the defense's best argument is going to be trying to find a cause to blame for Saddam's behavior rather than the man himself, ie. "The US, UK, France, Russia and others led him to believing he should or could kill his own people in the manner he did"? Or the Malvo brainwashing defense or whatever famous defense comes to mind. I'm saying it is possible. I'd imagine the best defense would be more of a mitigation defense rather than one aiming at actual innocence. Of course, we have no idea what the charges would be or the proceedure of the trial or anything, so it is all guesswork. However, if you were trying to find some excuse for his behavior it seems pretty reasonable to try to cast it as "business as usual" in geopolitics, maybe throw in some claims that the reports of atrocities are exagerated and so on.



If they do go that route I can't see it doing anything to any of the other countries really since it's common knowledge about arms supplies and each country has condemned his behavior towards his own people. In fact I would think it would make a case for them not wanting it to be an International tribunal because his own people may be the only ones apt to alleviate some responsibility on his part and assign some blame to the others they may see as aiding him in his crimes.

People need to think long and hard about whether they really want to give Saddam a full and fair trial and if so what form it should take and what jurisdiction it takes place in. If there are any nasty skeletons in the closet the powers that be should be very careful about how they bill this trial, or what the precise charges are. Otherwise it could get embarassing, not necessarily because uncomfortable information is released, but also because of the possiblity that a refusal to allow full discovery into some alleged acts of the U.S. and other nations could be seen as a "scared" move taking away the fair trial that is promised. This sort of thing went on on a small scale recently in that Moussaoui trial. Saddam's attorney asks to see some document, is refused, and the spinning begins. Is it a frivoulous request or a scared government going back on its promise of a fair trial?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I'm saying it is possible. I'd imagine the best defense would be more of a mitigation defense rather than one aiming at actual innocence. Of course, we have no idea what the charges would be or the proceedure of the trial or anything, so it is all guesswork. However, if you were trying to find some excuse for his behavior it seems pretty reasonable to try to cast it as "business as usual" in geopolitics, maybe throw in some claims that the reports of atrocities are exagerated and so on.



People need to think long and hard about whether they really want to give Saddam a full and fair trial and if so what form it should take and what jurisdiction it takes place in. If there are any nasty skeletons in the closet the powers that be should be very careful about how they bill this trial, or what the precise charges are. Otherwise it could get embarassing, not necessarily because uncomfortable information is released, but also because of the possiblity that a refusal to allow full discovery into some alleged acts of the U.S. and other nations could be seen as a "scared" move taking away the fair trial that is promised. This sort of thing went on on a small scale recently in that Moussaoui trial. Saddam's attorney asks to see some document, is refused, and the spinning begins. Is it a frivoulous request or a scared government going back on its promise of a fair trial? [/B]

If I read that correctly, countries refusing to supply information pertinent to certain allegations or whatever may come out in his defense, would appear to be against the fair trial they claim to want if they try to say they cannot provide the information as a matter of national security or some other excuse along those lines. Is that correct?

Now personally, I'm one that feels he's got enough guilt to convict no matter what the defense can come up with, but everyone deserves a fair trial. I may not like that some lawyer got some guy off on a technicality when the evidence is pretty hardcore against him, but I like to put myself in other people's shoes at times, and would want the same lawyer to do the same for me if I were in that situation

And I know it's all speculation on our part, but hell we got cable news with legal analysts doing it all the time, and there we only get one opinion, so I like discussing this sort of thing in open forums.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Troll


If I read that correctly, countries refusing to supply information pertinent to certain allegations or whatever may come out in his defense, would appear to be against the fair trial they claim to want if they try to say they cannot provide the information as a matter of national security or some other excuse along those lines. Is that correct? Seems like a likely scenerio to me, unless charges are very carefully drawn up.

Now personally, I'm one that feels he's got enough guilt to convict no matter what the defense can come up with, but everyone deserves a fair trial. I may not like that some lawyer got some guy off on a technicality when the evidence is pretty hardcore against him, but I like to put myself in other people's shoes at times, and would want the same lawyer to do the same for me if I were in that situation

And I know it's all speculation on our part, but hell we got cable news with legal analysts doing it all the time, and there we only get one opinion, so I like discussing this sort of thing in open forums.

Seems reasonable to me.

[Dorian Gray]

People need to think long and hard about whether they really want to give Saddam a full and fair trial and if so what form it should take and what jurisdiction it takes place in. If there are any nasty skeletons in the closet the powers that be should be very careful about how they bill this trial, or what the precise charges are. Otherwise it could get embarassing, not necessarily because uncomfortable information is released, but also because of the possiblity that a refusal to allow full discovery into some alleged acts of the U.S. and other nations could be seen as a "scared" move taking away the fair trial that is promised. This sort of thing went on on a small scale recently in that Moussaoui trial. Saddam's attorney asks to see some document, is refused, and the spinning begins. Is it a frivoulous request or a scared government going back on its promise of a fair trial? THat is the point I am trying to make! Jesus Christ!

