Saddam trial 'flawed and unsound'

[Stephanie]

The trial of Saddam Hussein was so flawed that its verdict is unsound, the advocacy group Human Rights Watch says.
The former Iraqi leader was sentenced to death on 5 November after being convicted of crimes against humanity.

But HRW said it had documented "serious administrative, procedural and substantive legal defects" that meant he did not get a fair trial.

Saddam Hussein has two more weeks to lodge an appeal - but his lawyer claims he has been blocked from doing so.

Chief defence lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi told the BBC his team had been prevented from filing the necessary papers.

However, the chief prosecutor has told the BBC it was a fair trial.

Saddam Hussein and seven co-defendants all faced charges of crimes against humanity relating to the deaths of 148 people in the mainly Shia town of Dujail following an assassination attempt on the Iraqi leader in 1982.

Two of his co-defendants also received death sentences.

Landmark case

HRW said the trial was among the most important since the Nazi trials in Nuremberg after World War II.

The group based its report on extensive observation of court proceedings, and interviews with judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers and court administrators involved in the trial.


Judge Rauf Abdel Rahman replaced an earlier chief judge
The trial took just over one year to complete and was the first case brought before the Iraqi High Tribunal.

Proceedings were marked by frequent outbursts by both judges and defendants.

Three defence lawyers were murdered, three judges left the five-member panel and the original chief judge was replaced.

Defence lawyers boycotted proceedings but HRW said court-appointed counsel that took their place lacked adequate training in international law.

Saddam Hussein is also being tried on a different set of charges relating to a military campaign against ethnic Kurds in the late 1980s in which more than 180,000 people are alleged to have died.

Other trials for alleged crimes under Saddam Hussein's leadership are likely.

'Indefensible penalty'

HRW said the trials "represent the first opportunity to create a historical record concerning some of the worst cases of human rights violations, and to begin the process of a methodical accounting of the policies and decisions that give rise to these events".

The US-led Coalition Provisional Authority decided that the Dujail trial would be held by an Iraqi court in Iraq, ruling out an international tribunal or a mixed Iraqi-international court under UN auspices, the HRW report said.


Three defence lawyers were murdered during the trial
Because Iraqi lawyers and judges had been isolated from international criminal law, this decision resulted in a court that lacked the expertise to prosecute crimes against humanity on its own, the report said.

Important documents were not given to defence lawyers in advance, no written transcript was kept and paperwork was lost, said HRW.

Defence counsel come under criticism in the report for trying to use the court as a political platform.

"Under such circumstances," HRW concludes, "the soundness of the verdict is questionable. In addition, the imposition of the death penalty - an inherently cruel and inhumane punishment - in the wake of an unfair trial is indefensible."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6163938.stm

 

[dilloduck]

The trial of Saddam Hussein was so flawed that its verdict is unsound, the advocacy group Human Rights Watch says.
The former Iraqi leader was sentenced to death on 5 November after being convicted of crimes against humanity.

But HRW said it had documented "serious administrative, procedural and substantive legal defects" that meant he did not get a fair trial.

Saddam Hussein has two more weeks to lodge an appeal - but his lawyer claims he has been blocked from doing so.

Chief defence lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi told the BBC his team had been prevented from filing the necessary papers.

However, the chief prosecutor has told the BBC it was a fair trial.

Saddam Hussein and seven co-defendants all faced charges of crimes against humanity relating to the deaths of 148 people in the mainly Shia town of Dujail following an assassination attempt on the Iraqi leader in 1982.

Two of his co-defendants also received death sentences.

Landmark case

HRW said the trial was among the most important since the Nazi trials in Nuremberg after World War II.

The group based its report on extensive observation of court proceedings, and interviews with judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers and court administrators involved in the trial.


Judge Rauf Abdel Rahman replaced an earlier chief judge
The trial took just over one year to complete and was the first case brought before the Iraqi High Tribunal.

Proceedings were marked by frequent outbursts by both judges and defendants.

Three defence lawyers were murdered, three judges left the five-member panel and the original chief judge was replaced.

Defence lawyers boycotted proceedings but HRW said court-appointed counsel that took their place lacked adequate training in international law.

Saddam Hussein is also being tried on a different set of charges relating to a military campaign against ethnic Kurds in the late 1980s in which more than 180,000 people are alleged to have died.

Other trials for alleged crimes under Saddam Hussein's leadership are likely.

'Indefensible penalty'

HRW said the trials "represent the first opportunity to create a historical record concerning some of the worst cases of human rights violations, and to begin the process of a methodical accounting of the policies and decisions that give rise to these events".

The US-led Coalition Provisional Authority decided that the Dujail trial would be held by an Iraqi court in Iraq, ruling out an international tribunal or a mixed Iraqi-international court under UN auspices, the HRW report said.


