Saddam Hussein was allowed to attend his own trial today, contrary to yesterday's session where he was blocked by the judge from attending.
Chief judge Raouf Abdel-Rahman had rejected requests that all the defendants be allowed to attend on Tuesday, he said that their presence was not necessary.
However, today he changed his mind and told the court that all the defendants would be allowed to be present.
Witnesses on Tuesday and Wednesday were testifying on behalf of defendants Abdullah Kazim al-Ruwayyid and his son Mizhar, two local Baath Party officials accused of aiding the crackdown against Shiites in Dujail in 1982.
Three witnesses, two Dujail residents and a nephew of Abdullah al-Ruwayyid, told the court today that the al-Ruwayyids had nothing to do with the crackdown.
One Dujail resident said about Abdullah al-Ruwayyid:
"I saw him a month later, and never heard from any Dujail residents that he took part in any arrests with the security forces."
Saddam has argued that the crackdown was a legal response to the assassination attempt.
The trial continues.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Trial Continues Today Without Saddam
The trial of Saddam Hussein continues today, with further defence witnesses appearing.
Saddam is not in court.
Chief Judge Raouf Abdul Rahman said witnesses for three other defendants in the case would take the stand during the session, all are former local officials of Saddam's Baath party.
Quote:
"The court will listen to the witnesses of the three defendants present. There are a number of witnesses and it may take up this session or even another one."
The defence team complained that Saddam, and some other defendants, had not been called to attend the session.
The judge dismissed their complaints saying:
"We let you attend so you can respond to anything the witnesses may say that affects your clients".
Saddam is not in court.
Chief Judge Raouf Abdul Rahman said witnesses for three other defendants in the case would take the stand during the session, all are former local officials of Saddam's Baath party.
Quote:
"The court will listen to the witnesses of the three defendants present. There are a number of witnesses and it may take up this session or even another one."
The defence team complained that Saddam, and some other defendants, had not been called to attend the session.
The judge dismissed their complaints saying:
"We let you attend so you can respond to anything the witnesses may say that affects your clients".
Monday, May 15, 2006
Saddam Refuses To Play Ball
The trial of Saddam Hussein has resumed, and true to form he has played to the gallery.
When the detailed charges were presented to Saddam, he refused to enter a plea and said:
"This is no way to treat the president of Iraq".
The Iraqi trial system allows the prosecution to outline its case first, which has happened, then the judge decides on the specific charges before the defence is allowed to present its case.
Chief Judge Raouf Abdul Rahman read out the charges:
"After allegations of coming under an assassination attempt, you issued orders to security forces and the army to arrest residents and use all weapons against them.
As a result for your orders to use force against Dujail residents, nine people were killed in the first two days...and 399 others were arrested."
Saddam retorted:
"I can't just say yes or no to this. You read all this for the sake of public consumption, and I can't answer it in brief.
You are before Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq. I am the president of Iraq according to the will of the Iraqis and I am still the president up to this moment."
The judge ordered that it be recorded that Saddam Hussein had denied the charges, and read out charges against the other defendants
Barzan al-Tikriti, Saddam's half brother and former head of the intelligence service, said:
"All you said are lies, everything you mentioned is a lie."
The defence is expected to take a month, unless there are delays and disruptions to the proceedings.
When the detailed charges were presented to Saddam, he refused to enter a plea and said:
"This is no way to treat the president of Iraq".
The Iraqi trial system allows the prosecution to outline its case first, which has happened, then the judge decides on the specific charges before the defence is allowed to present its case.
Chief Judge Raouf Abdul Rahman read out the charges:
"After allegations of coming under an assassination attempt, you issued orders to security forces and the army to arrest residents and use all weapons against them.
As a result for your orders to use force against Dujail residents, nine people were killed in the first two days...and 399 others were arrested."
Saddam retorted:
"I can't just say yes or no to this. You read all this for the sake of public consumption, and I can't answer it in brief.