Verges would do exactly what I said, and what you said umpteen posts later in the above quote. The country that bore the brunt of US scorn and ridicule ("freedom" fries?) and was made a laughingstock would probably love to do the same thing to us, and this lawyer would be just the guy to do it.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
The country that bore the brunt of US scorn and ridicule ("freedom" fries?) and was made a laughingstock would probably love to do the same thing to us... As you rightly note with your aside about pommes de terre frite, didn't various U.S. citizens actually end up the laughingstock by displaying a certain cartoon pettiness (not to mention contempt for a nation's general independence) in the run up to war?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
THat is the point I am trying to make! Jesus Christ!

Verges would do exactly what I said, and what you said umpteen posts later in the above quote. The country that bore the brunt of US scorn and ridicule ("freedom" fries?) and was made a laughingstock would probably love to do the same thing to us, and this lawyer would be just the guy to do it.

You make the assumption that a defense attorney is going to do his nations bidding. I mean this in the nicest way: that is completely insane.

Good lord. Criminal defense is not the kind of work you get into if you trend towards blind nationalism. You spend your time fighting the government, not agreeing with it.

If the defense calls for trying to make the U.S. look bad, that's what Verges should do if he's defending Saddam. That's also what I should do, or even John Ashcroft if by some wiggy twist of fate he winds up with the gig. Sometimes you just have to be a professional. Has nothing to do with being French, except there are people that think the whole "Freedom Fries" thing actually bothered the French instead of making them amazed at how stupid and immature American politics has become. It was a one way street, we were jerks, they laughed at us.

Lemmie get this straight. Some of our politicians and citizens acted like two year olds over the French position on the war, so a French defense attorney is going to avenge this slight to his beloved country by volunteering to defend Saddam so that he can have a platform to either make the U.S. look secretive or make them disclose possibly embarassing secrets.

Am I missing anything?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
THat is the point I am trying to make! Jesus Christ!

Verges would do exactly what I said, and what you said umpteen posts later in the above quote. The country that bore the brunt of US scorn and ridicule ("freedom" fries?) and was made a laughingstock would probably love to do the same thing to us, and this lawyer would be just the guy to do it.

Yes he would. But you may be overlooking France's part in the whole thing as well. He'll have to call them out on it as well. same applies to Germany and Russia. Hell the good news for the US is our support was before UN sanctions, the others may have to sweat their support a little more. At least this way, we don't take the heat for pointing fingers at France and the others, one of their own lawyers can do it for us.

[Dorian Gray]

Some of our politicians and citizens acted like two year olds over the French position on the war, so a French defense attorney is going to avenge this slight to his beloved country by volunteering to defend Saddam so that he can have a platform to either make the U.S. look secretive or make them disclose possibly embarassing secrets.

Am I missing anything? Yes. The renaming of the fries was the most widely publicized but the most unimportant affront to the French. Apparently you have been living on a deserted island with Wilson for the past two years, as there were in fact other issues.

You make the assumption that a defense attorney is going to do his nations bidding. I mean this in the nicest way: that is completely insane.

Good lord. Criminal defense is not the kind of work you get into if you trend towards blind nationalism. You spend your time fighting the government, not agreeing with it. I am positive he can get away with a modest amount of French Nationalism if it in no way harms the French, and if he hasn't done it before and doesn't do it after in such a way that is harmful to the French government.

For example, he could selectively point to any or all other nations except France as accomplices to Saddam's atrocities. The prosecution would not point out that France was also an accomplice, because this would be damaging to the prosecution's likely case that Saddam committed them on his own.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Yes. The renaming of the fries was the most widely publicized but the most unimportant affront to the French. Apparently you have been living on a deserted island with Wilson for the past two years, as there were in fact other issues.

I am positive he can get away with a modest amount of French Nationalism if it in no way harms the French, and if he hasn't done it before and doesn't do it after in such a way that is harmful to the French government.

For example, he could selectively point to any or all other nations except France as accomplices to Saddam's atrocities. The prosecution would not point out that France was also an accomplice, because this would be damaging to the prosecution's likely case that Saddam committed them on his own.

He could do all those things. But then there is the prosecution that can call others into question and demand the same sort of answers. If he wants to be a show boater, let him. The only thing he could harm is his client's chances and the reputation of other nations, including his own.

[Aoidoi]

Ok, I'm confused. What's the problem with this guy's hypothetical offer to defend Saddam? Is it really just that he's French?

