Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Defiant Saddam pleads not guilty

Saddam Hussein's trial has begun in Baghdad with the ousted Iraqi leader defiantly questioning the validity of the court before pleading not guilty.



He refused to confirm his identity telling the presiding judge: "Who are you? What does this court want?"

After just over three hours, the trial was adjourned until 28 November.

Saddam Hussein's defence team had said they wanted a postponement to prepare their case, but Reuters news agency quoted the chief judge as saying the main reason was witnesses had not shown up.

"They were too scared to be public witnesses. We're going to work on this issue for the next sessions," Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin told the agency.

Asked to confirm his name by the chief judge, a Kurd, Saddam Hussein refused.

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."

In Dujail, a few demonstrators gathered in the main square chanting: "Saddam Hussein should be executed, him and his whole family."

But in the former leader's home town of Tikrit, supporters vowed loyalty to Saddam Hussein with a banner saying: "We sacrifice our blood and soul for you, Saddam."

Watch a video of the trial here BBC (with translation)

my source : BBC

7 Comments:

Blogger G_in_AL said...

Salami Milosavich was the first one to try this move... and I think he is still in court

October 19, 2005 11:45 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

yup but he was wrong , we Had a UN resolution to allow us to take out milosavich

this war was illigel and the lawyers know it

you have a kurdish judge LOL , so the victims actually try the accused !

you do not need to prove "beyond resonable doubt" as we do in every other democracy

it is a TV show G , this is entertaining stuff but it is not a far trial

this should be held in the hague not in iraq

of course he will be executed soon and it won't matter ,

and of course we all assume he is gulty as we have been told on the television that he is , so he must be right ?

everyone deserve a fair trial , Milosavich is getting one , saddam will not

another example of stupid behavour by the west that will do more to encourage terrorists then reduce them

I too think saddam is a nasty piece of work G so all the more reason to give him a fair trial

still it is good tv anyway

October 19, 2005 11:57 pm  
Anonymous NYCtexan said...

It is my understanding that there are 9 judges presiding over the trial. I assume that they are not all Kurdish. I guess you would be happy if they were all Bathists. In reality, you and the rest of the world (including many in the US) would bitch about the trail no matter how it is carried out. I am happy the he is being held accountable. I am happy for all the Iraqis and Kuwaitis who suffered as a result of his rule. It is important that the leaders of other countries like North Korea and Iran see that their actions could land them in Sadam’s position.

No trail is completely fair…and as seen so far, this trail will be medium for those around the world to show how evil the United States is. Personally, I don’t think he should be put to death, but that is now for the Iraqis to decide, not us.

October 20, 2005 8:50 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

NYC there are only three judges and only one of the judges has ever actually been a judge before

they have received special training from US, British and Australian experts that included a mock trial in London.

There will be no jury. The chief judge - there will be three judges in all - will question witnesses, many of whom he will have interviewed before the trial, and the three judges will decide the guilt or innocence of Saddam and seven co-defendants.

none of the judges are familiar with the humanitarian and war-crimes law that will pervade the trial,

I don't think i would have any sensible claim in calling this an un fair trial if it was held at the hague

where all war crimes should be tried

saddam was an evil dictator regardless of how angry i am at the US for the way they went about removing him , he should be tried for his crimes that is for sure

but by holding the trial in Iraq even before a constitution and a real Iraqi govenrment is in place and by "training" the judges in the US and UK there seems little effort is being made to show the world that this is being done fair

the lack of the need for facts "beyond resonable doubt " the lack of a jury

this trial is far removed from what we would call democratic justice

Saddam in the hague could not be argued

October 20, 2005 9:09 pm  
Anonymous NYCtexan said...

Sadam in the Hague does nothing for anyone but the international community who want to be involved because they think it makes them important. Now let us consider who really matter in all of this, the Iraqis. It is in their best interest to get this trial over with. the Iraqis need closure, not a never ending trial like milosavich is getting at the hague. Sadam deserves no better than the "fair trials" he gave the Kurds before he gassed them. He should have been "found dead" by the US, and the money spent on his show trial could then be used in projects to help the Iraqis.

October 20, 2005 9:40 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

you seem to forget NYC that Iraqis are very much divided on the issue of saddam

the sunni in the main would like and welcome him back as leader

the sunni are the minority in Iraq but the majority in the middle east

obviously they ar not going to get their leader back

my point :

well prevention of a civil war in iraq depends very much on the sunni's being included

that is why it is vital that saddam is seen to be given a fair and just trial ,

I feel that it is impossible for saddam to get a fair trial under these conditions in Iraq

that is why the hague is a just location , for in my view anything else will push Iraq closer to a civil war and nobody wants that

from my personal opinion i back you all the way on your view of saddam , however , please remember a layman's view (that we both have) is no bases for a fair trial

we only know of events such as the gassing of the kurds through media sources

the event was first reported by the Iranians when they re-captured the town during the war with Iraq

There are still some credible intelligence agencies that have not ruled out the possibility that the Iranians did the gassing themselves

I stick with the western view that it was saddam , but i have not a single piece of evidence to proove it

it is facts that matter here , and the evidence provided by an enemy of saddams who had motive (they wre at war) to blame saddam is not credible

If all they say about saddam is true then lock him up and throw away the key

but Iraq,the US , UK , Iran , kuiwat are all in no position to sit and judge

Kuiwats human rights record is as bad as saddams

that is a few of the reasons why the Hague is the right place

they are qualified to judge war crimes , nobody else is

October 20, 2005 10:36 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

correction , it is 3 senior and 2 minor judges , so to be accurate you could say there are 5 ,

none of them are sunni , the rest arwe evenly split between Kurd and shia

October 21, 2005 12:39 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home