Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges
Quote | Reply
The man truly is crazy.

By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A defiant Saddam Hussein rejected charges of war crimes and genocide in a court appearance Thursday, telling a judge "this is all theater, the real criminal is Bush."

Saddam was handcuffed when brought to the court but the shackles were removed for the 30-minute arraignment at Camp Victory, one of his former palaces on the outskirts of Baghdad.

"I am Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq," Saddam twice said, according to a reporter in an official media pool. He was alternately downcast and defiant, becoming more animated in his exchanges with the judge as the hearing went on.

In his first public appearance since he was captured seven months ago, Saddam refused to sign a list of charges against him unless a lawyer was present, and he questioned the court's jurisdiction.

"Please allow me not to sign until the lawyers are present. ... Anyhow, when you take a procedure to bring me here again, present me with all these papers with the presence of lawyers. Why would you behave in a manner that we might call hasty later on?" he said.

Saddam appeared most agitated when the subject came to the invasion of Kuwait _ one of the broad charges against him.

"The armed forces went to Kuwait," Saddam said. "Is it possible to raise accusations against an official figure and this figure be treated apart from the official guarantees stipulated by the constitution and the law? Where is this law upon which you are conducting investigations?"

He also said the invasion was carried out "for the Iraqi people." When he referred to the Kuwaitis as "dogs," the judge admonished him for using such language in a court of law.

The seven broad charges against Saddam are the killing of religious figures in 1974; gassing of Kurds in Halabja in 1988; killing the Kurdish Barzani clan in 1983; killing members of political parties in the last 30 years; the 1986-88 "Anfal" campaign of displacing Kurds; the suppression of the 1991 uprisings by Kurds and Shiites; and the 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

Specific charges will be filed later, Iraqi officials said. Those charges were expected to include war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. A formal indictment with specific charges is expected later, said Salem Chalabi, director of the Iraqi Special Tribunal. The trial is not expected until 2005.

Saddam wore a charcoal-colored, pinstriped jacket with a white shirt open at the collar, and black trousers and shoes. He often stroked his trimmed, gray-and-black beard and he had heavy bags under his eyes. He sat calmly, gesturing with his hands while addressing the court and sometimes taking notes on a piece of yellow paper.

His appearance was in sharp contrast to televised images of him after his December capture, when he seemed heavier, his beard was longer and his hair was gray and unkempt.

The 67-year-old Saddam was seated in front of the judge, with a wooden bar separating the two. The tape showed the judge from behind and from the side.

When asked if he could afford a lawyer, Saddam retorted: "The Americans say I have millions hidden in Switzerland. How can I not have the money to pay for one?"

Saddam was flown by helicopter from an undisclosed location and driven to a courtroom on a U.S. base, the report said. He was led from an armored bus escorted by two Iraqi prison guards and ushered through a door guarded by six more Iraqi policemen. The bus was escorted by four Humvees and an ambulance.

Strict pool arrangements severely limited media access to the hearing. The pool video, which was cleared by the U.S. military, was initially broadcast without sound, but some parts of the tape were later released with sound.

At one point, according to a commentary by Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera, Saddam asked the judge whether he would be tried under laws from the Saddam era or "under which law?"

Saddam told the court that the U.S. and multinational troops in Iraq were not "coalition troops but invasion troops," according to Al-Jazeera.

Saddam insisted on the judge referring to him as the "president of the Republic of Iraq" because "this would be respecting the will of the people," according to Al-Jazeera.

Saddam and 11 of his top lieutenants were transferred to Iraqi custody Wednesday. They no longer are prisoners of war but are still locked up, with U.S. forces as their jailers.

"The next legal step would be that the investigations start proper with investigative judges and investigators beginning the process of gathering evidence," Chalabi said. "Down the line, there will be an indictment, if there is enough evidence _ obviously, and a timetable starts with respect to a trial date."

"They were surprised that they were told they're in Iraqi custody," Chalabi told AP Radio.

President Ghazi al-Yawer told an Arab newspaper that Iraq's new government has decided to reinstate the death penalty, which was suspended during the U.S. occupation.