He doesn't even seem all that interested in it, frankly. He said he would defend him and gave some more information on how one might go about doing that, but nowhere does the article mention that he "wants" to defend Saddam. He "offered his services" but made clear he was speaking hypothetically... perhaps there is some information not in the link? Because otherwise it really looks like the standard lawyerly comments on any big name trial... innocent until proven guilty, possible defence strategy, a call for more information. It's almost to the banality level of "it was a team effort" and thanking God for awards. His words are practically tattoed across defense attorneys' foreheads at this point.

Weird that a call for a fair trial generated this much heated debate. Perhaps a thread reaming Micheal Jackson's lawyers is in order as a followup. Damn their presumption of innocence! Damn those lawyers jumping in to defend famous people! Damn all those lawyers offering legal advice on tv!

:)

[Dorian Gray]

He "offered his services" but made clear he was speaking hypothetically... perhaps there is some information not in the link? Right. Hypothetically. Did you miss that he's a lawyer?

[Dorian Gray]

Okay, Michael Jackson's lawyers are clearly in it for the money and reputation - I mean, had you heard of any of them before now?

And if Saddam is to be presumed innocent for purposes of a trial, doesn't that put the trial at odds with our justification for invading Iraq in the first place? (Well, one of the ones in rotation, anyway.) I mean, he's about as innocent as Jack Ruby, right?

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Right. Hypothetically. Did you miss that he's a lawyer? Okay, so the problem is he's a French lawyer? I'm still not getting your point.

Are you arguing that his "hypothetical" offer is invalid because he's a lawyer, or that lawyers can't believably speak hypothetically? Sorry, I'm still not following your objection.

Okay, Michael Jackson's lawyers are clearly in it for the money and reputation - I mean, had you heard of any of them before now?Wait, so are you objecting to them too, or do you agree with their actions? At least one of them was in a high profile case recently and I think several others are well known, but I haven't been following the case much.

(btw, just saw Chicago for the time yesterday... so what do you think of Richard Gere's character, if you've seen it?)

And if Saddam is to be presumed innocent for purposes of a trial, doesn't that put the trial at odds with our justification for invading Iraq in the first place? (Well, one of the ones in rotation, anyway.) Legal systems and public opinion are not the same. The courts presume every murderer in this country innocent until proven guilty no matter how obvious the crime. The public is not obliged to. Just because everyone "knows" Saddam is guilty is not a reason for the legal system to assume it.

Justification for war is a political action, and I prefer to keep politics and the legal system as seperate as possible. Unpleasant things have been known to happen when only the government's views are protected in court.

I mean, he's about as innocent as Jack Ruby, right?... and Ruby had a trial where a lawyer defended him and Ruby was found guilty. I don't happen to know who his lawyer was or what motivated his defense, but please don't bring R**ser back. ;)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Okay, Michael Jackson's lawyers are clearly in it for the money and reputation - I mean, had you heard of any of them before now?

If you had heard of them then would you say that "See, it's the same guys!! They are just in it for the fame and money."

Reminds me of that scene in "Full Metal Jacket," paraphrased somewhat, the one where the nutzo helicopter gunner is shooting at everyone he sees:

"The ones that run are VC. The ones that stand still are well disciplined VC."

I also recall his answer to "How can you shoot small children?"

"Easy, I just don't lead them so much."



And if Saddam is to be presumed innocent for purposes of a trial, doesn't that put the trial at odds with our justification for invading Iraq in the first place? (Well, one of the ones in rotation, anyway.) I mean, he's about as innocent as Jack Ruby, right?

He's assumed not guilty because the burden of proof is on the person making a claim. If the trial is to "prove" his guilt, well, then starting out with an assumption of guilt kinda makes the trial worthless, doesn't it?

Presumption of innocence is a logical and formal concept. It is not a "conclusion of innocence."

By the above logic all trials are "at odds" with every arrest. The trier of fact must presume innocence in order to be able to say that guilt has been "proven." This doesn't stop the state from contending guilt by putting someone on trial.

[Ion]

On a slightly related instance, what do you think about this Suddenly?

When I was in Canada, I read about a lawyer who put brakes as much as he could to the getting of the DNA of a man accused to be the father of a child and asked to pay alimony to a woman.

When the DNA came -in spite of the lawyer's braking- and the DNA proved that the man was not the father, then the lawyer explained his braking by:

"The thruth didn't matter. What mattered is the law."

Myself, I couldn't stomach a lawyer who thinks that "The truth didn't matter...".

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion


Myself, I couldn't stomach a lawyer who thinks that "The truth didn't matter...".

If you think about it, that's an excellent lawyer. How could the lawyer be 100% sure his client was telling the truth about the paternity issue? Of course he's going to resist testing, because his job is not to seek the "truth" (whatever that may be), but to defend his client to the utmost by all legal means. And so he did.