You are before Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq. I am the president of Iraq according to the will of the Iraqis and I am still the president up to this moment."
The judge ordered that it be recorded that Saddam Hussein had denied the charges, and read out charges against the other defendants
Barzan al-Tikriti, Saddam's half brother and former head of the intelligence service, said:
"All you said are lies, everything you mentioned is a lie."
The defence is expected to take a month, unless there are delays and disruptions to the proceedings.
Friday, May 12, 2006
AWB Diplomatic Failure
The Cole inquiry in Australia into the AWB kickbacks scandal has been told by numerous diplomats that they were aware of allegations that Saddam Hussein had corrupted the UN oil-for-food program, but no one ordered an investigation.
In statements made to the inquiry, it seems that senior staff around the world were warned about kickbacks in 2000. However, no one acted because they believed that there was no evidence that AWB was involved and AWB denied being corrupt.
AWB paid over $290M in kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's regime through a Jordanian trucking company, Alia.
Australian diplomat Bronte Moules reportedly sent several diplomatic cables raising his concerns about corruption to officials in Canberra in 2000. However, strange as it may seem, very few people could recall reading them.
Shameful!
In statements made to the inquiry, it seems that senior staff around the world were warned about kickbacks in 2000. However, no one acted because they believed that there was no evidence that AWB was involved and AWB denied being corrupt.
AWB paid over $290M in kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's regime through a Jordanian trucking company, Alia.
Australian diplomat Bronte Moules reportedly sent several diplomatic cables raising his concerns about corruption to officials in Canberra in 2000. However, strange as it may seem, very few people could recall reading them.
Shameful!
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
The Sham Trial
The former U.S. Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, has put the boot into the trial of Saddam Hussein by calling it a sham designed to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Clark is a member of Saddam Hussein's defence team, and said yesterday that Saddam's trial was "a direct threat to international law, the United Nations, universal human rights and world peace."
Clark is demanding that the proceedings be transferred from the Iraqi Special Tribunal to a new court that could work independently, free of prejudice.
Clark went on to say that the US wanted the trial to "vindicate its invasion, to validate its occupation, and to make the world believe that the Iraqi people demanded that Saddam Hussein and leaders in his government be executed."
Clark claims that a fair trial in the midst of the widespread violence sweeping Iraq was impossible.
He noted that the fact that Saddam has signed death warrants is in itself not the act of a criminal, citing the fact that President Bush also signs death warrants:
"It is common for the law to require the highest official of a state to approve and sign death warrants. George W. Bush signed 152 such warrants as governor of Texas."
Clark is fogetting one thing, rightly or wrongly, to the victor the spoils and the right to rewrite history.
Clark is a member of Saddam Hussein's defence team, and said yesterday that Saddam's trial was "a direct threat to international law, the United Nations, universal human rights and world peace."
Clark is demanding that the proceedings be transferred from the Iraqi Special Tribunal to a new court that could work independently, free of prejudice.
Clark went on to say that the US wanted the trial to "vindicate its invasion, to validate its occupation, and to make the world believe that the Iraqi people demanded that Saddam Hussein and leaders in his government be executed."
Clark claims that a fair trial in the midst of the widespread violence sweeping Iraq was impossible.
He noted that the fact that Saddam has signed death warrants is in itself not the act of a criminal, citing the fact that President Bush also signs death warrants:
"It is common for the law to require the highest official of a state to approve and sign death warrants. George W. Bush signed 152 such warrants as governor of Texas."
Clark is fogetting one thing, rightly or wrongly, to the victor the spoils and the right to rewrite history.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
AWB Report Out Next Month
Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, has been told to expect to receive the much awaited final report from the AWB oil-for-food inquiry commissioner Terence Cole on June 30th.
Mr Cole is leading the commission of inquiry into the $300M in kickbacks that the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) paid to Saddam Hussein's regime, under the UN oil for food initiative.
The inquiry began in January, and was expected to deliver its report by March 31st. The deadline was extended until June by the Governor-General, Michael Jeffery, on March 10th.