U.S. and Iraqi officials hope the trial will lay bare the atrocities of Saddam's regime and help push the country toward normalcy after years of tyranny, the U.S.-led invasion and the insurgency that blossomed in its aftermath.

But the trial could have the opposite effect, possibly widening the chasm among Iraq's disparate groups _ Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis.

"It's going to be the trial of the century," National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie told Associated Press Television News. "Everybody is going to watch this trial, and we are going to demonstrate to the outside world that we in the new Iraq are going to be an example of what the new Iraq is all about."

Wednesday's transfer of legal custody took place in secret. Chalabi said the defendants were brought one-by-one into a room at an undisclosed location and informed of the change in their status to criminal suspects. They were told they will appear in court within 24 hours to hear charges, he said.

According to Chalabi, Saddam said, "Good morning," as he entered the room, listened to the official explanation, and was told he could respond to complaints Thursday. He then was hustled away.

"Some of them looked very worried," Chalabi said of the other defendants, who include former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, the regime's best-known spokesman in the West; Ali Hasan al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali"; and former Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan.

The initial proceedings are taking place under a blanket of secrecy because of fears that insurgents, many of them Saddam supporters, might exact revenge on participants.

Issam Ghazawi, a member of Saddam's defense team, said he received threats in a telephone call Wednesday from someone claiming to be a minister of justice, who promised that anyone trying to defend Saddam would be "chopped to pieces."

U.S. officials had hoped to delay proceedings against Saddam until the Iraqis set up a special court and trained a legal team. But Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, whose government regained sovereignty Monday, insisted publicly on taking legal custody of Saddam quickly. The Americans agreed on condition they keep him under U.S. lock and key.

Trying Saddam and top regime figures presents a major challenge to the Iraqis and their American backers.

Allawi's government is due to leave office after January elections, and a second national ballot will be held by December 2005. That raises the possibility that national policy on the prosecution of Saddam and his backers could change depending on the makeup of the government.

Most of Iraq's 25 million people were overjoyed when Saddam's regime collapsed, and many are looking forward to the day he will be punished.

"Everyone all over the world agrees that Saddam Hussein should be put on trial in front of the Iraqi people," Baghdad resident Ahmad al-Lami said.

However, the turmoil of the past 14 months has led to a longing for the stability and order of the ousted dictatorship, at least among Sunni Arab Muslims who now feel threatened by the possibility of a Shiite-dominated government.

Nostalgia for Saddam _ a Sunni _ is strongest in Sunni-dominated parts of the country most heavily involved in the insurgency.

"Saddam Hussein was a national hero and better than the traitors in the new government," a resident of Saddam's hometown of Tikrit told APTN, refusing to give his name.

In Fallujah, an insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad, resident Ammar Mohammed suggested the Americans should be put on trial first because they "killed thousands of Iraqis in one year of occupation."
Quote Reply
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Are you prejudging? You can't judge him, that is a doffrent culture and who are you to say what is right or wrong? I'm sick of people jumping to guilty with out a fair trial. What if he is innocent?

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [Mr. Tibbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I just think he's crazy...guilty...innocent...He thinks he's still President of Iraq.
Quote Reply
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Don't judge how someone in another culture thinks! you never know he mght be right you might be crazy. Stupid white man.

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
GB's administration is going to kiss Saddam's behind and offer him everything for any little morsel of information on WMD's. If he only handed one over, just tiny one, doesn't matter which, he'd get an opportunity to change his name, retire on a ranch in Texas, have a high-paying consulting job with Halliburton, and vacation in Aspen every year, all on American taxpayer dollars. That guy is going to get off.
Quote Reply
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [tritnow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Riiiiiiight.


-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins
Quote Reply
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [tritnow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes, he could change his name to Sam Houston, and get himself a ranch out by El Paso.