[Dorian Gray]

Please allow me to edit your post somewhat:
[Iraq is] assumed not [to have WMDs] because the burden of proof is on the [government or political body] making a claim. If the [war] is to "prove" [Iraq has WMDs], well, then starting out with an assumption [that it does] kinda makes the [war] worthless, doesn't it?

You get it yet? The same rules do not apply to Saddam Hussein, or apparently to nearly any other person or country outside the US.

Iraqis should be trying him in their court system or military tribunal.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Ion
On a slightly related instance, what do you think about this Suddenly?

When I was in Canada, I read about a lawyer who put brakes as much as he could to the getting of the DNA of a man accused to be the father of a child and asked to pay alimony to a woman.

When the DNA came -in spite of the lawyer's braking- and the DNA proved that the man was not the father, then the lawyer explained his braking by:

"The thruth didn't matter. What mattered is the law."

Myself, I couldn't stomach a lawyer who thinks that "The truth didn't matter...".

Depends on how you look at things.

The job of a lawyer in the U.S. system of jurisprudence is to represent a client, not to look for the truth. So in that regard the truth really doesn't matter. In fact, favoring the truth over a client's interests would be unethical behavior that would subject an attorney to possible sanctions or malpractice.

However, the lawyer is considered an "officer of the court" and has an absolute duty not to knowingly present false evidence. What knowingly means is a slightly grey area, but most seem to define it as being certain that something is false. A lawyer can't put on a witness he knows (not merely strongly suspects) is lying, nor can he put on evidence he knows not to be genuine.

As far as the case you mention goes, I'm behind the lawyer 100% not only as a matter of strategy as noted bt Jacko but for deeper reasons as well. A DNA test is an invasion of privacy, and when dealing with these kinds of search issues the idea that "if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about" is a dangerous idea indeed. It leads to abuse in that anyone who denies the permission to search is seen as hiding something.

[Ed]

None of this matters. Gomer Pyle could defend him since the fix is in.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Please allow me to edit your post somewhat:[Iraq is] assumed not [to have WMDs] because the burden of proof is on the [government or political body] making a claim. If the [war] is to "prove" [Iraq has WMDs], well, then starting out with an assumption [that it does] kinda makes the [war] worthless, doesn't it?

You get it yet? The same rules do not apply to Saddam Hussein, or apparently to nearly any other person or country outside the US. That makes no sense whatsoever. The purpose of the war was not to "prove" that WMD's existed. The purpose of the war was to remove WMD's.

However, if the war is for some reason viewed as an exercise to prove the existence of WMDs, then in order for the proof to be valid one must assume beforehand for the purposes of that argument that there are no WMD's. The person making the claim must present evidence in order to prove the claim. Thus, unless some hard evidence of WMD's is found, the existence of WMD's is not proven.

Thus, if you look at the war as being to "prove" the existence of WMD's, the existence of WMD's cannot be assumed, or yes, the war would be worthless as far as proving the existence of WMD.

However, the purpose of war and a trial are usually different. A war is the use of force to bring about a desired result. A trial is largely an academic exercise in which a claim is sought to be proved. In criminal trials, this claim is "the defendant is guilty as charged" and the side making the claim must prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unlike a war, a "fair trial" is for the purpose of proving guilt. In any circumstance whatsoever if someone seeks to prove something, she has the burden of presenting evidence.

If there is a "fair trial" to establish Saddam's guilt, then innocence must be assumed. This is just a matter of common sense, as proving what has been assumed is largely a waste of time. Assuming guilt and requiring proof of innocence doesn't prove the person guilty, all it seeks to prove is that the person could not prove innocence. In that case, without the presumption of innocence, a trial cannot be said to prove Saddam's guilt.

Just like a proof of God that starts from an assumption that God exists does not prove anything.


Iraqis should be trying him in their court system or military tribunal.

However it is done, if innocence is not assumed at the outset, then the trial cannot prove guilt.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Ed
None of this matters. Gomer Pyle could defend him since the fix is in.

Yeah, but this touches on a larger point.

A "fair trial" does not mean that the defendant has a significant chance of winning. All it means is that the outcome is not lierally pre-determined.

I think sometimes we mix up "fair" as it pertains to "chance" with "fair" as it pertains to trial.

Say if I have to golf 72 holes against Tiger Woods. Is this fair?

In one sense, we say no, as I am going to lose roughly 100% of the time, unless he hurts himself laughing at me. So we say I should get about 200 shots so that the match is more "fair." This isn't the definition of "fair" we consider when dealing with trials.