Three defence lawyers were murdered during the trial
Because Iraqi lawyers and judges had been isolated from international criminal law, this decision resulted in a court that lacked the expertise to prosecute crimes against humanity on its own, the report said.

Important documents were not given to defence lawyers in advance, no written transcript was kept and paperwork was lost, said HRW.

Defence counsel come under criticism in the report for trying to use the court as a political platform.

"Under such circumstances," HRW concludes, "the soundness of the verdict is questionable. In addition, the imposition of the death penalty - an inherently cruel and inhumane punishment - in the wake of an unfair trial is indefensible."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6163938.stm

Give him a suit, $100 bucks and a ticket to Tikrete. We can take bets if he makes it or not. Oh ya--this isn't any of our business.

 

[Gunny]

Give him a suit, $100 bucks and a ticket to Tikrete. We can take bets if he makes it or not. Oh ya--this isn't any of our business.

He and OJ can become roomates and laugh at Mark Peterson's plight.

 

[akiboy]

People like Saddam Hussein deserve death and nothing less. Infact , even Satan wouldn't want him in Hell!


Akshay

 

[Bonnie]

NEW YORK (AP) - Human Rights Watch said Monday that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was not given a fair trial, claiming in a report that attorneys and judges undermined the legitimacy of the process by staging repeated walkouts and failing to uphold standards of international law.

In a 97-page report, the group called the guilty verdict "questionable" and said the Iraqi High Tribunal was not equipped to handle such a complex case. The document was based on observation of the trial and interviews with court officials, lawyers and other key parties, the group said.

On Nov. 5, the court sentenced Saddam and two other senior members of his regime to death by hanging for ordering the execution of nearly 150 Shiite Muslims from the Iraqi city of Dujail following a 1982 attempt on Saddam's life.

The New York-based rights group said it found "serious procedural flaws," citing shortcomings in the timely disclosure of incriminating evidence. It also said that the defendants were not allowed to properly confront witnesses, and that the judges at times did not maintain an impartial demeanor.

"The court's conduct, as documented in this report, reflects a basic lack of understanding of fundamental fair trial principles, and how to uphold them in the conduct of a relatively complex trial," the report said. "The result is a trial that did not meet key fair trial standards. Under such circumstances, the soundness of the verdict is questionable."

The chief prosecutor, Jaafar al-Mousawi, defended the trial Monday, calling it "fair and transparent." The verdict, he said, "was fair enough to a dictator who killed dozens of innocents."

"There were only simple administrative flaws that did not affect the verdict," he said.

The Iraqi court was created in 2003 after the U.S. invasion to prosecute cases of human rights violations in Iraq.

In the report, Human Rights Watch chastised defense lawyers for staging repeated walkouts, saying the tactic "created the strong impression that some counsel deliberately sought to delay or obstruct the course of the trial."

Chief defense counsel Khalil al-Dulaimi, who voiced support for the report's conclusions, defended attorneys' frequent boycotts of the proceedings.

"This was a political trial, not a legal one," he said by phone from Britain. "What can we do when the rights of the defense lawyers are breached in the courtroom, when they shut our mouths, when they threaten our lives?"

The report said defense lawyers were provided with inferior protection, with three being killed in the course of the trial. Witnesses, too, were left unprotected following their testimony, it said.

Defense attorneys were inadequately trained in international criminal law and their performance was "generally poor," the report said.

"No consistent and identifiable argument as to why the prosecution case was wrong or flawed was developed," it said.

Human Rights Watch, which is against the death penalty in general, also said the death sentence against Saddam is "an inherently cruel and inhumane punishment," and "in the wake of an unfair trial is indefensible."

An appeals court is expected to rule on the verdict and death sentence by mid-January. Saddam's defense team must present an appeal to a higher, nine-judge panel by Dec. 5.

Last week, Saddam's lawyer complained that the court was ignoring his requests for documents to appeal the guilty verdict. There was no immediate comment from Iraqi court officials.

"The verdict against President Saddam Hussein is purely political and all the conditions of a fair trial - as stipulated under international law - have been gravely violated, including the right to appeal the verdict in a court of cassation," Saddam's chief lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi said in a written statement.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061120/D8LGOMJ00.html
---

 

[theHawk]

Of course it was a show trial. Everyone knows he's guilty, thats why we went to war against him. Hang 'em high and get it over with.

 

[dilloduck]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43769&highlight=trial

duplicate ?

 

[Vastopol]

Saddam is guilty of way more than the few crimes he was charged with and his sentence is just as far as I'm concerned. If otoh he were charged with all the crimes he commited against humanity all those who helped to support and arm him such as some members of the U.S. and U.K. governments could also be implicated in those crimes. So yes he's guilty as charged and yes it was a show trial to protect other parties that were involved in those crimes or looked the other way while knowing he was commiting them.

