A beginner's work in progress.......
Is it going to be a fair trial?
Published on September 25, 2005 By dabe In Politics
Saddam's trial begins on October 19, 2005. It's going to get very interesting, because in order for him to put on any kind of appropriate defence, he will have to bring up some things that our government likely wishes would not be brought up. But, the defence team, if they are going to provide a vigorous defense, must insist upon some historical facts. Of course, none of these thing will actually serve to condone the atrocities committed by Saddam, but he will drag down some significant American politicians in his efforts. And, rightly so.

I truly believe that some of the dirt on our US administration, and their knowledge both before and after the fact, and their tacit dismissal at that time, are likely going to make the neocons really uncomfortable. Sure the trial will begin on October 19th (if there are no further delays), but it is going to be a long drawn out affair. The questions I have are: Will the dubya neocon dummies do everthing possible to withhold evidence? Will Renquist or Cheney or any of these other conniving scumbags testify? Will Saddam survive long enough through the trial to get the entire story out? I suspect that the answer to these questions will likely be "no", but time will tell. I have provided one article, an opinion column that speaks exactly on some of these thoughts. No, it's not conspiracy theory. It's real history, which some people here dismiss entirely because it doesn't suit their simpleton explanations of life.

As for some of the lowlife scumbag racist bitches at JU that have nothing to do with their wasted lives, but lie in wait, looking for anything to get over their blogstipation so that they can write long, hateful, disgusting, stupid, evil and racist crap, may you rot in hell. But, before you do, I invite you to read this. You might just learn something, you sorry ass hypocritic bitch.

Who will testify at Saddam's trial?

Joe Conason - The New York Observer

12.17.03 - President George W. Bush and the provisional Iraqi authorities have promised that before Saddam Hussein is executed, he will most certainly receive a fair trial. Conveniently enough, the Iraqis set up a war-crimes tribunal in Baghdad for this purpose just last week. So sometime after Saddam's Army interrogators are finished sweating the old monster, the preparations shall begin for what promises to be a courtroom spectacular.

Advocates of human rights and international law hope that the prosecution of Saddam will improve somewhat upon his regime's standard of criminal justice, which generally entailed horrific torture followed by confession and punishment. They have urged that Saddam's trial be conducted with complete fairness and transparency. Ahmed Chalabi, the Pentagon's favorite member of the Iraqi Governing Council, says that Saddam must be afforded the lawful treatment he denied his victims.

Those laudable aims presumably require that he be permitted to defend himself legally, no matter how indefensible he actually is. Human Rights Watch, which demanded action against Iraqi atrocities before such concerns became fashionable in Washington, now insists that the captured dictator "must be allowed to conduct a vigorous defense that includes the right to legal counsel at an early stage."

Apart from blaming his underlings for the genocidal crimes on his indictment, what defense can he (or his lawyers) offer? Following in the style of Slobodan Milosevic, he may well wish to spend his final days on the public stage bringing shame to those who brought him down.

Unfortunately, it isn't hard to imagine how he might accomplish that if he can call witnesses and subpoena documents.

Charged with the use of poison gas against Kurds and Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam could summon a long list of Reagan and Bush administration officials who ignored or excused those atrocities when they were occurring.

An obvious prospective witness is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who acted as a special envoy to Baghdad during the early 1980's. On a courtroom easel, Saddam might display the famous December 1983 photograph of him shaking hands with Mr. Rumsfeld, who acknowledges that the United States knew Iraq was using chemical weapons. If his forces were using Tabun, mustard gas and other forbidden poisons, he might ask, why did Washington restore diplomatic relations with Baghdad in November 1984?

As for his horrendous persecution of the Kurds in 1988, Saddam could call executives from the banks and defense and pharmaceutical companies from various countries that sold him the equipment and materials he is alleged to have used. He might put former President George Herbert Walker Bush on the witness stand and ask, "Why did your administration and Ronald Reagan's sell my government biological toxins such as anthrax and botulism, as well as poisonous chemicals and helicopters?"

Saddam could also subpoena Henry Kissinger, whose consulting firm's chief economist ventured to Baghdad in June 1989 to advise the Iraqi government on restructuring its debt. "After my forces allegedly murdered thousands of Kurdish civilians in 1988," he might inquire, "why would you and other American businessmen want to help me refinance and rearm my government?"