Regardless of handicap, we can also say the match will be "fair" as long as he doesn't cheat and the game is otherwise regulation.
This is more the "fair" we are looking for with a trial.

We aren't looking to give Saddam "a sporting chance," rather we want the trial to be "fair" so that is can be seen as legitimate proof of Saddam's guilt.

[Dorian Gray]

That makes no sense whatsoever. The purpose of the war was not to "prove" that WMD's existed. The purpose of the war was to remove WMD's. It was to prove that Iraq was 'guilty' of having WMDs by going in and seizing them. That would be extremely hard to do if they were not there, thus their presence was assumed, i.e., Iraq's guilt was assumed.

Some relevant material:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/14/sprj.nirq.saddam.future/
[Iraqi governing] Council members said if Saddam cannot afford an attorney to represent him, one will be provided for him, and added that the court will not have the final say and that Saddam's attorneys can file an appeal. This would be the 'public defender'.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/temp/151203.shtml
Fundamental principles of fair trial include the presumption of innocence. Any tribunal must be competent, impartial and independent, and pursue suspects solely on the basis of the evidence against them and through a fair process. There should be no statute of limitations and no amnesties, pardons or similar measures for crimes under international law if such measures would prevent a conclusive verdict and full reparations for victims. Suspects should be brought to justice in proceedings that fully respect international law and standards for fair trial at all stages of the proceedings. There should be the right to appeal and no recourse to the death penalty or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. Victims and their families must have effective means to obtain full reparation for the violations they have suffered. This would be your 'presumption of innocence', Suddenly - you are right.

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Dec/12212003/nation_w/121953.asp
When Saddam Hussein has his day in court, he will need a lawyer at his side.
And experts say that startling as it sounds, there will be no shortage of international high-priced, top-shelf defenders, though many in the world believe that representing Saddam would be akin to defending Pol Pot or Hitler, "Papa Doc" or Stalin.
When dealing with Nazi war criminals, Winston Churchill said, firing squads, not tribunals, were the appropriate remedy. But that is not what Saddam will face.
"I am sure there'll be a whole squad of attorneys to defend him," said Kenneth Anderson, a fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University and an expert in international law.
And that's what the U.S. government hopes, Anderson added. Above all, the United States wants the world to see that skilled lawyers oversaw Saddam's interests during a fair and serious trial, he said.

Okay, what all this says is that Saddam is not necessarily a POW right now, that a fair trial is in his best interests, that there is a presumption of innocence, and that there is a line forming of attorneys who wish to represent Saddam, a fact that the US and UN welcome because it adds to the legitimacy of the trial. One other point is that whoever defends Saddam had better publicly condemn him or publicly hedge but lean towards condemning him, because whoever would publicly support Saddam would be totally killed by his enemies.

http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2003/1215hussein-brown.html
Question from THEHANGINGJUDGE: What type of tactics will be used in interrogation of Saddam?

Question from gooogler: Given that he was captured in a war situation, is there any evidence obtained during his capture or interrogation that will not be able to be used at trial?

Ray Brown: The exclusionary rule is a creature of US law and does not automatically apply in international proceedings or under the laws of other nations. The US is obligated not to engage in torture (despite allegations about what happens Bagram). However a new tribunal or court would have to establish its own rules about what evidence could come in at trial. A point made in this interview and in the other quotes is that Saddam's most likely defense would be dissociation from the people actually doing the killing, etc. But this quote shows that information gathered might not necessarily be excluded from presentation, and since this is CourtTV, from global knowledge.

Here is Verges - and an interesting article:
http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3770219&p1=0
Even if the basic agenda of interrogation and trial is agreed, there lies behind it a maze of difficult and often contradictory choices about how to handle the dictator in the coming months and years. How best to extract the most information? And what kind of information: to help prosecute the war today, or help the prosecutors at his trial tomorrow? How deep and how wide should the questioning go? Should it look, for instance, at the history of his secret relations with other governments in the 1980s, including France, Russia, Germany and the United States? Already, potential defense attorneys for Saddam see those embarrassing links as keys to his defense.

The Iraqi government was in power for decades," says French attorney Jacques Verges, who has defended a long list of unsavory clients. ranging from former Gestapo commander Klaus Barbie to the terrorist Carlos the Jackal, and has been asked to defend Saddam's aide Tariq Aziz. "Western countries sold Saddam's weapons to him. Western countries encouraged the war against Iran. Western countries were present in Iraq through their diplomatic delegations. They weren't blind," says Verges. "In the course of a trial, the fundamental element will be 'You treat me like a pariah, but I was your friend. What we did, we did together. I fired the bullet, but you're the one who gave me the gun. You even pointed out the enemy'."

