Saddam Defiant In Court

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-07-01 06:53pm

CBC

CBC wrote:BAGHDAD - A quarter century of absolute power had left its mark. When asked his named in a Baghdad courtroom he said, "Saddam Hussein Al-Majeed, President of the Republic of Iraq."

A defendant who still calls himself the president.

Saddam Hussein was thinner but relaxed, rested and defiant as he stood before an Iraqi judge to be arraigned on seven charges.

"This is theatre," he said, "the real criminal is [U.S. President George W.] Bush.

Saddam hear the charges against him including war crimes and crimes against humanity read out loud. He listened, he scribbled notes and then reacted with disdain.

He clashed with the judge over the charge of war crimes for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. "The occupation of Kuwait, the 7th charge, regrettably that this has been aroused by an Iraqi ... a law attempts to try Saddam Hussein because he stood in the face of Kuwaitis who said that they were going to reduce Iraqi ladies to sell themselves for 10 dinars in the street. And we fought a battle for the honour of the Iraqis and to defend them and revive the historic rights and fight those those dogs (Kuwaitis)."

The judge asked him to sign the court documents. He refused. He demanded the presence of his lawyer. He looked like a man still very sure of himself.

"Please allow me not to sign until the lawyers are present," said Saddam, sitting stroking his beard.

After 30 minutes Saddam's first day as a defendant was over. Eleven former colleagues then followed him into the court to hear the charges against them.

Included among the 11 was former deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz, who was the regime's best-known spokesman in the West, as well as Ali Hasan al-Majid, known as 'Chemical Ali.'

Aziz denied any personal involvement in any of the regime's crimes.

In Baghdad, in the hours before the hearing. security was more visible. Iraqi National Guard forces searched cars and set up new roadblocks fearing bombs or attempts to disrupt proceedings.

A senior official of the new government said the Saddam hearing would have an important psychological impact on insurgents. "I think this trial will slow down the attacks and the insurgency, basically because Saddam's loyalists will lose hope," said Iraq's deputy foreign minister.

"Second, the message of Prime Minister Dr. Iyad Allawi to the Baathists to join the new Iraq, to get jobs rather than join the terrorists, had (an) effect."

Saddam is a Sunni Muslim. In a Sunni section of the capital his first legal appearance divided opinion and stoked emotion.

"I'm so angry," said Ali Shashim, who sells kebabs. "The trial isn't important to me What concerns me is finding a real job. There aren't many around and I have no money."

Close friends of Mozim Karbal were killed or disappeared under the old regime. "Saddam should be killed," he said. "He should be pulled apart limb by limb and dragged through the streets. He should die the way he tortured people."

In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McLellan said the day's proceedings show that Iraq is staring to take control of its own destiny.

"What is important is that Saddam Hussein and his band of oppressors are facing justice from the Iraqi people, in an Iraqi court and today this is case number one. The people of Iraq versus Saddam Hussein. Justice is being served to Saddam Hussein and his brutal band of oppressors by the Iraqi people in an Iraqi court."

A long legal struggle has begun. Saddam Hussein has served notice that he will not go quietly. He will continue to play the role of a defiant former dictator, seeking to blame others for his predicament.

I understand that Saddam needs to be tried for his crimes. But I have a hard time trusting an Iraqi court to administer a fair trial for him. Perhaps it would be better to try him at the ICC. The Iraqi legal system doesn't inspire much confidence, I suspect the verdict will already be known before the trial even begins.

Macross · Post by **Macross** » 2004-07-02 02:10am

He may not get a fair trial in Iraq, but it would be difficult to convict him anywhere else. His defense is that he is victim of the aggressive US, which many believe. He has strong support outside of Iraq, and the chances for a mis-trial are very high.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-02 02:45am

I think you overestimate the hatred of the US.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-07-02 02:56am

well some bad/embarrassing things could come out if he has an american lawer in an american court

imagine what cockren and shrek would do to the us case...

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-07-02 03:10am

They're never let him have a 'real' trial, with witnesses and shit. Cuase there is a slight, slim chance he might get off, and a much more real chance very, very 'politically inconvinent' (i.e criminal) actions of the US will be made widly known.

I'm sure they'll have him have an accident.

And probably show his wax-covered corpse on television in embarising ways for no logical reason other than to humiliate his family, then make up some crap about why they had to.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-07-02 03:17am

What the hell? I thought he was being tried for the torture and murder that went on while he was in power. Can a case seriously be made for his innocence?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-02 03:33am

Frankly, no.

Macross · Post by **Macross** » 2004-07-02 03:54am

Lazy Raptor wrote:What the hell? I thought he was being tried for the torture and murder that went on while he was in power. Can a case seriously be made for his innocence?