 

[Gunny]

Saddam is guilty of way more than the few crimes he was charged with and his sentence is just as far as I'm concerned. If otoh he were charged with all the crimes he commited against humanity all those who helped to support and arm him such as some members of the U.S. and U.K. governments could also be implicated in those crimes. So yes he's guilty as charged and yes it was a show trial to protect other parties that were involved in those crimes or looked the other way while knowing he was commiting them.

Russia and France would take far bigger hits that the US and/or UK. The US supplied Saddam with dual-use and/or nonmilitary materiel. Russia and France armed him.

Be that as it may, none of the named country's who provided Saddam with materiel, military or otherwise, made him do a damned thing with it. If I sell you a gun and you use it later to commit a crime you'd be hard-pressed in a court of law to get me convicted for something YOU did.

 

[Vastopol]

Russia and France would take far bigger hits that the US and/or UK. The US supplied Saddam with dual-use and/or nonmilitary materiel. Russia and France armed him.

Be that as it may, none of the named country's who provided Saddam with materiel, military or otherwise, made him do a damned thing with it. If I sell you a gun and you use it later to commit a crime you'd be hard-pressed in a court of law to get me convicted for something YOU did.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/special/iraq/

Here's the documents.

 

[Gunny]

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/special/iraq/

Here's the documents.

Which doesn't support your statement.

 

[Vastopol]

Thanks for the memories.

The Sunday Herald [Glasgow, Scotland]

June 14, 2004

Under the successive presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the USA sold nuclear, chemical and biological weapons technology to Saddam Hussein.

In the early 1990s, UN inspectors told the US Senate committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American export policy -- that they had “identified many US-manufactured items exported pursuant of licenses issued by the US department of commerce that were used to further Iraq’s chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs”.

In 1992, the committee began investigating “US chemical and biological warfare-related dual-use exports to Iraq”. It found that 17 individual shipments totaling some 80 batches of biomaterial were sent to Iraq during the Reagan years.

These included two batches of anthrax and two batches of botulism being sent to the Iraqi ministry of higher education on May 2, 1986; one batch each of salmonella and E.Coli sent to the Iraqi state company for drug industries on August 31, 1987.

Other shipments from the US went to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the department of biology at the University of Basra in November 1989; the department of microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the ministry of health in April 1985 and Officers’ City military complex in Baghdad in March and April 1986.

As well as anthrax and botulism, the USA also sent West Nile fever, brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. The shipments even went on after Saddam ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which some 5000 people died, in March 1988.

The chairman of the Senate committee, Don Riegle, said: “The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think it’s a devastating record.”

Other items which were sent by the US to Iraq included chemical warfare agent precursors, chemical warfare agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment.

SOURCE

The difference here is that the U.S. and U.K. (among others) kept on giving (selling) Saddam "guns" and ammo after he displayed his willingness to use them to kill "his own people" with the "guns" we sold/gave to him previously.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Oh good. Another source for lefty websites.

France and Russia were in Saddam's pocket right up until the U.S. ousted him in 2003. A little something the beloved UN seemed to overlook. Of course, why shouldn't they? do anything, and they have to look in the mirror and see the Oil for Food program.

 

[dilloduck]

Oh good. Another source for lefty websites.

France and Russia were in Saddam's pocket right up until the U.S. ousted him in 2003. A little something the beloved UN seemed to overlook. Of course, why shouldn't they? do anything, and they have to look in the mirror and see the Oil for Food program.

You think that Iraq can be reduced to a clash of two agendas ? The America first agenda VS the UN agenda ?

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

You think that Iraq can be reduced to a clash of two agendas ? The America first agenda VS the UN agenda ?

No.

 

[dilloduck]

No.

Why not?

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I think it's moved way beyond that. I don't see the UN stepping very heavily into Iraq, although I guess it does depend on who is in charge with the UN in the next few years. Ultimately, it may be a clash between the UN and Iraq's agenda.

 

[dilloduck]

I think it's moved way beyond that. I don't see the UN stepping very heavily into Iraq, although I guess it does depend on who is in charge with the UN in the next few years. Ultimately, it may be a clash between the UN and Iraq's agenda.

That's my point---the UN didnt want to step in at all whereas the US jumped in with both feet. Besides the Islamo-theocrats' hatred for America is there a larger coalition of nations who enjoy Americas' misfortune? Or maybe we're beyond mere national interests?

 

[jillian]

Thanks for the memories.

The Sunday Herald [Glasgow, Scotland]

June 14, 2004



SOURCE

The difference here is that the U.S. and U.K. (among others) kept on giving (selling) Saddam "guns" and ammo after he displayed his willingness to use them to kill "his own people" with the "guns" we sold/gave to him previously.

True. Not to mention the biochemical weapons that were made available to him by American companies.

 

[dilloduck]

True. Not to mention the biochemical weapons that were made available to him by American companies.

If he didnt use them against his own people and Kuwait, he might still be alive.