The trial of Saddam Hussein

[MetalMilitia]

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040701/040701_saddam_hmed.hmedium.jpg

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A defiant Saddam Hussein rejected charges of war crimes and genocide against him in a court appearance Thursday, telling a judge "this is all theater, the real criminal is Bush."

Saddam's hands were cuffed when he was brought to the court but the shackles were removed for the 30-minute arraignment at Camp Victory, a former Saddam palace on the outskirts of Baghdad.

"I am Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq," Saddam said unprompted, sitting down in a chair facing the judge on the other side of a wooden railing. When asked his name, he responded: "Saddam Hussein al-Majid, president of Iraq."

The appearance, broadcast on Arab satellite television stations, gave Iraqis their first glimpse of the former dictator since his capture by the U.S. military seven months ago. They saw a Saddam whose mood ranged from nervousness and exasperation to contempt and defiance ? even flashes of anger. He even seemed to lecture the judge at times.

Unaccompanied by a lawyer, Saddam refused to sign a list of charges against him unless he had legal counsel, and he questioned the court's jurisdiction.

Saddam declines to sign documents
"Please allow me not to sign until the lawyers are present. ... Anyhow, when you take a procedure to bring me here again, present me with all these papers with the presence of lawyers. Why would you behave in a manner that we might call hasty later on?" he said.

The 67-year-old Saddam appeared most agitated when the subject came to the invasion of Kuwait ? one of the broad charges against him.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5323918

I have a hunch Saddam's trial is going to work about as well as Milosovic's, or that he will be assassinated after being physically transfered into Iraqi custody.

Watching today, the whole thing looked like a "show" trial, and the way the media is focusing 99.9% of their attention on it is ridiculous.

Thoughts?

-MM- :crs:

[humanhybrid]

Watching today, the whole thing looked like a "show" trial, and the way the media is focusing 99.9% of their attention on it is ridiculous. As you stated a "show" trial. Will we embrace this theater as moral, ethical? Perhaps one could if they were to profit from the deaths of innocent people. In my eyes Saddam is still the President of Iraq. Saddam faced the same problems in Iraq with all the diffrent factions and extremists as is the USA is now. But in the end will the USA have killed more innocent people than Saddam? Will they use the tax payers money to pay for the occupation to protect the projected profits. Will they plunder the wealth of the Iraqi people to pay the stock holders. And how many of our children will we need to send to die for them to accomplish their "mission" of freedom and democracy. Saddam used gas the USA uses bombs and occupation. good day!

[MetalMilitia]

Seven charges were read out against Saddam:

Suppressing Kurdish and Shia uprisings, 1991

(With US agreement and support, and public comments from Daddy Bush and Powell at how allowing the rebels to win was "never a goal for this administration")

Anfal ethnic cleansing campaign against Kurds, 1987-88

(During a war, in which the Kurds were fighting with Iran, and were the US enemy, plus those ever-so-helpful US-provided satelite photos showing the Kurd positions)

Gassing Kurdish villagers in Halabja, 1988

(During a war, "collateral damage" is what the US calls it, in which Iran was also using chemical weapons, with 5 US Government reports still publicly available which all concluded Iran gassed the Kurds, by accident...and the entire world knows EXACTLY who supplied Iraq with chemicals and how-to-weaponize instructions)

"collateral damage" on our end

CIVILIANS KILLED: 9,436 (June 2004)
CIVILIANS SERIOUSLY INJURED: 16,984 (June 2004)

Killing political activists over 30 years

("Political activists" meaning Islamic extremists...exactly what the US says they're doing every time they bomb a village in Iraq)

Killing religious figures, 1974

(Such as the Islamic extremist cleric al Sadr? The son of whom the US are currently trying to kill?)

Killing thousands of the Kurdish Barzani clan, 1983

(During a war, when the Kurds were allied with Iraq's and America's enemy, Iran)

Plus, the invasion of Kuwait.

(Green-lighted by America and even the "new Iraq Prime Minister" Allawi didn't want the invasion of Kuwait in the charges against Saddam. Should be interesting)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1251451,00.html

So no charges on anything past 1991. 13 years ago.