No, but a case can be made that he was unjustly removed from power, and the war was unlawful. That will be his defense, and unfortunatly, he may be able to pull that off.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-07-02 04:19am

Macross wrote:No, but a case can be made that he was unjustly removed from power, and the war was unlawful. That will be his defense, and unfortunatly, he may be able to pull that off.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-07-02 05:32am

Im sure Saddam would love to make politics of his trial but it wont work. He will get a fair trial and the he will be executed, there really is no need for the prosecutors to cheat.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-07-02 07:09am

CJvR wrote:Im sure Saddam would love to make politics of his trial but it wont work. He will get a fair trial and the he will be executed, there really is no need for the prosecutors to cheat.

Has it been established that the prosecuters will seek the death penalty yet? I hadn't heard if they were going to or not. And that's the kind of thing that you would want to figure out before the trial begins. Even though I believe that he was unjustly removed from power, I think that he should spend the rest of his life at Garib prison, even if they keep it open just for him. That way he can experiance everything that he forced others to go through.

I don't see how they can possibly expect to keep politics out of his trial. Look at Milsovic's trial at the ICC, where Saddam should be tried. His trial's been one big political mess.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-07-02 07:22am

If it's going to be a fair process, they'll have to actually prove he's guilty.
And from what I read, it seems Saddam was very good at not making his hands too dirty himself.

They might have to wade through countless tons of evidence to get something useful out of it.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-07-02 10:13am

Augustus wrote: [snip]

And that has exactly what to do with this fucking thread you shithead?

Post by **NecronLord** » 2004-07-02 10:55am

I wonder if he'll try and have himself called as a witness and spread as much damaging info (true otherwise) about say, Rumsfeld as he can.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-07-02 11:09am

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Augustus wrote: [snip]
And that has exactly what to do with this fucking thread you shithead?

F911 is an on film argument stating that the war was unjust. In the context of the agrument that perhaps Saddam can be aquitted on the technicality thet the war to remove him was unjust it is relevant, albeit somewhat toubge in cheek. Lighten the fuck up.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-07-02 12:06pm

First of all.
To Dahak. That implies he is innocent until proven guilty, not a universal legal premise, and not one in use in the surounding neighbor states. Iraqi law may as of now, (the only time relavant to the present court proceedings) have the guilty until proven innocent premise. This and many other things are as of yet unclear, as Iraq has only been a soveriegn nation for, what 2 or 3 days since the turnover?

Second, to all, what possible relavance to what he did in office have to do with the way he was removed? The country of Iraq doesn't have the legal precedant of Miranda VS the state of (blah blah), or the exclusionary rule of evidence. (All evidence obtained unlawfully cannot be used against the defendant, as a deterent to police or prosecutorial misconduct. This is called "the fruit of the poisoned tree." Meaning the logic tree of cause and effect.)
How the evidence was obtained, how he was revomed, and heather or not he was informed of his "rights" under Iraqi law is irrelavant ot his guilt or innocence.
More to the point, at the time of ALL of this there was not yet any Iraqi law presently recognised.
The premise of ex pose facto, (a law passed after the act criminalised by said law) is not forbidden by Iraqi law as of yet either, so all the Iraqi government has to do is pass the apropriate law, and he is retroactively guilty.
The 9/11 bit is pretty funny though! Just as relavant to his guilt or innocence as anything ELSE Saddam has spouted to date.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2004-07-02 12:21pm

Seeing a guy I know is guilty get railroaded doesn't bother me. The last thing we need to do is move him to some UN-approved international court where some bumbler from Lichtenstein will set him loose on a technicality. Nobody can even pretend to claim that they think there's a chance in hell of Saddam being innocent, so really, fuck him.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-07-02 01:55pm

More pictures from the trial, indicating some of the exchanges between Saddam and the Judge:

http://bigmixup.com/rockpapersaddam/

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-07-02 02:11pm

ROFL!

Judge wrote: Two papers are better. Two papers cover the rock TWICE. That fucking rock ain't going NOWHERE

Bertie Wooster · Post by **Bertie Wooster** » 2004-07-02 05:29pm

The cynical side of me says that witness testimonies of the evils of Saddam Hussein will be chronologically convenient for and important to the Bush campaign.

Does anyone have any idea how long Saddam's trial will be?

Macross · Post by **Macross** » 2004-07-02 07:29pm

Bertie Wooster wrote:The cynical side of me says that witness testimonies of the evils of Saddam Hussein will be chronologically convenient for and important to the Bush campaign.

Does anyone have any idea how long Saddam's trial will be?

The trial is supposed to begin in January, well after the election.