Saddam lawyer wants trial moved to The Hague

[cal04]

A DEFENSE lawyer for ousted Iraq president Saddam Hussein wrote to UN chief Kofi Annan today calling for the court trying him on charges of crimes against humanity to be moved to The Hague and its Iraqi judges replaced by foreign ones.

"We submit to you our request for your involvement and your good office in the present circumstances to call upon the US authority and the present government of Iraq to review the legal status of the present court and to reallocate the present court outside Iraq, i.e. The Hague, Netherlands," said the letter to Annan from defense lawyer Najib al-Nawimi. He called for the court to be given "independent and impartial international judges" and also for pressure to be put on the Iraqi authorities and their US backers to recognize Saddam and his co-defendants as prisoners of war.

Nawimi reiterated that his client refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Iraqi High Tribunal and again hit out at the obstacles placed in the way of the defense
Prosecutors "did not hand over to the defense team a copy of the accusation list, neither granted us a proper access to our clients nor to have sufficient time as we had requested (for) three months," he charged.

Nawimi also complained of serious security concerns following the assassination of Saadun Janabi, a lawyer representing one of Saddam's co-defendants, earlier this month which he blamed on elements within the Iraqi interior ministry. "Though they have denied the present governments involvement, the material witnesses, we have proved the involvement of the present government in the assassination, which kept all the defense team feeling that they will be the second to be assassinated," he wrote. "We are in a very dangerous situation where the present Iraqi government has no control over our security to attend and participate in such a trial."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1493411.htm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17072031%255E1702,00.html

[aquart]

1. He wants to live.

[cosmicone]

2. I thinks Saddam has a point

The kangaroo court of his political enemies supported by occupying foreign forces hell bent on destroying him for political reasons doesn't a fair trial make.

If US is truly a country that respects due process of law it would allow this change of venue to take place.

[NYC Liberal]

3. The "country" might, but Bush certainly won't let this happen.

Too many secrets to be revealed.

He'd be suicided before that ever happened.

[leesa]

15. I agree. Let's get a better picture of what went on in Iraq. Lots of

countries would end up exposed for illegal trading and other assorted crimes though, so it's doubtful it will happen. I think we would ALL be surprised by the real Saddam story if it ever came out.

[LostinVA]

4. This is where it should be n/t

[fshrink]

12. Yes. That's what La Hague is there for.

[iamjoy]

5. It Should Be In The Hague

I'm not sympathizing with him, but those atrocities of which he stands accused, war crimes. belong in an international tribunal. This way, the world can stand as one body and make a ruling.

I don't know a lot about law, much less Iraqi law - but trying him there seems wrong. First, what were the laws of Iraq when Hussein was in charge? Did he break them? If not, this smacks of ex post facto. Second, this sets a precedent for any unpopular world leader to be deposed and then tried as a criminal. OK - quick smile, Dubya charged for lying about the Iraq War. But no, seriously, that's the kind of thing that happens in developing nations with chaotic government. Venezuelans could overthrow Chavez and do that to him (Pat Robertson's wet dream). What about Aristide in Haiti? It's just a bad idea and the U.S. shouldn't be backing stuff like this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. I thought the current charges were about an internal massacre

a village where someone tried to assassinate him, and he killed over a hundred in retaliation. That was the point - to get him on a plain murder charge, rather than let him say he was defending his country, working with Reagan, etc.

[iamjoy]

7. But That's Still Wrong

For the other reason I gave. Lots of countries have brutal dictators who deliberately commit atrocities against their people.

Does it really meet the strict, technical/legal definition of murder?

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Yes, I should think it does meet the strict definition

Most countries have basic laws about due process, the powers of the president, and so on, and I expect Iraq was one of those - if it wasn't, it wouldn't have bothered with 'elections' in which Saddam got 99% of the vote. Saddam came to power, and ruled, through intimidation and murder of his political opponents. That's why he was never held to account at the time.

Surely we're all pulling for Pinochet to get tried and convicted in Chile for all he did? Isn't Saddam another case of a murderous dictactor? You can't surely be saying that any leader should have immunity from prosecution for ever.

[iamjoy]

21. Funny What's Legal In Some Countries

We've heard the cases where a man insults another and the insulter's sister is raped by the insultee. And it isn't a crime.

In other cases, if a woman is unchaster, it is permissable (even expected) for her male family member to kill her, not really murder.

In the United States, we execute certain kinds of criminals. If the death penalty were ruled unconstitutional, would you want every governor who ever signed a death warrant imprisoned? And what if the people deciding the accused's fate were family members and friends of people executed?

Of course my arguments are a little absurd, but they should be food for thought.

No, I don't think Saddam Hussein should get away with his atrocities, but I think a world body ought to make that determination.

[Amonester]

16. "brutal dictators who deliberately commit atrocities against their

people"

Ummm... Wait! 2,011 non- "last resort" victims + tens of thousands more and badly wounded for life and innocents tortured to death http://icasualties.org of blatant lies to representatives of the taxpayers in order to line the pockets of have-mores seem to apply to a few crooks and liars we know about...

The Hague? Ummm...

[Igel]

17. People want to bring Pinochet up on charges, right?

Presumably they'd have to be something like murder.

[zann725]

11. I agree...the Hague. That way his atty. lives, and the TRUTH about WMD's

and U.S. War Crimes will also inevitably be drawn into the hearings in Hague. The "cages" they'e keeping Saddam in during trial literally scream "monkey trial."

[Fluffdaddy]

9. would you want to be a lawyer for Saddam and stay in Iraq ?

[rfkrfk]

10. What does Saddam think about the legitamacy of courts in Iran,

and Kuwait?

The Hague judges, will just have to wait.

edit, adding...
perhaps some teleconfernce could allow
Saddam to be tried by the Hague.

[Miss Chybil]

13. It would not only assure a "fair" trial, but would keep Iraqi judges

and lawyers alive. It makes sense.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. ...and call Rummy to testify.

"We'll have to keep your passport, Mr. Rumsfeld."

[cassiepriam]

18. Maybe Saddam and Bush could have the trial together there.

A double trial.

[VegasWolf]

19. He is right, he will never get any sort of a trial from the Bush puppet

judges. Bush and Saddam should be tried side by side at the Hague.

[wordpix2]

20. Yes, the Hague: fair trial and let's get Saddam's side of his dispute w/

BushCo. And he should not get death penalty---all info needs to come out, even if it takes years!