Indeed, Saddam could conceivably seek the testimony of dozens of men and women who once served in the Reagan and Bush administrations, starting with former Secretary of State George Shultz, and ask them to explain why they opposed every Congressional effort to place sanctions on his government, up until the moment his army invaded Kuwait during the summer of 1990. Pursuing the same general theme, he might call Vice President Dick Cheney, who sought to remove sanctions against Iraq when he served as the chief executive of Halliburton Corp.

The long, shadowy history of American relations with Saddam would be illuminated not only through witness testimony but literally thousands of documents in U.S. government files. Memos uncovered by the National Security Archive show that Reagan and Bush administration officials knew exactly how the Iraqi government was procuring what it needed to build weapons of mass destruction, including equipment intended for construction of a nuclear arsenal.

From time to time, during those crucial years when Saddam consolidated his power and prepared for war, U.S. diplomats issued rote condemnations of his worst actions. Then, as the record shows, they would privately reassure Saddam that the United States still desired close and productive relations. The other governments that were Saddam's accomplices include both opponents and supporters of this administration's pre-emptive war -- from France, Germany and Russia, to Japan, Italy and the United Kingdom.

Pertinent as these issues are to Saddam's case, they do not mitigate his record of murder and corruption. And the man dragged from his pathetic hideout near Tikrit hardly seems to possess the will or the capability to raise them. Either way, he will get what he deserves. Yet it will be hard to boast that justice and history have been fully served if his foreign accomplices escape their share of opprobrium.

COPYRIGHT (c) 2003 THE NEW YORK OBSERVER

Comments (Page 1)
on Sep 25, 2005
As for some of the lowlife scumbag racist bitches at JU that have nothing to do with their wasted lives, but lie in wait, looking for anything to get over their blogstipation so that they can write long, hateful, disgusting, stupid, evil and racist crap, may you rot in hell. But, before you do, I invite you to read this. You might just learn something, you sorry ass hypocritic bitch.


Dabe: If you want to see peace as much as you say you do, you'd be well advised to start with yourself. If you can't manage to be diplomatic and a peacemaker here on JU, then how can you expect it from our leaders?

As far the Saddam issue goes...don't you want him to stand trial and be held accountable for his crimes against humanity? Because it sounds like you'd rather him be "taken out" by the US so that you can say "America is evil, I told you so!"
on Sep 25, 2005
Dabe: If you want to see peace as much as you say you do, you'd be well advised to start with yourself. If you can't manage to be diplomatic and a peacemaker here on JU, then how can you expect it from our leaders?


I don't see you saying that to the bitch who chooses to write entire articles denigrating me. Why the hell is that? Because you really don't care about diplomacy or peacemaking, maybe? You just don't like what I have to say, maybe?

As far the Saddam issue goes...don't you want him to stand trial and be held accountable for his crimes against humanity? Because it sounds like you'd rather him be "taken out" by the US so that you can say "America is evil, I told you so!"


You are very, very wrong about this. I absolutely hope that he lives to tell all. And, I mean ALL. I just wonder whether the neocons will let him.
on Sep 26, 2005
dabe:
I don't see you saying that to the bitch who chooses to write entire articles denigrating me. Why the hell is that? Because you really don't care about diplomacy or peacemaking, maybe? You just don't like what I have to say, maybe?


I agree with a lot of what you have to say to varying degrees. Perhaps this is why I want to see you as someone I can feel solidarity with. Am I holding you to a higher standard? Probably. All I know is this...you can't insult or bully people into accepting your views. Maybe I'm hard on you because I'd like to see you have some influence around here.

Dabe, in my own life I try to be a peacemaker. I fail all the time, but I think it's one of the greatest qualities to have and I refuse to give up on it.

I also believe that I should model the behavior I want to see in others. Again, I fail often. But I try. I don't think I can expect something from others that I can't give myself.

You are very, very wrong about this. I absolutely hope that he lives to tell all. And, I mean ALL. I just wonder whether the neocons will let him.


I hope I am wrong about you on this one, dabe. It just seems that you are salivating over the chance that the US may be smeared and not all that concerned that the Iraqi people receive proper justice.

