Extremely & intentionally inflammatory; Trump is wreaking havoc not just domestically but abroad - on behalf of US. https://t.co/5jPNjVrAqv
— Brooklyn Middleton (@BklynMiddleton) December 9, 2015
Showing posts with label WMD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WMD. Show all posts
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Trump Is ISIS's Secret WMD
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Blair Accused of Lying
Carne Ross, the first secretary to the British mission at the U.N. responsible for Iraq policy from 1997 to 2002, told the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war that the British government intentionally exaggerated the threat of Iraq's WMD after the 9/11 attacks.
Ross said that documents issued by the British government "intentionally and substantially" exaggerated the intelligence after 9/11.
Ross stated that the documents were so exaggerated that they were "in their totality, lies."
Ross said that documents issued by the British government "intentionally and substantially" exaggerated the intelligence after 9/11.
Ross stated that the documents were so exaggerated that they were "in their totality, lies."
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Blair Got It Wrong
Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's aide during his time in office, told the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war that Blair's assumption that Saddam Hussein had WMD was (in the cruel light of reality) wrong.
Blair went to war based on a long-standing "assumption" that Saddam Hussein still possessed weapons of mass destruction, because he had used them in the past.
Blair was once described at school as being lazy when it came to details. True to form when deciding to go to war, rather than use up to date detailed intelligence, he based is decision on past assumptions.
Powell told the inquiry that intelligence on Saddam's WMD was not the pivotal factor in the decision to go to war in Iraq.
Powell is quoted in the Telegraph telling the inquiry:
"Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. We were wrong. The intelligence was wrong.
When our forces went in, we were absolutely amazed to discover there weren't any weapons of mass destruction."
When asked if he had any concerns about the intelligence not being up to date, Powell said:
"We had an assumption, and we had that assumption because Saddam Hussein had lied about using WMD and he had lied about getting rid of them. We had bombed Iraq in 1998 on that basis and it would have taken some quite strong evidence to suggest he had got rid of them.
We didn't really have any doubts about it and I don't think other people had any doubts about it."
Beware leaders who rush to war without doubts, they will lead themselves and their people to destruction.
Blair went to war based on a long-standing "assumption" that Saddam Hussein still possessed weapons of mass destruction, because he had used them in the past.
Blair was once described at school as being lazy when it came to details. True to form when deciding to go to war, rather than use up to date detailed intelligence, he based is decision on past assumptions.
Powell told the inquiry that intelligence on Saddam's WMD was not the pivotal factor in the decision to go to war in Iraq.
Powell is quoted in the Telegraph telling the inquiry:
"Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. We were wrong. The intelligence was wrong.
When our forces went in, we were absolutely amazed to discover there weren't any weapons of mass destruction."
When asked if he had any concerns about the intelligence not being up to date, Powell said:
"We had an assumption, and we had that assumption because Saddam Hussein had lied about using WMD and he had lied about getting rid of them. We had bombed Iraq in 1998 on that basis and it would have taken some quite strong evidence to suggest he had got rid of them.
We didn't really have any doubts about it and I don't think other people had any doubts about it."
Beware leaders who rush to war without doubts, they will lead themselves and their people to destruction.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
BLIAR
I see that Blair claims that he would have gone to war anyway, irrespective of WMD.
He claims that he could have presented the rationale for the war without the WMD.
Funny he didn't make that case then at the time.
Could it be that he knew full well that the excuse of WMD (whether they existed or not) would be the only way to persuade the British people to back his private war?
In other words he knew that his "rationale" for war would not stand up to scrutiny.
He claims that he could have presented the rationale for the war without the WMD.
Funny he didn't make that case then at the time.
Could it be that he knew full well that the excuse of WMD (whether they existed or not) would be the only way to persuade the British people to back his private war?
In other words he knew that his "rationale" for war would not stand up to scrutiny.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Blair Knew There Were No WMDs
Sir John Scarlett, head of the Joint Intelligence Committee in the run-up to the Iraq war, told the Chilcot Inquiry into the war that Tony Blair knew that last-minute intelligence revealed that Saddam Hussein had probably dismantled his chemical and biological weaponry.
Monday, December 07, 2009
Doctors Call For New Kelly Inquest
Six doctors are calling for a new inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly, the UN weapons inspector hounded to death by the government for leaking the fact that evidence for the Iraq invasion had been "sexed up".
There are those who believe that Dr Kelly was in fact murdered, rather than committed suicide. His body was discovered in woodland 6 years ago, his wrist had been slashed and he had taken painkillers.
