Saddam on Trial U.S. v. Iraqi Law

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Jan 9, 2004
3,340
131
0
43
#1
What differences can you spot between the two systems of justice?

____________________________________________________

Saddam in court: 'The real criminal is Bush'
Thursday, July 1, 2004 Posted: 12:32 PM EDT (1632 GMT)


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein stepped into an Iraqi court on Thursday and entered a new chapter in Iraq's history, hearing preliminary charges against him that included the gassing of Kurds and the invasion of Kuwait.

Appearing before a judge in a 30-minute hearing, Saddam looked thin and downcast, but became animated and at times combative as proceedings unfolded.

When he was ushered into the court, the judge asked him his name and twice he said, "I am Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq."

He listened to seven preliminary charges outlined in his arrest warrant -- the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, suppression of the Kurdish and Shiite uprising in 1991, political killings, religious killings, the killing of a big Kurdish family, and the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja.

These are not the formal charges against Saddam, which will be worked out and detailed in an indictment over the next few months, beginning the investigative phase of the case.

The spectacle, meanwhile, was surprising for a generation of Iraqis who came to fear the sight of him.

Saddam had bags under his eyes and looked gaunt. He had a neatly trimmed beard and was thinner than he appeared in December, when he was seized in a hideout near Tikrit.

When the judge asked whether he understood his rights and could afford counsel, Saddam pointed his finger at and asked whose jurisdiction the court was under.

Saddam challenged the judge on the invasion of Kuwait, saying: "How could you say that? I did that for the Iraqi people ... how could you defend these dogs," he said, referring to the Kuwaitis.

The judge reprimanded him for his language.

Saddam said Kuwait had been trying to bring down the price of oil and turn Iraqis into paupers and Iraqi women into prostitutes.

"This is all a theater, the real criminal is Bush," Saddam said, during one outburst, referring to the U.S. president.

He also referred to the accusation of gassing Kurds at Halabja.

"I heard about that on the television reports, saying it happened during the rule of President Saddam Hussein," he told the judge.

In March 1988, Iraqi warplanes bombed the northern Iraqi town of Halabja. More than 5,000 people reportedly were killed in the attack, which used multiple chemical agents, according to international scientists.

In another exchange, the former dictator said no one had the authority to strip him of his title of president if he is being accused of committing the crimes while he was in office. "I'm elected by the people of Iraq. The occupation cannot take that right away from me," he said.

In court, each time Saddam wanted to speak, however, he was respectful, saying "please" and making a hand gesture as well to indicate that.

Saddam refused to sign court documents that said he understood what took place in court, noting that he wanted his attorney present.

Saddam did not have legal representation at the hearing.

Tim Hughes, a member of Saddam's legal team, told CNN in an interview from Jordan that he objected to the proceeding because Saddam was denied legal advice beforehand.

Hughes said the defense will be pursuing a change of venue because "any trial in Baghdad will not be fair." Under Iraqi law Saddam remains president of Iraq because he was overthrown in an illegal invasion, Hughes said. Therefore, he said, Saddam still has immunity from prosecution.

Saddam arrived for the hearing in an armored bus, as part of a convoy that included four Humvees and a military ambulance.

He wore a gray suit jacket, a starched white shirt, a belt, brown trousers, highly polished black shoes and brown socks.

He was helped into a chair by the guards and leaned his arm against the chair and started an interaction with the judge.

After the proceeding, Saddam was escorted to a new place of detention, still under U.S. military guard.

In an interview with CNN, Feisal al-Istrabadi, the principal drafter of the transitional administrative law, was asked about the availability of war crime evidence if Saddam didn't sign documents approving the actions he is suspected of spearheading.

"The crimes of the regimes were not few and were not small in scale. You are talking about mass public executions. For instance in 1969 there were mass public executions on TV of 13 men.

"These were not hidden crimes, they were in open, under the principles of command responsibility, whether you have a document signed by Saddam or not, under the principles of command, the crimes were so ubiquitous, that I think it would be virtually impossible for Saddam to argue that he did not know."

The same court procedure took place Thursday for 11 high-profile members of Saddam's regime, who also face charges. They include former deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz, who often defended the regime internationally, and Ali Hassan al-Majid, dubbed "Chemical Ali" for his alleged role in the use of chemical weapons on Iraqi civilians.

Two of Saddam's half-brothers are also in the group, along with his vice president, defense minister and presidential secretary.

None of the detainees had legal counsel in Thursday's proceedings.

Saddam and the others were transferred to Iraqi legal custody on Wednesday, but they remain in U.S. military hands.

Iraq's interim president, Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawar, told CNN earlier in the day that the trial will be fair.

"All Iraqis can listen and hear and understand that he will be tried according to the law," al-Yawar said. "There will be no political aspect to his trial."

He said the trial "means that a very dark era has been gone forever."

-- CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour contributed to this report.
 
Apr 6, 2004
674
2
0
#2
Don't like the guy but how U gonna acusse him of crimes when he was arrested illegaly since everything happening in Iraq stems from an illegal invasion. It's one group of war crime committers accusing another.
 
Jan 9, 2004
3,340
131
0
43
#3
They dont even have a formal indictment ready, and it wont be ready for months, lol What kind of bullshit is that? And he doesnt even have counsel present at the hearing. As bad as the justice system is in the U.S., I'd prefer this one over that one.
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
50
#9
ThatBoyJd said:
how U gonna acusse him of crimes when he was arrested illegaly since everything happening in Iraq stems from an illegal invasion. It's one group of war crime committers accusing another.
last time i checked resolution 1441 was passed 15-0 and our government also passed the law that gave us the right to invade. so where do you get ILLEGAL from??
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
45
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#10
I agree with WD. Just finish him off. Although I do find it humorous that he’s been accused of invading Kuwait, when he got the green light to do so by the U.S. and gassing the Kurds was perfectly fine to the U.S back when he was our ally.

We should also have George W. on trail for his war crimes and when found guilty, a bullet to his head, along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, Rice and the rest of the Warmongering Club.
 
Jan 9, 2004
3,340
131
0
43
#12
I'm not kidding. Who decides what is right or wrong in the international community? The U.N.? Did Saddam do anything different than the head of state of any other country. I dont believe so. I agree he should pay for his crimes, but what I'm getting at is when did the U.S. turn into police, judge, jury and executioner?

Besides, all you cats are avoiding my original point, which is to say that the U.S. justice system provides fairer treatment to the accused than the Iraqui system, so even with all its faults, the U.S. system is better.
 
Mar 18, 2003
5,362
194
0
45
#15
TOKZTLI said:
I'm not kidding. Who decides what is right or wrong in the international community? The U.N.?
Who is supposed to? The United Nations. Who does? The United States.

TOKZTLI said:
Did Saddam do anything different than the head of state of any other country. I dont believe so.
Genocide, prison cleansing, severe torture, and all sorts of crimes against humanity. Do you know what these terms mean? People get the death sentence for a single premeditated murder, he premeditated hundreds of thousands of cold blooded murders. How much research have you done on Saddam? How many current leaders are subject of Genocide?

TOKZTLI said:
I agree he should pay for his crimes, but what I'm getting at is when did the U.S. turn into police, judge, jury and executioner?
When we flexed our muscles during World War II. It is arguable when the U.S. put planet Earth in check, but we started punking people left and right after the second World War.
 

attay

Sicc OG
Nov 10, 2002
155
0
0
#16
Yes, the man probably deserves a bullet in the head. What I'm interested in though, is what he will finally be accused of, seeing as how most of his atrocities enjoyed the approval, if not support, of the USA.

Mcleanhatch said:
last time i checked resolution 1441 was passed 15-0 and our government also passed the law that gave us the right to invade. so where do you get ILLEGAL from??
Errm? I know this might be hard for you to grasp, but the Iraq War was a violation of international law. Hence, it was illegal. Do you follow?

The fact is, UN stands as the largest organization in the world that acts with democratic principles. The UN constitution, namely article 42, signed by every member of the UN (including USA), says that the Security Council of UN decides on ALL possible armed acts against any country. As a member of the UN, the article also binds USA.

To put it short, USA used force without the endorsement of the Security Council, which violates international law.


Nitro the Guru said:
Who is supposed to? The United Nations. Who does? The United States.
This gives the feeling that you are blaming the UN of being ineffective.

Let me ask you then, who is the main hindrance to decision-making in the UN? Who has repeatedly gone and continues to go against UN resolutions and thus crumbles not only the credibility of the organization, but also its power to act? Who can (and has, more than any other nation) bring down an otherwise unanimous motion by its lonely ”no” vote (maybe accompanied by Israel and a random other country)?

This country is also UN’s richest member, but this fact should not grant it any priviliges. (edit: for those who will undoubtedly come here saying how USA is UN's biggest funder and should thus have more power)

As said, what gives USA the right to act as the police of the world? Absolutely nothing.

Nitro the Guru said:
How many current leaders are subject of Genocide?
Heh. More than you’d imagine, obviously. The difference is, they (edit: some) are never punished for their crimes because they enjoy the support of good ole USA, who has avidly supported and defended genocidal regimes and leaders whenever in its best interest.

A good, contemporary example would be Ariel Sharon.
 
