THE Saddam Trial Thread

[LoungeMachine]

Saddam's day in court arrives

19oct05

AFTER years of dealing out brutal justice, Saddam Hussein faces court on murder charges today, caged in glass.







Saddam will be tried over a village massacre by a panel of his countrymen, and faces death if convicted.
He and seven other defendants will be placed in a bullet-proof cage in the middle of the courtroom.

To their right will be the defence counsel's table and to the left, the prosecution table.

In front of the cage will be the bench, a panel of five judges.

It will be an internationally televised spectacle before a public thrilled to see the fallen dictator called to account for his alleged crimes. It will also be a cathartic moment for viewers in the US, which has two wars against Saddam, losing almost 2000 soldiers in the latest conflict and almost 300 in the first.

For Iraqis, the trial will help put to rest lingering fears that the dictator might rule again.

US and Iraqi officials hope the trial will weaken the insurgency, made up in part of former members of Saddam's Baath party. But it is just as likely to deepen the divide between rival Shiites and Sunnis.

Among the atrocities that prosecutors want Saddam, 68, to answer for are:

GASSING of 5000 people in the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988.

THE 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, in which one million people were killed.

THE 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

THE violent suppression of a Shiite uprising the next year.

But today these charges are expected to be put aside for an otherwise obscure case -- the 1982 killing of 143 residents of the Shiite village of Dujail, allegedly as revenge for an attempt on his life.

It is believed prosecutors calculate they have the best change of a speedy victory in this case. If convicted Saddam could be executed, even before he faces the other charges.

The chief prosecutor, who for security reasons didn't want his name released until the trial started, said the Dujail case hinged largely on documents Saddam wrote and signed that ordered the killings.

He said he would also rely on about 30 witnesses, most of whom will be shielded in the courtroom.

The trial will begin with the court identifying the defendants and reading the charges, then the prosecution will give the opening statement.

Western officials and the prosecutor have suggested that the start of the trial could be anticlimactic, saying it probably will recess quickly.

Saddam and his co-defendants will give their names, the judge will read the charges, and all indications are the trial will be postponed for weeks, possibly pushing the real courtroom fireworks into next year.

His lawyer, Khalil Dulaimi, has said he received documents against his client only last month, not in enough time to prepare.

[LoungeMachine]

Q&A: Judging Saddam Hussein

NPR.org, October 18, 2005 · Saddam Hussein is on trial for crimes alleged to have been committed during his rule in Iraq, which lasted from 1979 to 2003. The trial will not bear any clear resemblance to an American trial, or even to recent international war crimes tribunals.

What is he charged with?

Initially, Saddam Hussein and seven other members of his former government will be charged with crimes relating to a 1982 attack on the town of Dujail, north of Baghdad. It is alleged that the defendants were responsible for the deaths of 143 people, an act of reprisal for the attempted assassination of Saddam as his convoy drove through the mostly Shiite town on July 8, 1982.

The exact charges against Saddam and his co-defendants will not be known until they are read in court. Investigating Judge Raid Juhi told reporters in Baghdad that the charges would focus on the areas of "crimes of premeditated murder, forced expulsion of residents, torture and forced disappearances of individuals."

Iraqi leaders, and their American advisers, selected the low-profile Dujail incident as the tribunal's first case against Saddam because it was relatively easy to put together and, they believe, has a high probability of producing a conviction.

What is the significance of the trial?

The significance is twofold. First, this is a chance to see justice done, or revenge meeted out, for the millions of Iraqis affected directly and indirectly by the terror tactics of Saddam's government.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, this is a chance for Iraq to prove to itself, and others, that it can function as a society under the rule of law, rather than a society under the rule of the gun.

Iraq has a reputation in the Arab world of requiring a strong hand in government to hold society together. A successful trial of Saddam and his former liutenants would be a symbolic victory in efforts to prove otherwise.

Where will the trial be, and under what kind of security?

The trial takes place in a heavily guarded Baghdad courtroom inside the Green Zone, where the Iraqi government and the U.S. embassy are located. The defendants are expected to sit together, perhaps behind protective glass.

The identities of many of those involved in the trial, including prosecutors and witnesses, may be shielded to avoid reprisals from Saddam loyalists.

Who is prosecuting him?

A team of prosecutors from the Iraqi Special Tribunal will argue the case against Saddam. The tribunal was set up by Americans, but is now run by the elected Iraqi government and staffed by Iraqis.

This trial, and ones to follow, are unusual in that they are being run by Iraqis, not outsiders. Most tribunals like this since World War II have been run by occupying powers or international organizations.

Prosecutors, and other tribunal staff members, were trained for the proceedings by members of the International Bar Association, among others.

Who is defending him?

