Log in

View Full Version : Defiant Saddam pleads not guilty



Intifada
19th October 2005, 13:58
Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has made an outspoken attack on the judicial process, before pleading not guilty at his trial in Baghdad.
He refused to confirm his identity, and questioned the validity of both the trial and the judge.

"Who are you? What does this court want?" Saddam Hussein asked the judge.

Saddam and seven associates pleaded not guilty to charges of ordering the killing of 143 Shia men in 1982. The trial was adjourned until 28 November.

The trial began in an imposing marble building that once served as the National Command Headquarters of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, in the heavily fortified Green Zone in the Iraqi capital.

TV pictures showed Saddam Hussein and his co-defendants being led into pens in the courtroom.

The 68-year-old former leader was wearing a dark suit with an open-necked shirt and carrying a copy of the Koran.

The BBC's John Simpson in the court says he looked thinner and more sallow than in his last public appearance.

As he was being led in by two guards, he gestured with his hand to slow them down.

Asked to confirm his name by chief judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin, a Kurd, Saddam Hussein refused.

"Have you ever been a judge before?" Saddam said.

Amid some verbal sparring with the judge, the former Iraqi leader stated: "I preserve my constitutional rights as the president of Iraq. I do not recognise the body that has authorised you and I don't recognise this aggression.

"What is based on injustice is unjust ... I do not respond to this so-called court, with all due respect."

Saddam Hussein's co-accused are Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, his half-brother who was his intelligence chief; former Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan; Awad Hamed al-Bandar, a former chief judge; and Dujail Baath party officials Abdullah Kadhem Ruaid, Ali Daeem Ali, Mohammed Azawi Ali and Mizher Abdullah Rawed.

Some of the co-accused were equally defiant when questioned by the judge.

More charges?

The trial is being presided over by five judges, with Mr Amin in overall charge. The identities of judges had been kept secret to ensure their safety, but Mr Amin's name was revealed by US officials just before the trial began.

A small number of observers and journalists are in the courtroom, but the public has been excluded.

The case is the first of many expected to be brought against the former Iraqi leader.

It concerns the rounding up and execution of 143 men in Dujail, a Shia village north of Baghdad, following an attempt there on Saddam Hussein's life.

Court officials say the case was chosen because it was the easiest and quickest case to compile.

The charge carries the death penalty, though Saddam Hussein and his associates have the right to appeal if they are found guilty.

Prosecution lawyers are also expected to bring charges concerning the gassing of 5,000 people in the Kurdish village of Halabja in March 1988, and the suppression of a Shia revolt following the first Gulf War.

Concerns

Leading defence lawyer Khalil Dulaimi said before the trial began that he would be looking for an adjournment of at least three months, to allow him more time to prepare the defence case.

Human rights groups have expressed concerns about the trial.

A Human Rights Watch report says the Iraqi Special Tribunal "runs the risk of violating international standards for fair trials".

Amnesty International has sent three delegates to Baghdad to ensure Saddam Hussein receives a fair trial, and to oppose the death penalty if he is found guilty.

Saddam Hussein was captured in 2003 after the American-led invasion of Iraq.

Before the trial opened, two mortars landed in the Green Zone, without causing casualties or damage.


BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4355992.stm)

h&s
19th October 2005, 15:38
I may not like the occupation, or even the way this trial is being run, but you just got to love seeing a twat like Hussein face up to the inevitable.
One day it will happen to all Presidents... :P

Nothing Human Is Alien
19th October 2005, 15:58
I read this earlier.

I was very ammused by his tussle with the guards.

Sir Aunty Christ
19th October 2005, 17:00
Is Iraq better off without Saddam? Certainly.

Will Iraq improve under this puppet regime? Absolutely not.

bolshevik butcher
19th October 2005, 17:04
The biggest farce of all, is that htey wont chrage him with gassing the curds becuase it will implicate rummy for selling him the weapons!

bunk
19th October 2005, 20:39
Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 19 2005, 04:48 PM
The biggest farce of all, is that htey wont chrage him with gassing the curds becuase it will implicate rummy for selling him the weapons!
Then they can't bring up the Iraq-Iran war either. I think there planning to use them if this iincident can not be proved. Then there's a real possibility of the coalition being embaressed on live tv while Saddam describes their former co-operation

bolshevik butcher
19th October 2005, 21:08
ah tha'td be good. However its rpetty obvious he's guilty in this case so we probably wont see it :(.

Urban Guerrilla
19th October 2005, 22:48
He still thinks he is the President of Iraq :che:

JC1
19th October 2005, 23:14
He still thinks he is the President of Iraq

He is legaly speaking. The Goverment in bagdad is an illegal goverment.

This trial is a joke. This is just like slobodan, on most of those charges they dont have any proof he did it. I'm not saying he did not do bad stuff, im just saying that this is no trial.

Amusing Scrotum
19th October 2005, 23:30
Also, been as the occupation is illegal. It means any trial, for it to uphold "the law", must use the Iraqi law which states the President cannot be tried and been as Saddam was illegally removed. He is still the President.

Plus what he is being tried on wasn't illegal by Iraqi law, only International law. Yet this is an Iraqi trial because the US does not recognise the International Court. It is enormously hypocritical and will likely become a complete farce.

GiveITall
20th October 2005, 01:28
It seems kind of ridiculous that they cant trial him for the gassing of the Kurds because of America's involvement. I think that all governments should be held accountable for humans’ rights abuses. The fact that only Saddam is on trial reflects America's crusade for their own economic interests rather then their concern for the liberation of people living under oppressive dictatorships.

I do find it rather humorous and ironic that the judge of Saddam's trial is a Kurd.

Sabocat
20th October 2005, 11:22
It's debatable if he indeed did gas the Kurds or if it was Iran.

I've read that autopsies showed that the type of gas used, was a type of gas he didn't possess.

It's doubtful that the real story will ever be known.

bolshevik butcher
20th October 2005, 11:25
But it doesnt seem to be withing hte irnians strategic interest to gas the kurds.

Sabocat
20th October 2005, 11:31
The Kurds were in the middle ground of battle between the two. At least that's the explanation as I understand it.

The other argument is that the Kurds were fighting on the Irananians side, and thus were enemy combatants and were gassed by Iraq. It's a very murky story.


This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time. [Pelletiere, "A War Crime, or an Act of War?" The New York Times, January 31, 2003]

Link (http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/08_gassing.html)

bunk
20th October 2005, 12:02
If the war is deemed illegal then the old Iraq constitution gives Saddam immunity.

The way i understood Halabjah was that Iraq definetelt did it. In John Simpsons book on Iraq it describes how the US(supporting Saddam at the time) initially tried to cover it up and blame Iran

bolshevik butcher
20th October 2005, 15:47
Thats a great book actaully, if he's not found guily of this it's not like it wont be diffficult to pin something on him.

ComradeOm
20th October 2005, 15:52
It shouldn't be too hard to find something to hang him for. Even when compared to the other leaders of the "free world" Saddam's hands are bloody. Or at least the blood is more visible.

Noah
20th October 2005, 16:46
Yea, that man has got blood on his hands.

He almost killed my dad and he put the bullet to many of my relative's heads. If he isn't hanged i'll go hand that mentally sbasticated mud stain myself.