Thread: Defiant Saddam appears in court

Saddam mocks accusers in court

Saddam Hussein arrived in chains at a palace complex once used by his inner circle for hunting, fishing and other pleasurable diversions.

The ex-Iraqi leader was flown to the complex by helicopter and brought to the makeshift courtroom in an armoured bus, escorted by four US military vehicles and a military ambulance.

The handcuffs, attached to a chain around his waist, were then removed, dropping to the floor outside the courtroom with a clatter.

He was then taken inside by two imposing Iraqi prison guards, while six other guards waited outside.

With free hands, the former president was able to jab his finger aggressively at the judge when he became animated, during the half-hour hearing to read out the seven preliminary charges against him.

'President'

Dressed in a grey pin-striped suit and white shirt - and looking thinner than before - the ex-Iraqi leader was at times defiant and at times subdued.

But he was wholly different from the submissive and dishevelled prisoner last seen by the world when he was captured in December.

One of the few reporters allowed in the courtroom, from Qatari-based al-Jazeera TV, said that at first Saddam Hussein refused to reply when he was asked to confirm his name.

"Are you Saddam Hussein?" the judge said.

Looking indignantly at the court official he replied: "Yes, Saddam Hussein, the president of the Republic of Iraq."

The judge then repeated "Saddam Hussein al-Majid?" using the former leader's full name.

"Saddam Hussein, the president of the Republic of Iraq," repeated the man in the dock, emphatically. Throughout the hearing he refused being referred to as the "former Iraqi president".

And when asked where he lived, Saddam Hussein replied:"I live in every Iraqi house."

This obstreperous attitude during the initial exchange seemed to set the tone for the whole hearing.

Read more here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3857165.stm

Saddam fights back in court

The moment when Saddam Hussein's handcuffs and chains were heard clanking outside the courtroom was almost unbearably dramatic.

Yet when he entered, the effect the new government here had hoped to make was unexpectedly undermined.

True, Saddam Hussein looked older and diminished and somehow haunted, yet there was plenty of his old imperious manner, and that was not at all what the government had wanted.

The judge banned the sound of Saddam Hussein's voice on television but that merely gave the impression he was being gagged. And then some of the sound was made available anyway.

The timing of it all meant the pictures aired on American breakfast television, and that spread suspicions here that it was really all about helping US President George W Bush in the opinion polls.

So did the fact that the only reporters in court were from American organisations.

Most importantly, Saddam Hussein was able to raise the whole contentious subject of the rights and wrongs of last year's invasion.

That is something the Iraqi government could really do without.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3858539.stm

shouldn't he be tried at the hague, since its war crimes we're talking about here?

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

shouldn't he be tried at the hague, since its war crimes we're talking about here?

I don't think the Iraqi interim government views the war crimes court in Den Haag as having juridstiction over this case, I know the US doesn't.

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

shouldn't he be tried at the hague, since its war crimes we're talking about here?

Only if the UN intervenes/invades, he can be tried in The Hague (i think). Or Kuwaitis would have to file a motion for the 1991 invasion.

Originally Posted by Jay

I think only if the UN intervenes, he can be tried in The Hague.

Well, the UN couldn't really intervene.

Originally Posted by Irondüke

Well, the UN couldn't really intervene.

He probably meant from the beginning, i.e. the US didn't invade, the UN did.

I don't care about the politics of this, I just want this evil bastard punished, in what ever way the Iraqis see fit.

Those goddamned greedy kuwaitis caused all the recent problems over there and don't forget ambassador Gillespie's conversation with Saddam.
After the war with fannatical Iran,Iraq was in terrible finnancial shape,millions of soldiers
dead and wounded and then Kuwaitis sheiks start to flood market with cheap
oil and drilling into Iraq oil fields.I would do exactly the same thing as the Saddam did.

Originally Posted by bodybag

Those goddamned greedy kuwaitis

How did they force him to fill mass graves with women and children?

Originally Posted by Confed999

How did they force him to fill mass graves with women and children?

Well, the very nature of Arab politics....almost all the arab rulers committed crimes like these, only difference is they went un-noticed.

Originally Posted by Jay

Well, the very nature of Arab politics....almost all the arab rulers committed crimes like these, only difference is they went un-noticed.

Oh, alot of us noticed them, but I still don't see how the Kuwaitis forced Saddam to starve, torture and kill his own people. Nearly every race has commited crimes like these, so I am not quick to blame "Arab" rulers, just tyrants in general.

Originally Posted by Confed999

Oh, alot of us noticed them, but I still don't see how the Kuwaitis forced Saddam to starve, torture and kill his own people. Nearly every race has commited crimes like these, so I am not quick to blame "Arab" rulers, just tyrants in general.

Whoever(western powers) created state of Iraq bears some responsibility to what is going on in Iraq



.There are just to many ethnic groups(kurds,shia,sunn etc.) and each of them has ambition of creating independent state.Saddam in my view had his hands full
of uprisings and revolts. He did what every dictator does,but there is just this thing- oil.If not for the OIL I guarantee we would never hear nothing abaout Iraq

Before it was Iraq, the UK controled the region. They became an independant kingdom that, to the best of my knowledge, was quite benign, and ruled for decades. Saddam has propagated the racial hatred in his country as a means of control. This keeps his enemies from uniting to overthrow him. It's a pretty standard strategy for tyrants.

Originally Posted by bodybag

If not for the OIL I guarantee we would never hear nothing abaout Iraq

Oil is the driving force for some, it matters little to most others though. Individual motives don't mean anything, because every motive is covered by someone's views. Grenada, Vietnam and Serbia have little, if any, oil production, for example.

Originally Posted by Confed999

Before it was Iraq, the UK controled the region. They became an independant kingdom that, to the best of my knowledge, was quite benign, and ruled for decades. Saddam has propagated the racial hatred in his country as a means of control. This keeps his enemies from uniting to overthrow him. It's a pretty standard strategy for tyrants.

Oil is the driving force for some, it matters little to most others though. Individual motives don't mean anything, because every motive is covered by someone's views. Grenada, Vietnam and Serbia have little, if any, oil production, for example.

British rule wasn't much better, not for the Kurds at least.