Iraqi lawyer Khalil Dulaimi is Saddam's primary lawyer. All of the seven co-defendants have at least one lawyer representing them. At one point Saddam had 1,500 lawyers on his side. He fired them in August 2005 and is now relying on a much smaller legal team.

Dulaimi is working with London-based lawyer Abdel-Haq Alani. They have sought to delay the start of the trial and have publicly challenged the court's competence. Although the start date of the trial has not been moved, it is believed that the defense will ask for, and receive, a delay after proceedings begin. The adjournment could last 15 days, or longer.

A number of international advisers are also associated with Saddam's defense team. Ramsey Clark, a U.S. attorney general in the 1960s, Mahathir Mohamad, the former prime minister of Malaysia, and Aysha Moammar Ghadafi, a law professor and the daughter of Libyan leader Moammar Ghadafi, are all working with Saddam's primary lawyers.

Saddam's daughter Raghad Saddam Hussein -- who has no legal training -- is overseeing the defense team.

Who is judging him?

A five-judge panel will listen to the evidence and produce a verdict. There is no jury. The chief judge will ask questions.

U.S. officials say the Iraqi judges have received special training from American, British and Australian experts. They may also receive international assistance during the proceedings.

How long is the trial expected to last?

The length of the trial is not set. It is believed that there will be a recess of at least two weeks a day or two after the trial begins.

There is an extensive appeal process available to Saddam and the other defendants if they are convicted.

What access will the news media have to the trial?

Reporters will be able to watch the proceedings in the courtroom, and some photography will be allowed. No plans have been announced for allowing TV coverage in the courtroom. If TV crews are allowed in, it is likely to occur once the proceedings are well under way.

Saddam's lawyers have been talking to the press in the run-up to the trial, as have American officials supporting the current Iraqi government.

Do everyday Iraqis show any interest in the trial?

The trial is of significant interest to two groups of Iraqis. Iraqis who have been touched by the former government's heavy hand are eagerly looking for justice.

Many in the Sunni Arab minority, the group Saddam came from and favored, are fearful that this trial will be the first act of revenge by the Kurds and Shiite majority against their former oppressors.

What happens if he's convicted?

He could face the death penalty, or imprisonment. There is an extensive appeals process. Any execution would take place within 30 days of the final appeal being exhausted.

If he's not convicted?

He would likely be tried on other charges.

Will there be other Saddam trials after this?

Regardless of the verdict, the trial is expected to be the first of about a dozen involving crimes allegedly committed by Saddam and others in the regime during their 23-year rule.

These include the 1988 gassing of up to 5,000 Kurds in Halabja and the bloody 1991 suppression of a Shiite uprising in the south after a U.S.-led coalition drove the Iraqi army out of Kuwait.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[steve]

Saddam is an evil prick who deserves to die.

...and he will try to bring folks from the Reagan/Bush Sr. administration down with him during this trial.
http://www.injusticebusters.com/index.htg/00001/saddam_Rumsfeld.jpg

[LoungeMachine]

"It's all about justifying the US invasion"

swissinfo October 18, 2005 9:46 PM




Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein during pre-trial investigation (Keystone)
Ahead of the trial of Saddam Hussein, which starts on Wednesday, a legal expert from Geneva University explains why he declined to defend the ousted dictator.

Marc Henzelin says the special tribunal is not compatible with international law and is little more than a soap opera.





Saddam and seven other defendants are accused of crimes against humanity in the killing of more than 140 Shi'ite Muslim villagers at Dujail in 1982.

The toppled Iraqi ruler has been in detention since he was captured by United States forces in Iraq in December 2003.

Court proceedings are due to begin at a former presidential palace complex in Baghdad on October 19.

But speculation is rife that that the trial could be adjourned after a day or two of procedural argument.

The interview with Marc Henzelin, who teaches at the centre for international law at Geneva University, was first published in the Swiss SonntagsZeitung newspaper.

SonntagsZeitung: Mrs Hussein asked you to defend her husband in court. Why did you decline the mandate?

Marc Henzelin: I asked for assurances that his defence is a legal not a political matter. I also wanted guarantees that I could talk to other lawyers to coordinate the defence. Thirdly, I would not like to see the trial turn into a circus show.

I visited Baghdad 12 times over the past two years. Investigating magistrates were killed, as well as witnesses and evidence was destroyed during the war.

Under such circumstances a trial risks becoming nothing more than a show. These are the reasons why I said no.




S.Z.: The trial of Saddam has been likened to the Nuremberg tribunals at the end of the Second World War.

M.H.: The two tribunals can only be compared in part. In both cases it is the victors holding court over the losers.

But the difference is that the trials of Nuremberg had a historic goal. They wanted to get as close as possible to the truth about the Nazi crimes.

S.Z.: What about the trial of Saddam Hussein?