Mar 18, 2003
5,362
194
0
45
#17
attay said:
Yes, the man probably deserves a bullet in the head. What I'm interested in though, is what he will finally be accused of, seeing as how most of his atrocities enjoyed the approval, if not support, of the USA.
Bullshit. Either you know nothing of his attrocities, or you're speculating off what some dummy told you on this board. Whatever the case may be, he commited those crimes.

attay said:
This gives the feeling that you are blaming the UN of being ineffective.
How long has Saddam been a tyrant in Iraq?

attay said:
Let me ask you then, who is the main hindrance to decision-making in the UN? Who has repeatedly gone and continues to go against UN resolutions and thus crumbles not only the credibility of the organization, but also its power to act? Who can (and has, more than any other nation) bring down an otherwise unanimous motion by its lonely ”no” vote (maybe accompanied by Israel and a random other country)?
The government of the United States. And these things will likely continue, hopefully for the right reasons.

attay said:
This country is also UN’s richest member, but this fact should not grant it any priviliges. (edit: for those who will undoubtedly come here saying how USA is UN's biggest funder and should thus have more power). As said, what gives USA the right to act as the police of the world? Absolutely nothing.
Poverty, starvation, famine, torture, communism, oil, murder, etc. are all motivations for the U.S. policing the world. This can only be understood if the United States withdrew it's troops from every country around the world. My guess is that North Korea would be the first to engage in war.

attay said:
Heh. More than you’d imagine, obviously. The difference is, they (edit: some) are never punished for their crimes because they enjoy the support of good ole USA, who has avidly supported and defended genocidal regimes and leaders whenever in its best interest.
1. Obviously not.

2. If a leader is not being brought to justice because he has the support of the U.S. what does this say about the effectiveness of the United Nations? What does this say about you even asking what right the United States has to police (evil) dictators around?

attay said:
A good, contemporary example would be Ariel Sharon.
Where is the big and powerful United Nations at? I would accuse Henry Kissinger of genocide before I would Ariel Sharon.
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
50
#18
attay said:
Errm? I know this might be hard for you to grasp, but the Iraq War was a violation of international law. Hence, it was illegal. Do you follow?
what law was broken?? since you say it was a violation of international law? last time i checked 1441 said there would be grave consequences if iraq did not disarm, to me that means we will disarm them by force if need be.

so the real question is do you follow???

attay said:
The fact is, UN stands as the largest organization in the world that acts with democratic principles. The UN constitution, namely article 42, signed by every member of the UN (including USA), says that the Security Council of UN decides on ALL possible armed acts against any country. As a member of the UN, the article also binds USA.
and they did so in resolution 1441 by a whopping 15-0 vote if i may add.

attay said:
To put it short, USA used force without the endorsement of the Security Council, which violates international law.
1441

attay said:
Who can (and has, more than any other nation) bring down an otherwise unanimous motion by its lonely ”no” vote (maybe accompanied by Israel and a random other country)?
NOBODY can!!!

what i think you are referring would be a "VETO" vote
 

attay

Sicc OG
Nov 10, 2002
155
0
0
#19
Nitro the Guru said:
Bullshit. Either you know nothing of his attrocities, or you're speculating off what some dummy told you on this board. Whatever the case may be, he commited those crimes.
I am fully aware of most of the atrocities he has committed throughout his reign. But you see nothing strange in the US not giving a fuck about, for instance, Saddam gassing the kurds at the time, or the US encouraging Saddam to drop bombs on Iran more fervently? The list goes on. Yes, he committed those crimes, but USA doesn’t exactly have clean hands, either.

Nitro the Guru said:
How long has Saddam been a tyrant in Iraq?
And who basically put him in power and gave him the tools? And for how long was his tyranny happily supported by USA? Hmm..

Nitro the Guru said:
Poverty, starvation, famine, torture, communism, oil, murder, etc. are all motivations for the U.S. policing the world. This can only be understood if the United States withdrew it's troops from every country around the world. My guess is that North Korea would be the first to engage in war.
Please believe that the US does not act out of sheer benevolence to rid the world of the evils you’ve mentioned (Poverty, starvation, famine, torture, murder). In fact, in, for instance, Latin America, the ”policing” of USA has only increased the type of appalling conditions that you just mentioned. It would be too long to even begin with examples. The same phenomenon has occurred else where in the world (Thirdworldization). Overzealous anti-communism was a key ideological driving force of US foreign policy during the Cold War, and led to horrible outcomes in most countries where it was introduced (Need I give examples?). Bottomline: USA ”polices” to protect its own economic and political interests – It just so happens these interests do not necessarily coincide with the rest of the world’s.

Nitro the Guru said:
2. If a leader is not being brought to justice because he has the support of the U.S. what does this say about the effectiveness of the United Nations? What does this say about you even asking what right the United States has to police (evil) dictators around?
I don’t see how you’re not getting what I’m trying to say. Like I said, who do you think is the main hindrance to decision-making in and the effectiveness of the UN? U-S-A.

The United States has no right to police evil dictators, while supporting others. USA does not get rid of dictators because they are evil.

