Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, April 3, 1990                   TAG: 9004030072
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL                    PAGE: A7   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: MIAMI                                LENGTH: Medium

DEFENSE: U.S. INVASION VIOLATED NORIEGA'S RIGHTS

The testimony, which included videotapes of invasion violence and the arrest of the deposed Panamanian leader, was aimed at convincing U.S. District Judge William Hoeveler that Noriega should be freed to demonstrate that the government's executive branch is subject to the rule of law.

"Nothing General Noriega is accused of is equivalent to what happened, to the force that was used to bring him to the United States," defense attorney Jon May said. "We have to recognize that the methods we use sometimes make us worse than the people we are trying to arrest."

The prosecution avoided discussions of United States conduct during the Dec. 20 invasion, with Deputy Solicitor General William Bryson calling the issue "legally irrelevant." He said there was ample legal precedent showing the court could maintain jurisdiction over Noriega whether or not the government violated his rights.

For the defense, former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark, who served under presidents Kennedy and Johnson in the 1960s, was put on the stand as a representative of an ad hoc group called the Independent Commission of Inquiry on the U.S. Invasion of Panama.

Clark, who toured Panama in January, is one of the most prominent members of the private group, which also includes author Graham Greene.

Clark was questioned about the number of civilian deaths in Panama, which the Defense Department has put at between 200 and 300.

"I heard of estimates ranging as high as 7,000," Clark told the judge. "I still believe it will be at least a thousand, and probably several thousand - you never will know the absolute number."

But he refused to condemn the use of what the defense said were inhumane weapons used in attacks on civilians, including cluster bombs and artillery.

On cross-examination by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan, Clark acknowledged his stay in Panama was brief and that much of his information was second-hand.

Before Clark's testimony, defense attorney Frank Rubino presented videotape of invasion coverage from the major networks and Panamanian television, much of it aimed at showing the widespread destruction and homelessness caused by the invasion.

Key to the arguments is a 1974 case called United States vs. Toscanino, in which a federal appellate court ruled that behavior "shocking to the conscience" during the arrest of a defendant, even outside the United States, could be grounds for freeing him.

The U.S. attorney's office defended the invasion, calling civilian deaths "an unfortunate, unavoidable byproduct" of any military action in an urban area. Prosecutors also question the findings and integrity of the private investigatory commission.