The dossier is so politically fraught, in fact, that authoritative U.S. government sources tell NEWSWEEK that the Central Intelligence Agency is far from happy that it's been given the lead role in the interrogation. The CIA doesn't think Saddam is "going to yield much information," says a U.S. official, adding that the agency had already "been through the wringer" with congressional complaints about inaccurate predictions on Iraqi WMD and the failure to find Osama bin Laden. However the CIA handles Saddam and whatever information he reveals, when bits and pieces of his confessions surface at any future trial, agency officials fear they will suffer some sort of public embarrassment.

Even the rules under which Saddam can be interrogated have been confused by administration statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Saddam is being "accorded the protections" of a prisoner of war, although he's not legally described as such. "The lawyers are carefully looking at the status," he said.

(...)

No matter how Saddam is classified, interrogators are unlikely to use methods that are more obviously coercive, not least of all because the CIA won't want to be publicly embarrassed during a trial. But all the interrogation techniques described in CIA literature, whether noncoercive or coercive, are of questionable legality under the Geneva Conventions: "Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." No wonder Rumsfeld's got his lawyers going over those definitions

Looking over my original post, I stick with my assertion that Verges is an a**hole (along with how dangerous this trial will be for US national security). His defense if he were the attorney seems to be spiritually similar to the woman who sued McDonald's over hot coffee- i.e., basically mitigating or absolving him of his responsibility and accountability in this matter - in that Saddam Hussein killed people when he could have refrained, but Verges would make it look like he had little choice and was only 'following orders'.

However, Suddenly, you are right about fair trial and presumption of innocence, along with the throng of lawyers wishing to represent Saddam being a desirable thing for appearance's sake. Sorry if I emoted too much and thought too little.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
It was to prove that Iraq was 'guilty' of having WMDs by going in and seizing them. That would be extremely hard to do if they were not there, thus their presence was assumed, i.e., Iraq's guilt was assumed.

I think I can clarify what I mean a bit further. When a crime has apparantly been committed, the police have the power to investigate the crime and arrest a suspect if "probable cause" exists that the suspect committed the crime. There is no presumption of innocence at this phase.

The presumption of innocence does not apply untill the state decides to formally prove guilt.

The war was in the first category, like the police serving a search warrant, only with much bigger guns...
One other point is that whoever defends Saddam had better publicly condemn him or publicly hedge but lean towards condemning him, because whoever would publicly support Saddam would be totally killed by his enemies. There is the fun part of being a defense attorney. Only occasionally do you get seriously physically threatened, usually the attacks are more emotional than physical, the friends of victims understandably unconcerned with the finer points of the rule of law and the long-term benefits of the right to counsel feel the need to lash out. Why not at the lawyer?

I've never had seriously armed people after me, but I've wound up having to be pretty nimble to stay out of hillbilly feuds before. All part of the gig.



Looking over my original post, I stick with my assertion that Verges is an a**hole (along with how dangerous this trial will be for US national security). His defense if he were the attorney seems to be spiritually similar to the woman who sued McDonald's over hot coffee- i.e., basically mitigating or absolving him of his responsibility and accountability in this matter - in that Saddam Hussein killed people when he could have refrained, but Verges would make it look like he had little choice and was only 'following orders'. A defense is a defense, and like I said before an attorney that passes up a defense in order to not be an "a**hole" is a lousy attorney and possibly subject to sanctions, so this may be a case of "don't hate the player, hate the game."

On another side note I'd suggest a different example of a frivolous lawsuit than the "McDonalds Coffee Case." That case has become in most circles an example not of a silly lawsuit, but of how the media for whatever reasons has been distorting the crap out of these cases to make them appear frivolous. If you are so inclined I'd suggest looking into that one a bit more. In short, rather than a person getting a little burn, it was a large corporation after repeated warnings and notices that their policy was extremely dangerous and prone to causing serious 3rd degree type burns, continued with the policy and caused the defendant to be burned so bad she required skin grafts. It wasn't your normal hot coffee, and personal responsiblity, being nice, doesn't change the fact that when you ask for "hot coffee" you aren't asking to be set on fire.

However, Suddenly, you are right about fair trial and presumption of innocence, along with the throng of lawyers wishing to represent Saddam being a desirable thing for appearance's sake. Sorry if I emoted too much and thought too little. It's O.K. These things happen when discussing these kinds of issues. I've always thought it takes a bigger (so to speak) person to conceed a point than it takes to be right in the first place...

[Snide]

Originally posted by Ion
On a slightly related instance, what do you think about this Suddenly?

When I was in Canada, I read about a lawyer who put brakes as much as he could to the getting of the DNA of a man accused to be the father of a child and asked to pay alimony to a woman.

When the DNA came -in spite of the lawyer's braking- and the DNA proved that the man was not the father, then the lawyer explained his braking by:

"The thruth didn't matter. What mattered is the law."