It was expected that former United Nations customs official, Felicity Johnston, would give evidence this week. However, this has been delayed whilst Ms Johnston's lawyers and those assisting the commissioner discuss how she will give her evidence; either by videolink, or fly from Washington to Sydney to appear in person before Mr Cole.
Mr Cole is leading the commission of inquiry into the $300M in kickbacks that the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) paid to Saddam Hussein's regime, under the UN oil for food initiative.
The inquiry began in January, and was expected to deliver its report by March 31st. The deadline was extended until June by the Governor-General, Michael Jeffery, on March 10th.
It was expected that former United Nations customs official, Felicity Johnston, would give evidence this week. However, this has been delayed whilst Ms Johnston's lawyers and those assisting the commissioner discuss how she will give her evidence; either by videolink, or fly from Washington to Sydney to appear in person before Mr Cole.
Monday, May 08, 2006
The World's Largest Embassy
Whatever happens in Iraq in the coming months and years, there will be one large scale monument to the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein; namely, the world's largest embassy.
The US is currently constructing a monolith, that dwarfs in size all the other embassies in the world.
Congress has been told that the bill for the embassy has now reached a staggering $592M.
The heavily guarded 42 hectare will have a 15ft thick perimeter wall once it is finished.
It will house around 8000 US staff, and will contain every comfort. There will be residences for the Ambassador and his deputy, six apartments for senior officials, and two huge office blocks for 8,000 staff to work in.
It is also rumoured that it will contain the largest swimming pool in Iraq, a state-of-the-art gymnasium, a cinema, restaurants offering delicacies from US food chains, tennis courts and an American Club for evening functions.
Some cynics suggest that it out "blings" even Saddam Hussein's palaces, in terms of opulence and grandeur.
There are a number of questions that do need to be addressed, in relation to this monument:
1 Why does it need to be so big?
2 Why is it that this will be completed on target, yet other construction projects in Iraq are way off target?
3 Why is it that the electricity, water and other essential utilities for the construction site are on stream, and have not suffered the same cuts and disruptions that ordinary Iraqis suffer everyday with their essential utilities?
4 Why are the construction workers being employed to build this edifice not local Iraqis, but mainly Kuwaitis?
5 Does Washington really feel that this will win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis? Does Washington even care?
The US is currently constructing a monolith, that dwarfs in size all the other embassies in the world.
Congress has been told that the bill for the embassy has now reached a staggering $592M.
The heavily guarded 42 hectare will have a 15ft thick perimeter wall once it is finished.
It will house around 8000 US staff, and will contain every comfort. There will be residences for the Ambassador and his deputy, six apartments for senior officials, and two huge office blocks for 8,000 staff to work in.
It is also rumoured that it will contain the largest swimming pool in Iraq, a state-of-the-art gymnasium, a cinema, restaurants offering delicacies from US food chains, tennis courts and an American Club for evening functions.
Some cynics suggest that it out "blings" even Saddam Hussein's palaces, in terms of opulence and grandeur.
There are a number of questions that do need to be addressed, in relation to this monument:
1 Why does it need to be so big?
2 Why is it that this will be completed on target, yet other construction projects in Iraq are way off target?
3 Why is it that the electricity, water and other essential utilities for the construction site are on stream, and have not suffered the same cuts and disruptions that ordinary Iraqis suffer everyday with their essential utilities?
4 Why are the construction workers being employed to build this edifice not local Iraqis, but mainly Kuwaitis?
5 Does Washington really feel that this will win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis? Does Washington even care?
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
What Goes Around
The Arab television station Al-Arabiya has aired footage yesterday of what it claims were Iraqi men kicking and stepping on the corpse of Mohammed Hamza al-Zubaidi, a prime minister under Saddam Hussein who was linked to the suppression of Shiites after the 1991 Gulf War.
On December 5th 2005 U.S. military reported that al-Zubaidi, 67, had died of heart failure at a U.S. military hospital. Al-Arabiya quoted a U.S. Army spokesman saying that al-Zubaidi's body had been turned over to the Iraqi government after the autopsy.