I hope I'm wrong.
on Sep 26, 2005
And incidentally, I have a personal history with Sabrina and consider her a VERY dear friend. While she and I may disagree on a lot of issues, I have great respect for her as a human being. She has shown me nothing but kindness, loyalty, and compassion.

Love covers a multitude of sins, eh?
on Sep 26, 2005
I don't see you saying that to the bitch who chooses to write entire articles denigrating me.


and me
I didn't sleep all night because of the mean references to me
SQUAWK!!!! POLLY WANTS A CRACKER!!!!

look at it this way Dabe... as long as we are being attacked, someone else isn't.
on Sep 26, 2005
Manopeace:
especially when she tried to break up your marriage... that was definitely done out of love and kindness.


Wow. First of all, it's SUPER inappropriate for you to be bringing this up here. Second, Sabrina did nothing but support, love, and encourage me. She and Michael were there for me when no one else was. She helped me keep my marriage together. You are completely mistaken on this one.
on Sep 26, 2005
Tex, I see you as a loving and compassionate young woman. The only thing that is SUPER innapropriate is your blind friendship towards her. She is like a rabid dog that lashes out blindly at her friends as well as those she thinks are her enemies. I don't want to see you hurt in any way.
She and I were never friends, but to make an enemy out of me was totally uncalled for. Disagree with my politics if you will, that's fine, but the meanness and total disregard for my and others' feelings is a totally different story. I do not see her as the person you see her as.
on Sep 26, 2005
the trial is gonna be quite a circus. i've been wondering what gil garcetti's been doin since he was voted outta office. i wonder how much the iraqi national assembly is payin him to provide consulting services to the newly renamed iraqi high criminal court?

from what i understand, the statutes saddam is accused of violating haven't been officially enacted. the shiite majority managed to get a couple former baathist judges kicked off the tribunal; the chalabi relative who was formerly in charge managed to get his own dumb ass kicked off 2 years ago.

the rule change that prevents hussein from acting as his own lawyer is outta step with international law as well as the laws of most democratic nations.

i'm still not sure why the trial isnt being conducted by the international tribunal at the hague.

but if anyone can get hussein off the hook, it's garcetti--as long as he's working for the prosecution.
on Sep 26, 2005
kingbee: I left you out of my short list of people who dropped everything to console and counsel me when I was going through difficult times. My sincerest apologies for that.
on Sep 26, 2005
Am I holding you to a higher standard? Probably


Interesting. I'm sure sabrina is reading this. Makes me wonder what would go through her mind, (not that I really care enough to un-blacklist her), given that she is held to a lower standard by her "dear friend".

you can't insult or bully people into accepting your views. Maybe I'm hard on you because I'd like to see you have some influence around here.


Two thoughts. First, when it comes to sabrina, I have no interest in trying to get her to change her views. None. Zero. Zilch. If I did, I'd likely un-blacklist her and we could hopefully have a discussion. That ain't ever gonna happen.

Secondly, as much as I'd like to think that I could have some infuence around her, that is never going to happen either. I am who I am, and one thing I am not is a chameleon. Sure, I'd like to know that maybe some people here actually do read the links I post, but I doubt it. Most here are so vested in hanging on to a false sense of security from that criminal administration we have, that they will never, ever read anything remotely investigative. I only post because I feel compelled to counter idiotic arguments, and frankly, I know it really annoys some people here no end. But, I'll likely never influence them.

Maybe that's why I like myrrander so much. We both have this mindset of being right in people's faces, insulting? you bet? but only because of the insulting arrogance of the neocon lovers here. It has become somewhat of a game.

Tex, I see you as a loving and compassionate young woman. The only thing that is SUPER innapropriate is your blind friendship towards her.


I have to agree with mano on this. Obviously, we cannot dictate who eachothers' friends are, and friendships are very emotional things. But, whip is a hateful, racist, bag of misplaced wind, and for the life of me, I cannot understand what someone like you sees in her. But, that's not my call. It's yours. Do I hold you to a higher standard than some others here? Yeah, most decidedly. But, I also see you as someone who dismisses quite a bit in order to be liked by people. You're a lot more tolerant than I'll ever be, that's for sure. And maybe with a touch of insecurity. I dunno. It's on you, and I'm not a shrink. But, I gotta ask, don't you find her just a tad disgusting? Really, this obsession with milk duds is whacked. And obscene.
on Sep 26, 2005
the trial is gonna be quite a circus.