And he is most certainly not crazy. That is such a pointlessly superficial and reductive analysis - substitute for real analysis. Even the CIA profiles did not describe him as crazy or insane. He is brutally sane, but a sociopath, which is a completely different thing. He maintained power in a brutal and unyielding fashion, but that certainly doesn't make him insane, just as embezzling millions as a CEO, or dropping a firestorm of bombs on Dresden doesn't make a CEO or general insane or crazy.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"
Quote Reply
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If I was Saddam, I'd want to go to trial. He's got inside knowledge of things we can't possibly imagine. Who knows what skeletons lie in which closets? We know there's disputing evidence over what happened in '88 in Halabja, for example. We know that April Glaspie/Bush I sent conflicting messages to Iraq in 1991 about what sort of reaction we'd have to an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. We know Saddam was an ally during the 1980's, and a lot of the players then (Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc) are still players now. Who knows what kind of deals Rummie and Dick made with Saddam back then....Saddam knows though...
Quote Reply
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [Peter826] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I forget, was the war legal? Was it approved by the UN? I don't think so. I think this is the reason we handed him over to the Iraqi's, hoping that they would convict him on crimes against the Iraqi's. No way we could charge him with anything. Even the war crimes tribunal in the Hague couldn't prosecute him. Like, I said, he'll get off.
Quote Reply
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [tritnow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Why did the UN need to approve the war in order to make it legal?

Saddam is most likely going to be tried by his own people...not the UN.

Do you know what you're talking about?
Quote Reply
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The UN needed to approve the war to make it legal because the US supposedly went in to enforce UN sanctions. In fact, the UN did not pass resolutions authorizing the US to invade Iraq to enforce those sanctions. what Saddam and many Arab nations have said is that the war is illegal and illegitimate for exactly these specific reasons.

Not "most likely" but most definitely he's going to be tried by the Iraqi's. The UN is not involved in Iraq nor is the UN fighting a war in Iraq. Besides, the role of the UN is not to fight wars. Plus the UN does not try/convict "war criminals".

The organization that tries and convicts war criminals is the War Tribunal in the Hague, Netherlands.

Obviously, since Saddam is not being tried in the Hague he has not been charged with war crimes. If the administration thought there was a good chance of him getting convicted in the Hague they would have sent him there just like they sent some of the criminals from the Yugoslavia (who were really fighting a war). Obviously the administration has decided that the best way to get any kind of conviction is to hope the Iraqi's themselves can convict Saddam of crimes against his people. Iraq has not declared war against the US.
Quote Reply
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [tritnow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The US went to war to protect itself in addition to enforcing UN resolution 1441. International law confirms and allows for a nations right to self defense. The U.S government had identified Iraq as an imminent threat justifying its use of military action.

The US does not need UN permission to use its armed forces. No treaty, including the UN charter, can redistribute this authority or veto over U.S action. The authority, under our Constitution, is vested in the President.

In fact, America did have UN permission to wage war against Iraq through previous authorized UN resolutions on Iraq and Kuwait. These resolutions were passed since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
Last edited by: Brian286: Jul 1, 04 13:12
Quote Reply
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Where do you get this information? Sort of like the copy/paste of the orginal post on this thread?

The UN refused to pass resolutions to enforce the sanctions. The US did not have permission to wage war against Iraq at least not from the UN, whose sanctions we were supposedly enforcing.

The US does have its own sovereign right and authority to protect itself. However, the imminent threat BS of WMD's has been revealed as a lie and was only used as a point of argument in the enforcement of the sanctions - not as a stand alone point.

In essence the Arab countries and Saddam are right. This was an illegal war. The UN did not approve it and the US was never under any imminent threat.

Your argument is all mixed up and incoherent.
Quote Reply
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [tritnow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Make it legal under what law? I am not aware of any US law that says we need to wait for UN approval? As for Saddam, we will let the Iraqi's hold the trial because that makes the most sense. It makes sense from a political position because they are a soveriegn nation who can handle it. It would be a bad move for the US to push to take the trial out of Iraq since the whole point is to give back the country.