Nonetheless a body, which is claimed to be that of al-Zubaidi, was shown being stepped on and kicked. Voices could be heard saying, "step on his mouth."
This unpleasant piece of footage, if genuine, raises a number of questions:
1 When and where was the footage taken?
2 Had the corpse really been handed over the official Iraqi authorities?
3 If the authorities had received the corpse, how is it that it fell into the hands of an angry mob?
On December 5th 2005 U.S. military reported that al-Zubaidi, 67, had died of heart failure at a U.S. military hospital. Al-Arabiya quoted a U.S. Army spokesman saying that al-Zubaidi's body had been turned over to the Iraqi government after the autopsy.
Nonetheless a body, which is claimed to be that of al-Zubaidi, was shown being stepped on and kicked. Voices could be heard saying, "step on his mouth."
This unpleasant piece of footage, if genuine, raises a number of questions:
1 When and where was the footage taken?
2 Had the corpse really been handed over the official Iraqi authorities?
3 If the authorities had received the corpse, how is it that it fell into the hands of an angry mob?
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Howard Puts The Boot Into AWB
Australian Prime Minister John Howard is desperately trying to distance himself from the AWB kick back scandal, where there is a judicial inquiry into the legality of kickbacks paid by wheat exporter AWB to Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
Howard, despite the fact that the inquiry has yet to report its findings, is blaming the company for the scandal while distancing his government from it.
Howard wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal, which was published this week, in it he said:
"While I don't seek to prejudge the outcome, public evidence suggests behaviour by some within AWB appears to have been designed to mislead not only my government, but the U.N. as well."
However, Howard's efforts may be in vain. An ACNielsen opinion poll of 1,189 respondents taken last week, showed that the issue is starting to bite on the government's credibility.
The report said:
"It found a strong majority of those who were aware of the Cole inquiry didn't believe the government's line that it didn't know of AWB's kickbacks."
The fallout from the collapse of Saddam's regime is engulfing more than Iraq.
Howard, despite the fact that the inquiry has yet to report its findings, is blaming the company for the scandal while distancing his government from it.
Howard wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal, which was published this week, in it he said:
"While I don't seek to prejudge the outcome, public evidence suggests behaviour by some within AWB appears to have been designed to mislead not only my government, but the U.N. as well."
However, Howard's efforts may be in vain. An ACNielsen opinion poll of 1,189 respondents taken last week, showed that the issue is starting to bite on the government's credibility.
The report said:
"It found a strong majority of those who were aware of the Cole inquiry didn't believe the government's line that it didn't know of AWB's kickbacks."
The fallout from the collapse of Saddam's regime is engulfing more than Iraq.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
On Again Off Again
The trial of Saddam Hussein resumed on Monday, but it was then adjourned until May 15.
However, during yesterday's session a group of handwriting experts confirmed that signatures on documents related to the crackdown on Shiite Muslims were those of Saddam and his co-defendants.
A report by the expanded five member team of experts was read out in court:
"The signatures and margins stipulated in the documents match the signature of Saddam Hussein on presidential decrees."
Saddam and his half-brother, Barzan al-Tikriti, have refused to give the court samples of their writing. They also argued that there was no crime in prosecuting the 148 Shi'ites, because they were accused of trying to kill Saddam.
The trial resumes on the 15th of May.
However, during yesterday's session a group of handwriting experts confirmed that signatures on documents related to the crackdown on Shiite Muslims were those of Saddam and his co-defendants.
A report by the expanded five member team of experts was read out in court:
"The signatures and margins stipulated in the documents match the signature of Saddam Hussein on presidential decrees."
Saddam and his half-brother, Barzan al-Tikriti, have refused to give the court samples of their writing. They also argued that there was no crime in prosecuting the 148 Shi'ites, because they were accused of trying to kill Saddam.
The trial resumes on the 15th of May.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)