So much of a circus, that we'll likely never really get to see much of what is going on behind closed doors. What we will get exposed to will be lunacy, and dictated by absolute lunatics. Fair trial, my ass.

but if anyone can get hussein off the hook, it's garcetti--as long as he's working for the prosecution.


We both know that will never happen. But, I'm confused by your statement. Obviously, you know about this more than I do. Are you implying that garcetti will get him off because he's an incompetent idiot? That's what I'm reading.

Besides, he'll never get off, and as you pointed out, they just make up laws as they go along. It's going to be a long, drawn out circus, and it may get really ugly. So ugly, that some people may not live to see it through.

I hope I am wrong about you on this one, dabe. It just seems that you are salivating over the chance that the US may be smeared and not all that concerned that the Iraqi people receive proper justice.


I am not salivating over the US getting smeared. But, maybe I am salivating over the opportunity for those criminal elements of our government to be held accountable for a whole host of crimes and conflicts of interest and outright hypocracy that they committed over the years, including Cheney trying to influence US policy when he was head of Halliburton, then actually having influence when he worked for Bush one as his defense secretary. And, let's not forget the arms and chemicals we actually sold to saddam during his tenure as dicatator of Iraq. It just boggles my mind at the thought that these guys would get away with this, and frankly I think the only way they can get away with it all is if saddam has a convienient "heart attack". do I wish that would happen? Absolutely not. Do I think there is a possibility? Absolutely.

As far as Iraqi justice, I only wish the best for them. I really do. And, I really find it hard to believe that they will ever see the best regardless of what happens to saddam. They are too wrapped around their age-old hatreds against eachother to really just be allowed to live. And, as long as Americans are there holding up a puppet government, they will never get true justice and violence will just continue. Besides, do you really want to see justice? Or, like many here, just seem to have this sense of vindictiveness against saddam, hoping that a revengeful trial will maybe validate your views about America's new-found self-rightiousness?
on Sep 26, 2005
As for some of the lowlife scumbag racist bitches at JU that have nothing to do with their wasted lives, but lie in wait, looking for anything to get over their blogstipation so that they can write long, hateful, disgusting, stupid, evil and racist crap, may you rot in hell. But, before you do, I invite you to read this. You might just learn something, you sorry ass hypocritic bitch.


Wow. It hurts me to read this. I agree with a lot of what you say, Dabe, but this is just.....wow.

especially when she tried to break up your marriage... that was definitely done out of love and kindness.


That's totally unfair. LW NEVER tried to break up Tex's marriage. I was there during all of it, I know a big part of what was said and done, and I can tell you without a shodaow of a doubt that she NEVER advocated for ahything than the 2 of them staying together.
on Sep 26, 2005
the whole tone of this post suggest you are salivating that the united states MIGHT get dragged through the mud, dabe.

will you be as happy with saddam finally getting his just deserts as america once more being slimed?
on Sep 26, 2005
Tex, I see you as a loving and compassionate young woman. The only thing that is SUPER innapropriate is your blind friendship towards her.


First of all, I find that statement incredibly condescending.

It's NOT blind. That's what you fail to see. We've all disagreed with each other at one point or another. She was the one that initiated the truce between she and I...but everyone seems to convieniently forget that because it doesn't fit in with the villification of her.

She can be a bitch, yes....but so can everyone. My friendship with her isn't blind either, so please don't go there. I know what's up, and I choose to have her as my friend anyway. Besides, I'd rather have someone who would tell me what they think of me to my face rather than tell everyone BUT me what they're thinking and feeling.
on Sep 26, 2005
The fact is, not one of the major players in a trial of Hussein have any reason to take part in his defense... especially Hussein himself.

No one has any compunction to tell the truth, no one has any reason to present actual facts, and since there is no one able to either back or refute any of the evidence, this won't be a trial, it will be nothing more than an opportunity for opportunism... much like the Nuremberg (or any other "international") trial.