As for getting off, your nuts. The US will not allow that to happen for one, second there have already been threats against those who are defending him. The only thing keeping him alive is that he is in US custody. If we handed him over he would be dead with in a month if not out of pure hate then by those who want the power for themselves. They have waited too long for this and they are not going to let him waltz back into power.
Quote Reply
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The U.S government had identified Iraq as an imminent threat justifying its use of military action. Imminent threat? You still sticking with that story?

The authority, under our Constitution, is vested in the President. BZZZZZZT! The authority is vested with Congress.

The US does not need UN permission to use its armed forces. That part you have right.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [tritnow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Let me go slower for you.

"The UN refused to pass resolutions to enforce the sanctions. The US did not have permission to wage war against Iraq at least not from the UN, whose sanctions we were supposedly enforcing."

UN Resolution 678, passed 11/29/90:

Authorizes "member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait...to use all necessary means" to (1) implement Security Council Resolution 660 and other resolutions calling for the end of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and (2) "restore international peace and security in the area."

U.S.-led forces in the Persian Gulf War accomplished the first objective swiftly, but the second has never been achieved. U.S. and allied air forces have been in nearly constant conflict with Iraqi forces since Iraq's aggression against Kuwait was repelled. Resolution 678 has not been rescinded or nullified by succeeding resolutions. Its authorization of the use of force against and in Iraq remains in effect. Further, Iraq's refusal to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to fulfill their mandate is a violation of its 1991 cease-fire agreement--a clear indication that peace has never been achieved.

"The US does have its own sovereign right and authority to protect itself."

Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has stated publicly his intention to engage in a war against the West, particularly Israel and the United States. He seeks to develop biological, chemical, and nuclear WMD and the ability to deploy them against his enemies. The U.S. government has identified Iraq as an imminent threat, justifying military action in anticipation of an attack.



You have no argument and don't know what you're talking about.
Quote Reply
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You're starting to make me laugh.

UN Resolution 678 was the UN approval to remove the Iraqi's from Kuwait. Not as the authority to invade Iraq in the year 2003. Also, Iraq let weapon's inspeactors in many times and the last weapons inspectors that were there declared that they could not find any more WMD's - but the administration refused to believe this and sought additional UN resolutions to authorize the use of force to invade. The UN voted down all these resolutions. What decade are you living in?
Quote Reply
Post deleted by Casey [ In reply to ]
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [tritnow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
And I'm growing tired of trying to break things down for you further.

You said:

"I forget, was the war legal? Was it approved by the UN? I don't think so."

I refuted and displayed fact proving your statement false. You now think you're an expert on interpreting UN resolution expiration dates and which resolution is or isn't applicable.

Now you think UN inspectors were looking for WMD's. We all knew Iraq had WMD's. That is a known fact. There is no evidence stating that he got rid of the WMD's. He stalled inspections, kicked inspectors out of the country, and had evidence of creating more. All he had to do was show the proof. He didn't. We attacked.

The United States does not allow the UN to dictate our foreign policy.
Quote Reply
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [casey] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thank god the U.S. government didn't consult you on the matter.
Quote Reply
Post deleted by Casey [ In reply to ]
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [casey] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The war was most certainly justified and we now have handed over a brutal dictactor to the new Iraqi govt' to be tried for his crimes against its citizens.
Quote Reply
Post deleted by Casey [ In reply to ]
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"We all knew Iraq had WMD's"

Quick, call the NSA, the DOD and NASA because they would sure like to hear from you right away. Any help you can give them in locating "football sized storage areas of WMD's (Powell)" would really be helpful. Send them the satellite pictures you've been saving for just the right time.

Have you yet patented the aluminum foil cycling helmet that keeps the government from reading our minds?
Quote Reply
Re: OT - Defiant Saddam Rejects War Crimes Charges [tritnow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In response to

The UN needed to approve the war to make it legal

Funny man! I suppose we do not live in a free independent country becouse the UN can supercede our laws if necessary. So if you disagreee with congress and the Pres. and for the hell of it the Supreme court(all branches of gov........and I am not talking about the Iraq situation but law in general) you can appeal to the UN...............Funny man
Quote Reply

Prev Next