Nitro the Guru said:
Where is the big and powerful United Nations at? I would accuse Henry Kissinger of genocide before I would Ariel Sharon.
I don’t want to repeat myself. Do you know how many times USA has used its veto to protect Ariel Sharon? And, I would accuse both.

Mcleanhatch said:
last time i checked 1441 said there would be grave consequences if iraq did not disarm, to me that means we will disarm them by force if need be.
Notice how you used ”to me”.. yes, for war-mongering flag-wavers and the US government there seems to have been only one interpretation. Notice that several other countries disagree. Bottomline: There should have been a separate resolution by the Security Council to authorize the use of war (See the bit about article 42 in my previous post). The U.N. Charter requires a specific and unambiguous authorization for the use of force. No such resolution has been passed.

Since you like big red text so much, here goes:

RESOLUTION 1441 DOES NOT GIVE ANY AUTOMATICITY TO THE USE OF FORCE. NO RESOLUTION HAS BEEN PASSED THAT AUTHORIZED MILITARY ACTION.

This is undebatable. Legal experts all over the world agree that the invasion was illegal. In recent news, even Richard Perle, a pentagon hawk considered a driving force behind the Iraq War, admitted that the invasion was illegal.


Mcleanhatch said:
NOBODY can!!!

what i think you are referring would be a "VETO" vote
Yes, I forgot to add ”.. in the Security Council and in the Economic and Social Council” to my question, where the single ”no” or veto-vote is enough to bring down an otherwise unanimous motion (USA has used its veto against UN resolutions more than any other nation). My mistake.

edit. colors
 
Mar 18, 2003
5,362
194
0
45
#20
attay said:
I am fully aware of most of the atrocities he has committed throughout his reign. But you see nothing strange in the US not giving a fuck about, for instance, Saddam gassing the kurds at the time, or the US encouraging Saddam to drop bombs on Iran more fervently? The list goes on. Yes, he committed those crimes, but USA doesn’t exactly have clean hands, either.
The last time I checked, being in favor of someone's atrocities (be that as it may) is not a crime by any standard of law. You keep talking about "support" like we gave the go ahead to start prison cleansing in Iraq. Just because we don't stop something doesn't mean we are in favor of it.

If we invade based on a leaders attrocities, we are going against international law and/or U.N. regulations. If we don't invade we are in supprt of whatever they are doing. okaaaaay. Sounds like you typical anti-U.S. "free thinker".

attay said:
And who basically put him in power and gave him the tools? And for how long was his tyranny happily supported by USA? Hmm..
George H.W. Bush did not put him in presidency or give him any tools. No one knows how long he was supported by the U.S., but I'm sure most of the support came when he was actually a half decent leader. How do you know the U.S. even knew about, let alone supported most of his crimes when they occured?

attay said:
Please believe that the US does not act out of sheer benevolence to rid the world of the evils you’ve mentioned (Poverty, starvation, famine, torture, murder). In fact, in, for instance, Latin America, the ”policing” of USA has only increased the type of appalling conditions that you just mentioned. It would be too long to even begin with examples.
It works both ways, they have committed crimes, and they have done this world a lot of good. Without the United States, I think this world would be far worse off.

attay said:
The same phenomenon has occurred else where in the world (Thirdworldization). Overzealous anti-communism was a key ideological driving force of US foreign policy during the Cold War, and led to horrible outcomes in most countries where it was introduced (Need I give examples?). Bottomline: USA ”polices” to protect its own economic and political interests – It just so happens these interests do not necessarily coincide with the rest of the world’s.
Have you seen the way people live around the "rest of the world"? Do I believe in installing "America" in places where people are not allowed to travel without permission? Absolutely. I believe in nationalism, but I prioritize freedom above it. When your human will is stripped away, then something needs to change, if even by military action. People don't flee to America because they love their country's standard of living.

attay said:
I don’t see how you’re not getting what I’m trying to say. Like I said, who do you think is the main hindrance to decision-making in and the effectiveness of the UN? U-S-A.
So this has what to do with Saddam standing trial? If you can name one instance where I said the U.S. never commited crimes, war crimes even, or that we are perfect, free from any defect, or anything along those lines, I will answer this question. Otherwise, stick to the topic. I found that "you guys" are quick to point the finger at the U.S. whenever someone else is at question. Saddam is a tyrant... "ohhh yeah!! well the U.S. did this!"... what is the relevance? You're comparing the name of a country with a person.

attay said:
The United States has no right to police evil dictators, while supporting others. USA does not get rid of dictators because they are evil.
Would you rather have 10 evil dictators in the world, or 9? 8, 7, 6, 5?

attay said:
I don’t want to repeat myself. Do you know how many times USA has used its veto to protect Ariel Sharon? And, I would accuse both.
20? 50? 100? 10,000?