The 6 doctors (Dr Stephen Frost, Dr Michael Powers QC, Martin Birnstingl, Dr Christopher Burns-Cox, David Halpin, and Dr Andrew Rouse), in a 13-page dossier calling for a new inquest, argue that the bleeding from Dr Kelly's ulnar artery in his left wrist is "highly unlikely" to have caused his death.
There are those who believe that Dr Kelly was in fact murdered, rather than committed suicide. His body was discovered in woodland 6 years ago, his wrist had been slashed and he had taken painkillers.
The 6 doctors (Dr Stephen Frost, Dr Michael Powers QC, Martin Birnstingl, Dr Christopher Burns-Cox, David Halpin, and Dr Andrew Rouse), in a 13-page dossier calling for a new inquest, argue that the bleeding from Dr Kelly's ulnar artery in his left wrist is "highly unlikely" to have caused his death.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Yellowcake Goes To Canada
550 metric tonnes of yellowcake (concentrated natural uranium), the last vestige of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, arrived in Canada on Saturday.
The shipment removed the risk of it being used by insurgents and smugglers crossing to Iran.
Yellowcake can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.
The shipment removed the risk of it being used by insurgents and smugglers crossing to Iran.
Yellowcake can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Secrets Begat Secrets and Lies
It seems that the release earlier this week of the first draft of the "dodgy dossier", which was used by Blair to take Britain to war in Iraq, was not quite as full and frank as some may have believed.
The Guardian reports that the Foreign Office successfully fought to keep secret any mention of Israel in the release this week. The Foreign Office succeeded before a tribunal in having a handwritten mention of Israel kept secret.
What was on that handwritten note?
A reference to Israel's nuclear arsenal, and an inference that Israel had flouted the United Nations' authority in a manner similar to that of the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.
Unfortunately for the Foreign Office, their meddling has been made public and their attempt to suppress the note has failed.
The question now arises as to what else is being withheld from the British public?
The Guardian reports that the Foreign Office successfully fought to keep secret any mention of Israel in the release this week. The Foreign Office succeeded before a tribunal in having a handwritten mention of Israel kept secret.
What was on that handwritten note?
A reference to Israel's nuclear arsenal, and an inference that Israel had flouted the United Nations' authority in a manner similar to that of the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.
Unfortunately for the Foreign Office, their meddling has been made public and their attempt to suppress the note has failed.
The question now arises as to what else is being withheld from the British public?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The Dodgy Dossier - First Draft
After many years of ministerial obfuscation and evasion, the British people have been finally allowed to read the text of the first draft of the so called "dodgy dossier" that took them war in Iraq on a false premise - namely that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD.
The first draft made a series of claims about the extent and danger of the Iraqi president's weapons arsenal. However, by the time the final version (the basis for war) was released in September 2002, those had been "sexed up".
In other words, in order to justify the war, Blair and his acolytes adjusted the facts.
The first draft was written by John Williams, the former director of communications at the Foreign Office (ie a spin doctor, not a security expert). He warned that Saddam had come to power by "torture, rape and execution" and concluded that Iraq presented a "uniquely dangerous threat to the world".
There was no mention of Saddam's capability (now disproved) of launching WMD in 45 minutes.
The final dossier, allegedly written by John Scarlett, who was then the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, stated:
"Iraq's military forces are able to use chemical and biological weapons, with command, control and logistical arrangements in place. The Iraqi military are able to deploy these weapons within 45 minutes of a decision to do so."
Last night, Mr Williams told BBC Radio 4's PM programme:
"The 45-minutes claim was absolutely nothing whatever to do with me. It was news to me."
Opposition parties have renewed their calls for a public inquiry into the build-up to the war.
I doubt that Tony Blair cares much one way or another, given that in a supreme twist of sick irony he is now the so called Middle East peace envoy.
The first draft made a series of claims about the extent and danger of the Iraqi president's weapons arsenal. However, by the time the final version (the basis for war) was released in September 2002, those had been "sexed up".
In other words, in order to justify the war, Blair and his acolytes adjusted the facts.
The first draft was written by John Williams, the former director of communications at the Foreign Office (ie a spin doctor, not a security expert). He warned that Saddam had come to power by "torture, rape and execution" and concluded that Iraq presented a "uniquely dangerous threat to the world".
There was no mention of Saddam's capability (now disproved) of launching WMD in 45 minutes.