M.H.: It is the exact opposite. The trial focuses on a small part of the criminal record of the Iraqi regime, and the Iraqi population feels highly emotional about it.

But it is not possible to perceive the dimensions of the Iraqi rule of terror in the trial.

I think it is all about justifying the United States' invasion of Iraq and to string Saddam Hussein up sooner rather than later without asking too many questions.

S.Z.: The trial is to be broadcast live on television to ensure that the proceedings are fair and transparent.

M.H.: I have 20 years of experience as a criminal defence lawyer. I can assure you that 90 per cent of what is actually going on will not be decided in the courtroom, but during the investigation.

I ask you: What's the point of a trial if the defence has not been able to take part in the investigations? Or if it is not possible to call witnesses to the stand because they were executed or have to fear for their lives?

The trial of Saddam might provide wonderful material for a US television series with a lawyer and a prosecutor crossing swords. But this has got nothing to do with a fair trial.

S.Z.: Why not?

M.H.: Because it is not a regular court deliberating the case. Special tribunals are completely against international law.

S.Z.: In what way?

M.H.: In light of the Geneva and the Hague Conventions [on international law for humanitarian concern and the protection of cultural property in armed conflicts] this court is clearly illegal. Occupying powers have no right to change the legal system of a country. This is precisely what the US has done.

What's more, the judges were not elected but appointed by the occupying powers. They flew in a nephew of Mr Chalabi [Salem Chalabi's uncle Ahmed led the foremost Iraqi opposition movement, the US-backed Iraqi National Congress]. He was a lawyer in London specialising in commercial law. Later he was appointed president of the Iraqi special tribunal.

At the Nuremberg trial the four victorious powers at least assigned their best judges to the task.

Key Facts

- The toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is charged with ordering the deaths of 143 Shi'ite Muslim men following a 1982 assassination attempt against him.
- He might also be tried for genocide and war crimes for the killing of Kurds in the 1980s, as well as the suppression of uprisings by Shi'ites and Kurds in 1991.
- The organisation Human Rights Watch said 200,000 potential opponents were killed during Saddam's regime between 1979 and 2003.

[blueturk]

So when is the bin Laden trial? Oh that's right, we haven't captured him...

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in a cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

[blueturk]

Bush calls Saddam 'the guy who tried to kill my dad'
From John King (CNN)
Friday, September 27, 2002 Posted: 1:48 AM EDT (0548 GMT)

HOUSTON, Texas (CNN) -- President Bush leveled harsh criticism Thursday at the Senate on homeland security issues, but he revised his stump speech to make clear "there are fine senators from both parties who care deeply about our country."

And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

The new language in discussing his fight with the Democrat-controlled Senate over homeland security was a reaction from Bush to sharp complaints from Democrats that he was being overly political in his speeches on issues related to the war on terrorism.

Yet Bush did not back down from the thrust of his critique.

He said, in considering his proposal to create a Department of Homeland Security, the Senate wants "to micromanage the process. They want to tell the executive branch ... who you can hire, who you can fire, who can move there. ... I am not going to accept that."

As an example, Bush said that, because of pressure from labor unions, the legislation being considered in the Senate would prohibit the government from requiring port security personnel to wear portable radiation detectors. He also said the language in the Senate bill would require job assignments based on seniority, "not talent."

"The enemy doesn't care about these rules -- the Senate does, and it bothers me," Bush said.

He neither used the word "Democrats" nor noted that Democrats control the Senate. And after listing his criticisms, Bush said:

"Now don't get me wrong, there are fine senators from both parties who care deeply about our country." But he also urged the Senate to "not allow special interests to drive the process."

Bush praised lawmakers in both parties for working with him on the language of a congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. "This is not a partisan issue," Bush said.

He also said that, if the United Nations fails to adopt a tough resolution, then the "United States will lead a coalition" and confront Iraq and force it to disarm outside of any new U.N. mandate.

Bush was speaking in Houston at a fund-raiser for Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Republican Phil Gramm.

Houston is the adopted hometown of the president's father, former President Bush, and in discussing the threat posed by Saddam, the current president offered his staple list of complaints about Iraq's defiance of the United Nations and his contention that Iraq is working aggressively on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. "This is a man who continually lies," Bush said.

He said the Iraqi leader's "hatred" was largely directed at the United States and added: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

In his speech September 12 to the United Nations on Iraq, Bush mentioned the alleged plot to kill a former U.S. president but did not mention that it was his father. The alleged assassination attempt came when former President Bush visited Kuwait during the Clinton administration. The former president had orchestrated the U.S.-led coalition that pushed the Iraqi army from Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

[frets5150]

You go Saddam. Hopefully CHIMPIE will be next.


http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a83/FRETS5150/a_Dancing.gif

:D

[Dave's Bitch]

does Saddam have a defence?