Saddam Lawyers Want 'biased' Chief Judge Removed
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Saddam Hussein's defense lawyers are demanding that the new chief judge be removed before they will end their boycott of the trial, which resumes Wednesday after a stormy session where the former president was tossed out.Khalil al-Dulaimi and Khamis al-Obeidi said they have written to the Iraqi High Tribunal to demand that Raouf Rasheed Abdel-Rahman, who was named chief judge last week, be removed from the current trial and any other legal proceedings against Saddam.
The two Iraqi lawyers told The Associated Press that they believed Abdel-Rahman, a Kurd, was biased because his hometown of Halabja was subjected to a 1988 poison gas attack allegedly ordered by the former president.
Some 5,000 Kurds were killed in that attack, including several of Abdel-Rahman's relatives.
"We will demand that this judge be removed from the trial and any other trials involving my client," al-Dulaimi said by telephone from Amman, Jordan. Al-Dulaimi, who heads Saddam's defense team, described Abdel-Rahman as a "legal adversary of my client."
Arab media reports claimed Abdel-Rahman had been detained and tortured in the 1980s by Saddam's security agents. Efforts to contact Abdel-Rahman were unsuccessful. However, another judge who is not part of the Dujail trial said Abdel-Rahman suffered permanent injuries to his back and one of his legs due to torture. The judge spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the Saddam case.
Source : Here
As much as I want to see Saddam tried for his crimes, you can't allow the victims of crime to become the judge and jury, that's just scandalous if you desire a fair trial. Of course many people say that Saddam does not deserve a fair trial as he was far from fair and just when he was the President. Well the reply to that is simple. We are not Saddam. We claim to be better than people like Saddam as we claim to have freedom, democracy and justice. This is about the creation of the kind of society which those in favour of removing Saddam by force said we would deliver. (As is often used in attempted justification for the invasion of Iraq.) By refusing Saddam a fair and just trial we would become no better than the barbarians we claim such people are. There should be a clear line between the side of right and the side of wrong.
The side of right believes in a fair trial, believes in the concept of 'beyond reasonable doubt' and believes that every person has the right to defend themselves in court. How can anybody claim that justice has been served when the judge is an alleged victim of the defendants crimes. Such a ridiculous scenario would never be allowed to happen in Western democratic societies. If I had the chance to be judge over the fool who stole my bike last year I would sentence him to the minimum of life in prison with hard labour and I certainly wouldn't care if nobody had any evidence.
Would that be right ?
posted by _H_ at 12:56 am
15 Comments:
Saddam and the rest of those scums should be tried by the Kurds. That will be Justice.
And President Bush should be tried by the families of the 18 woman and children murdered in Pakistan a few week ago.
Deal ?
If you dont think Saddam deserves a fair trial then why would anyone deserve a fair trial. ?
Being just as Barbaric as the leaders of the rogue states we attack does not make us the good guys.
I am hoping you used a dramatic flair when describing your annointed punishment to the thief who repossessed your bike.
I do agree that a trial with due process should ensue and a judge with the highest level of impartiality should be appointed.
Courts of an international nature consistently convolude concepts of impartial justice. It will be interesting to see what the court will be like in Lebanon...
I agree too. Saddam has as much right to a fair trial as anybody else. The Americans should be made to deliver Saddam to the Hague, where an impartial trial has a chance.
M
I never owned a bike :-)
Just trying to make a point thats all.
spott
I agree , the Hague is the only place any attempt at a fair trial can take place.
The Hague... which court exactly are you referencing? I am unaware of one that has jurisdiction over such things...
M
Nobody has jurisdiction. the current Trial of Saddam was started whilst under an occupying power and before Iraq had its own democratically elected government or constitution
If you wish to say the Hague is invalid then it is no more or less invalid than the current trial taking place.
A special court would need to be set up that was in dependant of the US,UK,IRAQ and Saddam would need to be charged with crimes against humanity.
you tell me where Saddam can be legally tried ? as you said the other day the trials after world war two were retrospective and the trials Saddam is being charged with are also retrospective. He committed them before the current laws were in place to say that he should not have.
There is no logic to this. You have to do whats right. the US and UK are occupying powers after an illegal invasion so they cant do it . The victims of Saddam's 'crimes' cant do it
so we have to look at what is right and the only correct action is the United Nations to set up a fair trial in a fair place where defence lawyers do not get shot and the judge was not tortured by Saddam
its a hell of lot better than whats happening now so do you have any better ideas ?
