Saddam's Al Pacino Shtick

|

The Al Pacino of …And Justice For All, that is (no Scent of a Woman "hoo-yahs" need apply). From the start of the trial of the 21st century (October 2005 edition):

Saddam—holding a copy of the Quran he brought with him into the session and held throughout—replied quietly, "I said what I said. I am not guilty," referring to his arguments earlier in the session.

Amin read out the plea, "Innocent."

The confrontation then became physical. When a break was called, Saddam stood, smiling, and asked to step out of the room. When two guards tried to grab his arms to escort him out, he angrily shook them off.

They tried to grab him again, and Saddam struggled to free himself. Saddam and the guards shoved each other and yelled for about a minute.

More here.

All that's missing is a "You're outta order! You're outta order!" moment. And maybe a cameo by a plate-throwing Jeffrey Tambor. And a death sentence. Or at least something tougher than exile in Nigeria.

NEXT: Pillow-Fight on the Right

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A Quran’s a funny thing for a secularist like him to have. Maybe he found Allah in prison.

  2. In his heightened emotional state, he would seem to be another prime candidate to be recruited by Scientology.

  3. He kind of has a point, does anyone really think this is anything other than an institutionalized show trial? I mean he’s guilty of being a ruthless dictator and losing the war. End of story. What more do they — the Kurds and Shiites — want?

    I guess now that it’s adjourned to after Thanksgiving they might come up with some better theatrics. Maybe put a Hannibal Lecter mask on him or something.

  4. Gary,

    There’s a difference between the outcome being a foregone conclusion because the evidence is so strong, and the outcome being a foregone conclusion because the facts and law don’t matter.

  5. “I mean he’s guilty of being a ruthless dictator and losing the war. End of story. What more do they — the Kurds and Shiites — want?”

    That’s a pretty big crime to be guilty of. I think they want to hang him.

  6. It will be interesting to see if Saddam brings out evidence of the chemical weapons we sold in in the 80’s. From what I have heard, he plans to.

  7. If Saddam wants to channel Pacino, nothing beats: “Fook you, you fook’n cockroach”

  8. Bananas

    I thought the evidence is all already submitted in their system. Could be wrong.

    Why didn’t they just lob a grenade into his hidey hole and do us all a favor?

  9. I guess maybe they’re hoping for some kind of national reconciliation by putting the whole Baathist regime on trial by proxy through airing his atrocities in public. The light of day being the best disinfectant and all that.

    So I don’t know, maybe the ex-Baathist Sunni insurgency will see the error of their ways and stop their extra-judicial killings and join into building a new and better Iraq of endless possibilities and dreams of brotherhood… or maybe not.

    That’s probably worth a shot, but if it’s a hanging they’re looking for, which is fine by me, make it a hanging. Just don’t confuse it with a bandaid or try to tell me that’s what it is.

  10. In his heightened emotional state, he would seem to be another prime candidate to be recruited by Scientology.

    I don’t think Scientologists want him unless his financial assets have been unfrozen.

  11. The Mormon’s want him, but they’ll wait until he is dead.

  12. If Saddam wants to channel Pacino, nothing beats: “Fook you, you fook’n cockroach”

    Personally, if I were him I would go with this:

    “What you lookin’ at? You all a bunch of fuckin’ assholes. You know why? You don’t have the guts to be what you wanna be? You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin’ fingers and say, “That’s the bad guy.” So… what that make you? Good? You’re not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don’t have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie. So say good night to the bad guy! Come on. The last time you gonna see a bad guy like this again, let me tell you. Come on. Make way for the bad guy. There’s a bad guy comin’ through! Better get outta his way!”

  13. And put me down for my weekly agreement with joe, at October 19, 2005 11:10 AM.

  14. Bananas,

    Saddam’s defense will be (at least partly) that he was head of state and his actions are therefore immune from prosecution because he was in fact acting as head of state when he made them. There are other things he can claim as alternative defenses of course.

    joe,

    In this case, the facts and law don’t matter. Even if Saddam had simply been an unwitting rube (which he wasn’t) in this administration, they’d still want his head – and for a very good reason – he remains a threat to the new order so long as he is alive. Plenty of disposed dictators have returned to the throne after all, and the best way to keep that from happening is killing Saddam.