Gee, good thing we lost (so far) 860 of our soldiers to bring charges against Saddam for what he did with US support back in the 1980s.

Meanwhile, how about them 300,000 massacred Sudanese, with an estimated 1,000,000 more who will die over the next few months. GENOCIDE. Right now. On bush's "watch".

Why were we backing this guy if we knew all these terrible things going on? Why did we support him through some of these times?

I am not sticking up for the guy, just wondering why the US would reference some times in which we were supporting Saddam... helping him commit this terrible stuff.

-MM- :crs:

[Donsun]

Unless he is executed he will return to power. He still has enough support from his people. He still has alot of influence on his country. Do not underestimate youe enemies.

[prezhorusin04]

i hate to agree with homocidal madmen, but it all looked like theatre to me as well..And just like Mike Moores film, Saddam passes the blame soley to Bush.

The American people, and world, just need to understand that this problem doesn't start and end with George Bush.

In some ways, Kerry seems more threatening then Bush.And when they all find out that Kerry has as many skeletons in his closet as Bush, what is that going to do for public morale?

It's easier to handle it if you can see the deception before you are fooled.

Good post Militia.. Been looking for new pics all day. :toast:

[Conservative Front]

The Media seems almost sympathetic to Saddam. Look at the Scott Peterson trail thats a Thearte and a show the sick bastards in California wanted to make money off the deaths of Lacy and the Baby. was Saddams a show? not really I think people wanted to be informed and of course Saddam was going to put the blame on Bush. and its kind of sad that people dismiss Genocide as far game nowadays. and Was it Bush's fault that Saddam was a madman and supported Terrorism no... I don't think so.

[stewey]

I agree with prez 100%.

>>But in the end will the USA have killed more innocent people than Saddam?<<
We got a ways to go, were at 10000, he has us by about 500,000 still. We are at 2% or so of his total.

I am glad to see they cannot bitch we treated him poorly, he looks in good health.

[MetalMilitia]

Was it Bush's fault that Saddam was a madman and supported Terrorism no... I don't think so.

No one seemed over critical when we backed this "madman" in the 80s... giving him military information and weaponry.

-MM- :crs:

[prezhorusin04]

Former US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, gave devil dog Hussein the green light to invade Kuwait!

Read the saved excerpts from the Iraqi meeting with the U.S. Envoy as reported by the New York Times International Sunday, September 23, 1990 http://www.rense.com/general46/gil.htm

1 July 2004 Full transcript of Saddam Hussein's visit to the show trial (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/11712884?source=Evening%20Standard)

The hearing went like this:

Judge: Are you Saddam Hussein al-Majid?
Saddam: Yes
Judge: Were you born on 28 April, 1937?
Saddam: Yes
Judge: Are you the former president of Iraq?
Saddam: I am the current president of Iraq
Judge: Were you leader of the Ba'ath party and head of the armed forces?
Saddam: Yes. Can you introduce yourself?
Judge: I am the judge of the investigative court
Saddam: Do you represent the American coalition?
Judge: I represent the Iraqi people ... You have the right to examine witnesses and documents
Saddam: Everyone here knows this is a theatre carried out by Bush the criminal to win the election
Judge: You are charged with seven crimes [Lists them, ending with invasion of Kuwait]
Saddam: How can you charge me with this? You are an Iraqi and everyone knows Kuwait is part of Iraq
Judge: This is not a trial. I am a prosecuting judge investigating
Saddam: I carried out these acts in my capacity as president of Iraq (With April Glaspie's GREEN LIGHT! TH )
Judge: You have a right to defence attorneys
Saddam: According to the Americans I have millions of dollars in Geneva so I should be able to afford one
Judge: Do you have anything else to say?
Saddam: In Kuwait I was defending the Iraqi people from those Kuwaiti dogs who wanted to turn their women in to 10-dollar prostitutes
Judge: Do not use that language in this court. Will you now sign this document listing your rights?
Saddam: No
Judge: Let it be recorded that he has not signed. You are dismissed from the court.

http://www.nwowatcher.com

[stewey]

I do not see where in that article she gave him the go ahead to invade Kuwait, unless I missed it. Please point it out for me hehe

[Moishe3rd]

I understand that you may dislike George Bush.
I understand that you may hate the United States.
But you then sympathize with Saddam Hussein?
:eek:
That is a bit over the top.