News Update :
The resumption of Saddam Hussein's war crimes trial has been delayed because of unspecified "procedural issues", court officials have said.
Lawyers for the former Iraqi leader had refused to return to court unless the new chief judge was replaced.
so no trial today it seems.
First of all, your argument of relativity does not apply here. Different courts have different jurisdictions, period. For example, the ICJ sees to disputes between consenting States.
Now, if you want to get into the legality of courts on your own moral accord (doing what is "right"), that is your perogative, but that is simply not the way courts are run. They are run on statute, on defined law. I understand what you are saying- laws come from somewhere- where is that underlying moral code that is the foundation for justice- I totally see what you are saying.
Nuremberg was retrospective, and by that very definition, it was set AFTER the crimes- thus, applying a court that has existed in the Hague, which was established with no jurisdiction to such matters is ridiculous. If you think the Statutes should be changed, that is another issue all together.
As for trying Saddam, I think he should be tried by Iraqis in Iraq. Of course I would prefer him tried in an international court, but I want courts like Nuremberg to be the exception, not the rule. It has significant precedent, don't get me wrong, but I believe we are in a state of transition in accordance with international trials and we are young- Nuremberg-->ICTY-->ICTR-->hybrids (Sierra Leone, etc.) -->ICC. This will take time. Until then, courts must be made in an ad-hoc fashion and this is provided for, legally. As long as there is sufficient procedural history and protected rights that can be found to supplement what the trial is founded upon (i.e. what they did in Nuremberg).
M I said a 'new' court would have to be defined. There was no court to put saddam on trial until 2005 , the powers that put him on trial did not have the authority of the Iraqi people to do so !If you insist on the view you present above then I can only assume that you will insist on having saddam released for there is no court that has any authority to touch him..
You can not claim the hague is not legal but fail to show in any way why the court in Iraq is legal ? Saddam Is only being charged with the death of less than 200 people during the a period of war with iran so you can without doubt call his actions a war crime and try him as such if you will .you preach about how thecourts are run but you fail to notice that the case being tried fails the very same test.He can not be tried for the gassing of the kurds because american companies helped saddam get the gas that used and the official US response from the time was to blame Iran.
this is not about some pseudo opinion. your just repeating what I told you . that NO court has the authority to run this trial
So make up your mind , either legal authority does not matter and hence saddam should be tried in the safest and fairest place (the hague) or authority does matter and hence YOU believe that saddam should be realised without charge
you make no sense at all !
The Hague has no rightful jurisdiction under any statute of any court there.
Hussein should be tried in a trial with due process.
Will respond in length in email.
Saddam Hussain will never get a fair trial - as everyone has a preconceived idea of his 'guilt' or 'innocence'. It is however complete hypocrisy to believe any country under occupation can deliver real justice. Time for the reconstruction of Iraq to be pursued and the Americans to wake up to reality. The Iraqis do not want them there.
That a defendent can boycott a trial is the most absurd thing I've ever heard of. He should be dragged to court in irons!!
huya message deleted
If you wish to prevent all your messages being deleted then please ask about our posting policy.
If you believe we love murderers and terrorists then please supply actual evidence of that.
It seems anyone who disagrees with your view is clearly a lover of terrorists , how very unAmerican of you. you clearly have no desire to live in a democracy.
I have lost friends over the years due to terrorism and I find your view offensive. You may well find my view offensive but this is my site you don't have to come here.We look at different angles and different solutions to the problems of terrorism.
There once was a time when Ronald McDonald was a supporter of terrorism and every burger bought in the USA made a little donation to the cause of the IRA. people I know are dead due to the IRA. so if you have ever bought a burger then you are probably more of a supporter of terrorism then I am and if you have never bought a burger well you still did nothing about it so which are you a supporter of terrorism or do you just harbour those that support terrorism.
Luis Posada Carriles is a terrorist and the United states refuses to hand him over for trial . He put a bomb on a civilian plane that killed all the passengers on board but they wont hand him over as he was working for the CIA when he did it. So Please save your breath and your hypocrisy. If you want to post here then follow the rules like everyone else and supply evidence of the point you wish to make.
MANIFIESTO POR LA CULTURA EN BLOGOSFERA
Sitios independientes, miden alternativa, crecen y se multiplican.
Unidos para mejorar la cultura que sea cultura, que no se detenga la palabra, todos leemos los mismos libros, recibimos la misma educación que ellos, podemos iniciar una revolución ( cambio).
Post a Comment
<< Home