The final dossier, allegedly written by John Scarlett, who was then the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, stated:
"Iraq's military forces are able to use chemical and biological weapons, with command, control and logistical arrangements in place. The Iraqi military are able to deploy these weapons within 45 minutes of a decision to do so."
Last night, Mr Williams told BBC Radio 4's PM programme:
"The 45-minutes claim was absolutely nothing whatever to do with me. It was news to me."
Opposition parties have renewed their calls for a public inquiry into the build-up to the war.
I doubt that Tony Blair cares much one way or another, given that in a supreme twist of sick irony he is now the so called Middle East peace envoy.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tactical Error
It seems that Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe the US claims that he had WMD, in order to deter Iran from launching an attack.
This at least is the view of George Piro, the FBI agent who interviewed Saddam after his 2003 capture.
Piro also claims that Saddam was surprised by the US invasion.
Piro is quoted in CBS 60 Minutes as saying:
"He told me he initially miscalculated ... President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack.
He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack."
Now the Iraqi people have to deal with the consequences of the errors of Saddam and the US.
This at least is the view of George Piro, the FBI agent who interviewed Saddam after his 2003 capture.
Piro also claims that Saddam was surprised by the US invasion.
Piro is quoted in CBS 60 Minutes as saying:
"He told me he initially miscalculated ... President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack.
He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack."
Now the Iraqi people have to deal with the consequences of the errors of Saddam and the US.
Monday, July 02, 2007
UN Inspection Body Closed
Friday saw the closure of the UN Inspection body that searched without success for non existent Saddam Hussein's WMD.
The US and Iraq have called it an "historic day".
The resolution terminating the mandate of the U.N. bodies responsible for overseeing the dismantling of Saddam's programs to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles was approved by a vote of 14-0 with Russia abstaining.
Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin objected to the council's failure to comply with previous resolutions demanding that the inspectors certify that Iraq has no banned weapons or missiles before terminating their mandate.
"The adoption of this resolution does not give any clear answers to the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
The US and Iraq have called it an "historic day".
The resolution terminating the mandate of the U.N. bodies responsible for overseeing the dismantling of Saddam's programs to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles was approved by a vote of 14-0 with Russia abstaining.
Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin objected to the council's failure to comply with previous resolutions demanding that the inspectors certify that Iraq has no banned weapons or missiles before terminating their mandate.
"The adoption of this resolution does not give any clear answers to the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
It's Official - No WMD
The hunt for Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction is now reaching its final conclusion, having found nothing.
The US and Britain have proposed that members of the United Nations Security Council "terminate immediately the mandates" of UN weapons inspectors.
This means the end of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission.
The US and Britain have proposed that members of the United Nations Security Council "terminate immediately the mandates" of UN weapons inspectors.
This means the end of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Powell Calls For Closure of Guantanamo Bay
Former United States Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday that the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay for foreign terrorism suspects should be immediately closed, and its inmates moved to the US.
Mr Powell, who in a 2003 speech to the UN Security Council made the case for war against Iraq for possessing weapons of mass destruction that were never found, described the prison in Cuba as a "major problem" for the US's image abroad and has done more harm than good.
Quote:
"Guantanamo has become a major, major problem ... in the way the world perceives America, and if it were up to me I would close Guantanamo, not tomorrow but this afternoon ... and I would not let any of those people go. I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system.
Essentially, we have shaken the belief the world had in America's justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commission. We don't need it and it is causing us far more damage than any good we get for it."
That's all very well, but why did he not say this several years ago?
Mr Powell, who in a 2003 speech to the UN Security Council made the case for war against Iraq for possessing weapons of mass destruction that were never found, described the prison in Cuba as a "major problem" for the US's image abroad and has done more harm than good.
Quote:
"Guantanamo has become a major, major problem ... in the way the world perceives America, and if it were up to me I would close Guantanamo, not tomorrow but this afternoon ... and I would not let any of those people go. I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system.
Essentially, we have shaken the belief the world had in America's justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commission. We don't need it and it is causing us far more damage than any good we get for it."
That's all very well, but why did he not say this several years ago?
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Saddam Hussein executed
Saddam Hussein was executed by hanging at 03:00GMT today.
The world will not shed many tears for the end of the dictator's life. However, the world should note that the execution in this manner has eroded what little credibility there may have been in the actions of the US in bringing about Saddam's demise.
The following points should be borne in mind:
The world will not shed many tears for the end of the dictator's life. However, the world should note that the execution in this manner has eroded what little credibility there may have been in the actions of the US in bringing about Saddam's demise.
The following points should be borne in mind:
- There were no WMD aimed at the West.
