Italy: Defence Lawyer Says Saddam Can Never Be Tried

[ECH1969]

Rome, 21 June (AKI) - One of the lawyers defending Saddam Hussein has said there is no way the former Iraqi dictator can ever be tried because he has sovereign immunity as head of state, and should be released as soon as possible to a safe third country, possibly Sweden. Anglo-Italian legal representative Giovanni Di Stefano says Saddam’s treatment is in flagrant breach of the Iraqi Special Tribunal’s own statute.

“It is 523 days that His Excellency President Saddam Hussein is in custody, and to all intents and purposes it is unlawful” he told Rome’s Foreign Press Club on Tuesday. Di Stefano, one of more than twenty lawyers on the Saddam team, confirmed he would see his client at the Camp Cropper detention centre near Baghdad "within a month".

”The president and members of the Revolutionary Council all have sovereign immunity,” Di Stefano argued, “even if they are mass murderers”. Di Stefano, who said he was also in close contact with Saddam’s family, said he had made a submission to the then Iraqi government last September on these grounds.

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.179254446&par=0

[Wabbajack]

1. LMAO!!

[Walt Starr]

2. Very shrewd move!

And insisting he was still president of Iraq to his guards helps the case.

[geek tragedy]

19. Not really. Self-serving prior statements aren't admissible at trial.

They're not evidence of anything except that someone believes his own arguments.

[Walt Starr]

21. American court standards don't really apply

At best, the Nuremburg standards will be what is used, and a lot of self serving crap was presented by the Nazis in those trials.

[geek tragedy]

22. Of course they can testify on the stand on their own behalf.

But, the fact that they said the same stuff before to someone before trial isn't relevant.

On the other hand, prior INCONSISTENT statements are admissible as evidence.

So, if US government officials had made references to him as being sovereign and still president, then those would be admissible. Similarly, if Saddam had made comments stating that he really was no longer president, those would also be admissible.

[Walt Starr]

23. So, claiming that in fron of guards WAS a shrewd move

:D

[geek tragedy]

24. That's one way of putting it.

Another is to say that it would have been really, really stupid to say the opposite.

Same effect as keeping his mouth shut, really.

[LiberalFighter]

30. Actually doesn't make any difference what he said while being held

Since he was president during the time period they are trying to try him for his actions.

[Horse with no Name]

3. I had wondered about this

why all these other leaders served out their days in exile, yet we have SH in a prison cell.
If he is in need of a trial, it seems to me that the Hague would be the place, not Gitmo.
Not much makes sense these days.

[Tyler Durden]

6. None of THEM threatened *'s DADDY!

Just for the record, PISS on BOTH Bushes.

[KoKo]

4. Since he didn't have an WMD then why SHOULD he be tried?

That was the reason we attacked Iraq. I guess we could try him for old crimes. That's what the Bushies will say. But, there's still that tricky problem of our "invasion" of a sovereign country."

[bribri16]

10. And, most of the Kurds his regime killed were killed in an uprising

against the Iraqi government at the time. Since when is it illegal for one government to put down an insurgency to protect itself, even if it was a n insurgency incited by the US?

[geek tragedy]

17. When that government commits mass violations of human rights while

putting down an insurgency, then yeah it's highly illegal.

[geek tragedy]

18. He's not on trial for WMD's. He's on trial for crimes committed against

Kurds, Shiites, Marsh Arabs. Not sure if he's going to be tried for war crimes committed against Iran and Kuwait.

[gratuitous]

5. It is a legal point that will have to be addressed

The proper venue to try Saddam, of course, is the International Criminal Court, but that's politically inconvenient for the corrupt Bush administration, which would really, really like to avoid recognizing that court's authority.

[bicentennial_baby]

8. Yeah, because they'd have to sign on

I think you have to be a signatory of the Rome Statute to bring a case in the ICC, right?

[geek tragedy]

20. No, the ICC is not the proper place to try him.

It lacks jurisdiction for any crimes committed before the Court came into existence. It's right there in the treaty.

[Endangered Specie]

7. When they get around to HANGING Saddam...

I wouldnt lose anymore sleep if the lawyer got strung up too :mad:

[Horse with no Name]

9. For doing his job and ensuring that even SH gets a fair trial?

Is that what we are coming to as a society?
What is it that Merh says.."an injustice for one is an injustice for everyone"?

[denverbill]

12. He would've probably hung John Adams as well.

Since he defended the British Redcoats who killed American civilians at the Boston Massacre.

[Endangered Specie]

26. Except the lawyer is going to argue that he can NEVER get a fair trial...

what do you do then? let him go? :wtf:

[CTLawGuy]

27. are you lost my friend?

NT

[Endangered Specie]

28. What do you mean? Im found! *whistles amazing grace*

[CTLawGuy]

29. such hostility to justice...

and the principles of law, i figured you may have lost your way :)

[denverbill]

11. Ha. Only Bush has 'sovereign immunity'

'Sovereign immunity' didn't save Goering or Noreiga or Tojo, and it probably won't save Pinochet.

Good luck wriggling out of this one. Your best bet is to claim that since the invasion was illegal, your incarceration was as well. I doubt it will do you any good.

[daleo]

15. Well Goering and Tojo waged aggressive war

So, sovereign immunity wouldn't apply in those cases. I don't know about Pinochet and Noreiga - in Pinochet's case I believe that fact that foreign nationals were killed explains why he has trouble when he leaves Chile. Within Chile, he can be tried by their government for domestic matters, so again sovereign immunity wouldn't apply. With Noreiga, I think the U.S. relied on the idea that drug laws were broken in the U.S., but I don't doubt that whole thing was flat out illegal (invasion of Panama and capture of Noreiga).

It doesn't surprise me that an Anglo-Italian lawyer is floating these ideas - Blair might be having a few sleepless nights himself on this matter, and be quite desirous of some sort of immunity.

[damntexdem]

13. Stuff this 'sovereign immunity' crap!

Heads of state ARE tried for war crimes -- and ours needs to be.

[Deja Q]

14. Speaking of trial, does it matter where Saddam bought his weapons from?

I mean, if gassing his own people and other such crimes is an excuse for the war... (or is it proven that a gun owner is not liable for the actions of his client? I'm a bit confused on this one...)

[geek tragedy]

16. What a crock of steaming garbage.

<snip>”The president and members of the Revolutionary Council all have sovereign immunity,” Di Stefano argued, “even if they are mass murderers”.
<snip>

Didn't work at Nuremberg, not gonna work here.

[confludemocrat]

25. The U.S. and Iraq puppets will never let this go to trial

They might take that deal!