Myself, I couldn't stomach a lawyer who thinks that "The truth didn't matter...". Of course the truth matters. But that is taking it way out of context to just call him "a lawyer who thinks the truth didn't matter."

The truth (of what the DNA evidence would show) is preempted by the right to fair, legal discovery, submissions of evidence, etc. This guy may have been crooked, but for all we know, that's all he meant by the statement, and he would be correct.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
See, an attorney is free to choose which defense he will take. A French attorney might just exaggerate the US and UK part of the defense, and downplay the France part.

Not Verges, on the contrary. Verges doesn't like the USA but has a much more important agenda with France. His ethnic and political background have made him systematically defend ennemies of France so that he could attack French colonial, ethnic, and foreign policy.

I consider him an ******* and a publicity *****, but his defending Saddam might be quite entertaining. :D

[Dorian Gray]

Originally posted by Flo


Not Verges, on the contrary. Verges doesn't like the USA but has a much more important agenda with France. His ethnic and political background have made him systematically defend ennemies of France so that he could attack French colonial, ethnic, and foreign policy.

I consider him an ******* and a publicity *****, but his defending Saddam might be quite entertaining. :D
Well, look at that. I have heard three interviews and read a couple dozen or so to form my opinion of Verges, but here is someone who would likely have direct knowledge of the guy. Hmmmm.

The war was in the first category, like the police serving a search warrant, only with much bigger guns... For this analogy to be a valid one, wouldn't the "police" have to leave the "premises" after turning up emptyhanded?

It's O.K. These things happen when discussing these kinds of issues. I've always thought it takes a bigger (so to speak) person to conceed a point than it takes to be right in the first place... So, you admit that I'm better than you....
Kidding!
Anyway, it doesn't matter to me how many warnings McDonald's got, if I spilled coffee on myself I would consider it my fault. If I slipped on an icy entrance at Wal-Mart, I would consider it my fault, or no one's fault. A company or person would have to have either caused me to do something through negligence or intention for me to blame them. For example, if another car hit mine.

So if someone hit me with their car causing me to slip on an icy entrance at Wal-Mart and spill hot McDonald's coffee on myself, I would blame the driver of the car.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray



For this analogy to be a valid one, wouldn't the "police" have to leave the "premises" after turning up emptyhanded?

No, as there was also evidence of (staying with the analogy here) pretty extreme domestic violence (Saddam's horrid regime). The tip that they had drugs (WMD's) was the reason to get the warrant. They had evidence of this other stuff but it wasn't enough to get a warrant for that alone. Maybe it is turning out that they told a few fibs or were maybe just flat wrong when they talked the judge (the people + Congress) into signing a warrant (explicit or implicit support for the invasion) for a drug (WMD's) search. However, that doesn't keep them from doing something about the children with obvious injuries from domestic abuse.

Not a perfect analogy, but close.

So, you admit that I'm better than you....
Kidding!
Anyway, it doesn't matter to me how many warnings McDonald's got, if I spilled coffee on myself I would consider it my fault. If I slipped on an icy entrance at Wal-Mart, I would consider it my fault, or no one's fault. A company or person would have to have either caused me to do something through negligence or intention for me to blame them. For example, if another car hit mine.

So if someone hit me with their car causing me to slip on an icy entrance at Wal-Mart and spill hot McDonald's coffee on myself, I would blame the driver of the car.

Consider this hypothetical.

You order a glass of Gin. The bartender, being of the Virginian Menace, gives you a chilled glass of high-concentrate HCl. Walking back to the table you trip over your own feet and spill the acid all over yourself, suffering serious burns.

Now, it is true that it is your fault you fell, but the injuries can't be said to be your fault as you were of the impression that you were holding Gin. What you deserve for your mis-step is a funny smelling shirt and being made fun of by your freinds. Instead you are on your way to the hospital with serious burns and such. It seems pretty clear the Virginian Menace is responsible for your further injuries.

This is similar to the McDonalds case. The woman ordered a hot coffee. "Hot Coffee" has a usual meaning in the marketplace. She instead was given coffee superheated to such a degree that it would cause serious injuries upon contact with skin. She spilled the coffee to be sure, and she deserved some minor skin irritation and a nice stain. What she got was a massively painful burn requiring surgery to correct. Thus, as above, McDonalds is responsible for her injuries beyond what she would have suffered had she merely spilled what is normally considered "hot coffee" all over herself rather than the superheated coffee they served her.

[Snide]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Thus, as above, McDonalds is responsible for her injuries beyond what she would have suffered had she merely spilled what is normally considered "hot coffee" all over herself rather than the superheated coffee they served her. [/B]Well put. Not to mention that McDonald's was rightly slapped with punitive damages.