- Saddam posed no immediate, or medium term, threat to the West.
- The post "regime change" occupation of Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster.
- Iraq is now on the precipice of a civil war.
- The Middle East may well erupt into a civil war between Shias and Sunnis.
- Saddam was still being tried for genocide against the Kurds. Where is the justice for them, or the victims of his other crimes, in executing him now?
- The trial of Saddam was littered with irregularities and inconsistencies, to base the verdict on the outcome of a flawed trial is to send a signal to the world that justice does not count for much in the "new" Iraq.
- The speed of the execution was to satisfy the US and current Iraq administration's political agenda.
- A country that bases its future on a flawed legal system (as was demonstrated by the shambles of the trial) has no future.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Bush Warned of Chaos
In previously suppressed documents, it has been revealed that Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, gave evidence stating that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
Ross's testimony makes clear that Blair would have known that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN:
"at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."
Ross also states that British officials warned US diplomats, that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to chaos.
Quote:
"I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed).
At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."
Unfortunately, the US is currently being governed by the worst president in living memory. Bush is not known for listening to opinions or facts that diverge from his own narrow "quasi religious" viewpoint.
The sooner this president is removed from office, the better.
Ross's testimony makes clear that Blair would have known that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN:
"at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."
Ross also states that British officials warned US diplomats, that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to chaos.
Quote:
"I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed).
At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."
Unfortunately, the US is currently being governed by the worst president in living memory. Bush is not known for listening to opinions or facts that diverge from his own narrow "quasi religious" viewpoint.
The sooner this president is removed from office, the better.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Warnings Unheeded
Saddam Hussein has reportedly told aides that he warned the United States before 1990 that terrorists would carry out a major strike on America, with even the possibility of a nuclear attack being mooted.
These warnings come from secret tapes that have been acquired by ABC. The tapes present a voice, allegedly Saddam's, speaking in the presidential palace in the 90's.
Quote:
"Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before August 2 and told the British as well and that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction."
Adding:
"In the future, what would prevent a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington, or a germ or a chemical one?"
Interestingly he is also noted as saying that Iraq would not contemplate doing that.
These warnings come from secret tapes that have been acquired by ABC. The tapes present a voice, allegedly Saddam's, speaking in the presidential palace in the 90's.
Quote:
"Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before August 2 and told the British as well and that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction."
Adding:
"In the future, what would prevent a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington, or a germ or a chemical one?"
Interestingly he is also noted as saying that Iraq would not contemplate doing that.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
WMD In Syria
Former Iraqi general Georges Sada, who served as second-in-command of the Iraqi air force under deposed dictator Saddam Hussein, has recently published a book "Saddam's Secrets".
In the book he claims that there were really WMD in Iraq, and that Saddam moved them in civilian aircraft to Syria before the US invasion.
Sada claims that special Republican Guard units led by Saddam's cousin, Ali Hussein al-Majid, nicknamed "Chemical Ali," loaded "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones" in two Boeing jets.
The planes made 56 flights to Syria in the weeks leading up to the war.
Quote:
"Saddam realised, this time, the Americans are coming. They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians."
That being the case, why didn't Saddam use these weapons to defend Iraq against the invasion?
Isn't that the whole point of having WMD?
In the book he claims that there were really WMD in Iraq, and that Saddam moved them in civilian aircraft to Syria before the US invasion.
Sada claims that special Republican Guard units led by Saddam's cousin, Ali Hussein al-Majid, nicknamed "Chemical Ali," loaded "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones" in two Boeing jets.
The planes made 56 flights to Syria in the weeks leading up to the war.
Quote:
"Saddam realised, this time, the Americans are coming. They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians."
That being the case, why didn't Saddam use these weapons to defend Iraq against the invasion?
Isn't that the whole point of having WMD?
Friday, January 27, 2006
Saddam To Sue Bush and Blair
In a pure act of theatrical bravado, Saddam Hussein has announced that he wishes to sue President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair for war crimes.
Defence lawyers working for Saddam have given the media copies of the suit. It blames Bush and Blair for destroying Iraq, and accuses them of committing war crimes by using weapons of mass destruction.
The suit goes on to claim that coalition forces used internationally banned weapons in their military manoeuvres in Iraq; including enriched uranium and phosphoric and cluster bombs against unarmed Iraqi civilians, specifically in Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi, al-Kaem and Anbar province.
In November, the U.S. military admitted to using white phosphorous munitions "sparingly" as an incendiary weapon against enemy troops during the Fallujah assault. The military strongly denied using the banned substance against civilians, as some critics have charged, and said that its military use is not banned.
