h&s
18th June 2004, 13:21
This is from a Russian news site;
US investigators have neither sufficient evidence no witnesses to accuse former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of the crimes the "brutal dictator" was supposed to commit.
The British official who did not want to reveal his name, said in the Times interview that none of the captured Iraqi high-ranking officials from the US "list of 55" agrees to testify against the former dictator.
"They are scared", the official said. "Saddam can be prosecuted, but they know that their families will suffer if they testify against him". There may be grounds for such concerns as on June 5 the brother of the man who betrayed Saddam"s sons to Americans and got $30 million as a reward, was killed.
Being short of evidence, US investigators come to understanding that Saddam was not only extremely cruel, but also very smart tyrant.
According to the Times" source, there is no written evidence that Saddam ordered to commit this or that criminal action. The Iraqi President was good at delegating responsibilities, he was giving oral orders, and his subordinates were responsible for paper work.
Hussein is supposed to be prosecuted by special Iraqi Tribunal. He may be accused of executing Shiites on a large scale in 1980-1990s, and of invading Kuwait.
According to AFP, Iran is preparing documents to bring the charges of torturing Iranian prisoners captured during the war of 1980-1988.
Iraqi Minister of Justice said lately that death penalty could be re-introduced in Iraq after Americans pass the authority to Iraqi government, and this penalty could be applied to Hussein
Saddam"s relatives hired 20 lawyers for him, but no layer was able to meet the former Iraqi President. Americans do not reveal the location of the detained Iraqi dictator, and the only thing left for the layers is denouncing Americans for violating Geneva Conventions.
Does anyone else rekon that Saddam will have a convinient "accident" before his trial?
US investigators have neither sufficient evidence no witnesses to accuse former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of the crimes the "brutal dictator" was supposed to commit.
The British official who did not want to reveal his name, said in the Times interview that none of the captured Iraqi high-ranking officials from the US "list of 55" agrees to testify against the former dictator.
"They are scared", the official said. "Saddam can be prosecuted, but they know that their families will suffer if they testify against him". There may be grounds for such concerns as on June 5 the brother of the man who betrayed Saddam"s sons to Americans and got $30 million as a reward, was killed.
Being short of evidence, US investigators come to understanding that Saddam was not only extremely cruel, but also very smart tyrant.
According to the Times" source, there is no written evidence that Saddam ordered to commit this or that criminal action. The Iraqi President was good at delegating responsibilities, he was giving oral orders, and his subordinates were responsible for paper work.
Hussein is supposed to be prosecuted by special Iraqi Tribunal. He may be accused of executing Shiites on a large scale in 1980-1990s, and of invading Kuwait.
According to AFP, Iran is preparing documents to bring the charges of torturing Iranian prisoners captured during the war of 1980-1988.
Iraqi Minister of Justice said lately that death penalty could be re-introduced in Iraq after Americans pass the authority to Iraqi government, and this penalty could be applied to Hussein
Saddam"s relatives hired 20 lawyers for him, but no layer was able to meet the former Iraqi President. Americans do not reveal the location of the detained Iraqi dictator, and the only thing left for the layers is denouncing Americans for violating Geneva Conventions.
Does anyone else rekon that Saddam will have a convinient "accident" before his trial?