[roger]

Originally posted by Suddenly
This is similar to the McDonalds case. The woman ordered a hot coffee. "Hot Coffee" has a usual meaning in the marketplace. She instead was given coffee superheated <snip>[/B]This is true, and I don't have heartburn about the McDonald's case. However, I will point out that proper brewing temperature for coffee is in the 195F range. Espresso is even higher - you are looking for around 203F at the grouphead. McDonald's corporate policy was for serving coffee at 180-190.

Therefore, McDonald's policy was _almost_ consistant with accepted food service standards vis a vis coffee.

Why almost - because optimal brewing temperature is not the same as optimal serving temperature. I didn't get McDonald's coffee very often, but every time I did, I'd forget how hot they serve their coffee and burn my tongue badly enough that it usually hurt for a couple of days.

[Dorian Gray]

You order a glass of Gin. The bartender, being of the Virginian Menace, gives you a chilled glass of high-concentrate HCl. Walking back to the table you trip over your own feet and spill the acid all over yourself, suffering serious burns. Not a good analogy. I ordered gin but got HCl. That's not my fault. If I ordered hot coffee and got hot coffee and spilled it, that would be my fault.

Now I happen to know that the brewing temperature standard for all 4000+ Starbucks in the world is 180-190 degrees F, and also that Starbucks sells vastly more coffee than McDonald's. Fresh coffee is brewed every hour, so ostensibly the coffee is close to the range 180-190 for about 10 minutes of every hour. That means that the coffee is served at that temperature for about 10 minutes of every hour - more often during peak times.

All those Starbucks customers, not to mention the 40,000+ employees, expect the coffee to be at or near that temperature when served - in fact, quite often if someone wants to drink the coffee right away, they ask that a few ice cubes be put in the coffee.

As stated earlier, McDonald's has a similar standard. I would submit that it is up to the customer to discover the qualities of what they are buying, and in this case to ask that ice be put in the coffee and to be extra careful because as it no doubt says on the cup, coffee is hot. I also submit that had the coffee been cooler, the lady would still have burned herself and still looked to blame someone else for her mistake.

And finally, the McDonald's case was decided by a jury. A jury found OJ not guilty, and so on through a bunch of dumb jury decisions, and juries award large amounts of money, and so on through a bunch of examples of juries awarding large sums of money.

What happened, I admit freely, but I still think it was the lady's fault in this case.

[Snide]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Not a good analogy. I ordered gin but got HCl. That's not my fault. If I ordered hot coffee and got hot coffee and spilled it, that would be my fault.

Except that's not exactly what happened, is it? That is, it doesn't tell the whole story.

Now I happen to know that the brewing temperature standard for all 4000+ Starbucks in the world is 180-190 degrees F, and also that Starbucks sells vastly more coffee than McDonald's. Fresh coffee is brewed every hour, so ostensibly the coffee is close to the range 180-190 for about 10 minutes of every hour. That means that the coffee is served at that temperature for about 10 minutes of every hour - more often during peak times.

All those Starbucks customers, not to mention the 40,000+ employees, expect the coffee to be at or near that temperature when served - in fact, quite often if someone wants to drink the coffee right away, they ask that a few ice cubes be put in the coffee.

I'm not prepared to discuss Starbuck's practices, but if they serve coffee at 40-50 degrees over the recommended limit like McDonald's allegedly knowingly did, theyd better be displaying some conspicuous warnings.

I would submit that it is up to the customer to discover the qualities of what they are buying,

I would disagree with such a blanket statement.

I also submit that had the coffee been cooler, the lady would still have burned herself and still looked to blame someone else for her mistake.

Extremely doubtful on the latter point.

And finally, the McDonald's case was decided by a jury. A jury found OJ not guilty, and so on through a bunch of dumb jury decisions, and juries award large amounts of money, and so on through a bunch of examples of juries awarding large sums of money.

The McDonald's case was a civil case. The OJ civil case found OJ likely responsible, and awarded extremely large damages to the victims' families. So maybe the criminal case didn't turn out as you'd hoped. Your use of the OJ case would have made sense had you believed OJ was not guilty, and pointed to the civil jury's large award. You're really exposing yourself now.

I suggest reading this article (http://articles.corporate.findlaw.com/articles/file/00896/006425/title/Subject/topic/Injury%20%20Tort%20Law_Products%20Liability/filename/injurytortlaw_3_29). Granted, it's plaintiff-oriented, but if the allegations are true, the final result of the case does not seem unreasonable, considering the age of the woman, the temperature, the degree of the injury, the fact that McDonald's knew and ignored, how plaintiff's fault was considered, and how the original damages were lowered.