The suit then goes on to accuse Bush and Blair of torturing Iraqi prisoners, polluting Iraq's air, water and environment, inciting internal strife and destroying the country's cultural heritage with the aim of eliminating an ancient civilisation.
Hussein's legal team said that it intends to start legal action against Bush and Blair in the International Criminal Court in the Hague, and the suit demands that they appear before the court to answer the charges and requested the harshest punishment available according to Dutch legislation and the rules of international and humanitarian laws.
Cna this trial become any more bizarre?
The suit is also seeking compensation for "all material and moral damage inflicted on the Iraqi people."
Defence lawyers working for Saddam have given the media copies of the suit. It blames Bush and Blair for destroying Iraq, and accuses them of committing war crimes by using weapons of mass destruction.
The suit goes on to claim that coalition forces used internationally banned weapons in their military manoeuvres in Iraq; including enriched uranium and phosphoric and cluster bombs against unarmed Iraqi civilians, specifically in Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi, al-Kaem and Anbar province.
In November, the U.S. military admitted to using white phosphorous munitions "sparingly" as an incendiary weapon against enemy troops during the Fallujah assault. The military strongly denied using the banned substance against civilians, as some critics have charged, and said that its military use is not banned.
The suit then goes on to accuse Bush and Blair of torturing Iraqi prisoners, polluting Iraq's air, water and environment, inciting internal strife and destroying the country's cultural heritage with the aim of eliminating an ancient civilisation.
Hussein's legal team said that it intends to start legal action against Bush and Blair in the International Criminal Court in the Hague, and the suit demands that they appear before the court to answer the charges and requested the harshest punishment available according to Dutch legislation and the rules of international and humanitarian laws.
Cna this trial become any more bizarre?
The suit is also seeking compensation for "all material and moral damage inflicted on the Iraqi people."
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Saddam Grandstands Again
Saddam Hussein in court today claimed that the Bush administration had lied when it claimed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as well as when it disputed his claims of being beaten.
Quote:
"The White House lies once more. The number-one liar in the world, they said in Iraq, there is chemicals, and there is a relation to terrorism, and they announced later we couldn't find any of that in Iraq.
Also, they said that what Saddam Hussein (said) was not true".
He then spoke of his allegations , made yesterday about being beaten:
"I have documented the injuries I had before three American medical teams."
Hussein then added that the medical teams numbered "two, for sure, unequivocally."
Then, for good measure:
"We don't lie. The White House lies."
The defence have requested that the testimony of prosecution witnesses not be broadcast, until all the witnesses have testified. They claim that witnesses are watching each other's testimonies and then repeating them. The court will consider this request.
One witness who testified today from behind a curtain to protect his identity. He said that when he was 8 years that his father, three uncles and grandmother were arrested and imprisoned.
"She complained to us about what had happened to her. They used to torture her before her children and they would torture her children before her. She said, 'They tortured us, and we did not know for what reason.'"
The defence noted that he Defense was a child at the time, and that he was not arrested and did not see any torture or killings personally.
Saddam interjected too:
"His testimony is documented and accepted, and he's underage (at the time)?" This is something I would like to understand. Is this allowed? Is this permissible?"
The trial continues.
Quote:
"The White House lies once more. The number-one liar in the world, they said in Iraq, there is chemicals, and there is a relation to terrorism, and they announced later we couldn't find any of that in Iraq.
Also, they said that what Saddam Hussein (said) was not true".
He then spoke of his allegations , made yesterday about being beaten:
"I have documented the injuries I had before three American medical teams."
Hussein then added that the medical teams numbered "two, for sure, unequivocally."
Then, for good measure:
"We don't lie. The White House lies."
The defence have requested that the testimony of prosecution witnesses not be broadcast, until all the witnesses have testified. They claim that witnesses are watching each other's testimonies and then repeating them. The court will consider this request.
One witness who testified today from behind a curtain to protect his identity. He said that when he was 8 years that his father, three uncles and grandmother were arrested and imprisoned.
"She complained to us about what had happened to her. They used to torture her before her children and they would torture her children before her. She said, 'They tortured us, and we did not know for what reason.'"
The defence noted that he Defense was a child at the time, and that he was not arrested and did not see any torture or killings personally.
Saddam interjected too:
"His testimony is documented and accepted, and he's underage (at the time)?" This is something I would like to understand. Is this allowed? Is this permissible?"
The trial continues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)