  15. The real crime is that they won’t even give the poor bastard a necktie.

  16. “I do not respond to this so-called court, with all due respect to its people, and I retain my constitutional right as the president of Iraq.”

    I would have gone with:

    “This court is not legit! You must acquit!”

  17. For all the latest news on the trial of Saddam Hussein, check out America’s Finest News Source:

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41701

  18. The real crime is that they won’t even give the poor bastard a necktie.

    Trust me. When it’s all said and done they will definitely give him a necktie.

  19. If only Nixon had thought of the sovereign immunity argument.

    Look. Saddam is toast. It’s over for him. At this point he’s just going to try to do as much damage as he can do during his last hurrah.

  20. Maybe Saddam can hire John Yoo and Roberto Gonzales to represent him.

    He was acting under his Commander in Chief authority, after all.

  21. d’oh! Alberto Gonzales.

    *What’s the matter joe, they all look alike? How incredibly telling. I guess we know who The Real Racists are!*

  22. the outcome being a foregone conclusion because the facts and law don’t matter.

    Good to see Joe in here standing up for Saddam. Perhaps after Saddam is aquitted he and OJ can get together to find the real killers who whiped out that village. The are probably the same villans who gased Halabja.

    Its too bad, the guards couldn’t have just tasered his ass about 40 or 50 times.

  23. In the hopes of clearing my family name in the sincere desire to give my, er, murdered children their fair share of the Iraqi way of life, without a blemish on their name and background, I have appeared before this committee, and given it all the cooperation in my power. I consider it a great dishonor to me personally to have to deny that I am a criminal. I wish to have the following noted for the record: That I served my country faithfully and honorably, that I have never been arrested or indicted for any crime whatsoever; that no proof linking me to any criminal conspiracy has ever been made public. I challenge this committee to produce any witness or evidence against me and if they do not I hope they will have the decency to clear my name with the same publicity with which they now have besmirched it.

  24. I’m sorry, John, you must not have realized that I was being sarcastic.

    I mean, really, only some sort of subhuman, sadistic, powermad psychopath would actually argue that a President could ignore the laws of his country and authorize torture, just because he’s the Commander in Chief. I’m glad you’ve changed your mind, and now find this argument repellant.

  25. Yes Joe,

    Some good moral equivelence. I am sure if it were up to you and those on the left Bush would be right up there in the dock with Saddam. And you wonder why no one trusts the Democrats to be in power?

  26. Joe,

    You realize you’ve been reduced to arguing how large the difference in degree is, right?

    Oh, no “moral equivelence!” “Standing up for Saddam?”

    C’mon, fellas, where’s the mushroom clouds? The pro-terror Fifth Column? Shouldn’t I be objectively-pro-something by now?

    LOL, drones.

  27. “And you wonder why no one trusts the Democrats to be in power?”

    48% of the country chose to change horses in mid-stream, and put a Democratic in power in the middle of a war. That was 11 months ago – what do you think it would be if the election were held today? 54%? 60%?

  28. Apparently, as he was being led out, Hussein said something to the effect of, “If I was ten years younger, I’d take a FLAMETHROWER TO THIS PLACE!”

  29. That Pacino flick was not a very good movie, whatever the hell it was called.

  30. That was 11 months ago – what do you think it would be if the election were held today? 54%? 60%?

    Umm, who cares?

  31. joe,

    No, 48% of those who voted did. Most of those didn’t vote for Bush in 2000, so that is hardly changing mid-stream for most of those who voted for Kerry. Your efforts to spin the numbers are entertaining though.

    That was 11 months ago – what do you think it would be if the election were held today? 54%? 60%?

    The Democrats would have to run someone who could beat Bush.

  32. Saddam is right, of course. It is a show trial. The Iraqi government is a US puppet. The verdict is already determined.
    He will be convicted and hung by an unfair system, not unilke the system he presided over. Maybe that’s as close to justice as we can get.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.