Saddam Hussein believes that the United States is evil. He believes that President Bush is a war criminal.
Saddam Hussein is a dangerous psychopath with absolutely no moral values and he lives in a totally different reality than I do.
Other than trying to understand his twisted psyche in order that I may defend myself against this evil, his ideas of justice matter to me not a whit.

I believe in a different system of justice than he does.
I do not value his reality.
His reality disgusts me.
And, in the long run, his reality is totally self-destructive. My reality is not.

The same is true for the the Muslim world that hates us; and it is true for the Europe that hates us.
I do not value their ideas of justice.
I do not value the Saudi; Jordanian; Iranian; Syrian; Egyptian; etcetera ideas of justice.
They are savage, barbaric and beneath contempt.
I do not value their reality.

The United States of America pursues peace.
But short of bending over and taking another Islamic Fascist Terror Attack up our fundament, we must pursue peace by establishing justice.
By establishing American justice.
American justice is where every person is valued for what they do and what they contribute and where every person is entitled to his day in court, even pyschopaths such as Saddam Hussein.

Before you cry out about war crimes and support for criminal countries and the other injustices that America has perpetrated, bear in mind that we are supposed to be practicing justice!
We are commanded to practic justice, however imperfectly we fullfill this commandment
It is in our Constitution.
It is in our Laws.
It is in our towns and villages.
It is in our elections.
It is in our churches and synagogues.
It is in the fabric of our country.

It is not the fabric of the countries of Morocco or of Sudan or of France or of Russia.
Their mandate for justice is not the same as ours.
I value our idea of justice, however imperfectly we may carry it out.

I loathe the injustices that are codified into acts of horrific barbarism that Saddam Hussein claims are his right as "President of Iraq."

He should receive, measure for measure, the justice that he has given others.

[stewey]

Saddam is a super guy! A real humanitarian!

[substand]

I do not see where in that article she gave him the go ahead to invade Kuwait, unless I missed it. Please point it out for me hehe

"April Glaspie's GREEN LIGHT" was a simple thing like "the US doesn't care about border disputes in the Middle East" which Saddam took as a green light to invade. Of course, she never consulted her superiors on that, and probably didn't mean it the way it sounded.

[Emerald_Dragon]

>I do not see where in that article she gave him the go ahead to invade Kuwait, unless I missed it.
>Please point it out for me hehe

he was referring to the meeting where April said to him we had no opinion on the matter. Not for or against, which means in diplomatic circles, we don't care if you do or you don't. Hence, 'green light'. Not a caution, not a No.

She didn't say, "I would need to consult with our President on the matter", she said we had no opinion. What does that tell you?


>I understand that you may dislike George Bush.

no, just what he and his friends have done to the country.


>I understand that you may hate the United States.

no, just what our leaders are doing to it.


>It is in our Constitution.
>It is in our Laws.

which is being legislated away [Patriot Acts].

>It is in our towns and villages.

of which 400 municipalities have rejected and/or revised [Patriot Acts]


>It is in our elections.

which have been shown to be compromised [Diebold, BlackBoxVoting]


>Their mandate for justice is not the same as ours.

because its a different culture?


>I value our idea of justice, however imperfectly we may carry it out.

because we are a different culture?


>I loathe the injustices that are codified into acts of horrific barbarism
>that Saddam Hussein claims are his right as "President of Iraq."

i don't agree with SH ideas either, but if the majority of Iraqis want him as President, then what?

[humanhybrid]

http://www.biblemysteries.com/library/saddam.htm The fact is that Saddam above all is a student of history, particularly Babylonian and Assyrian history. He sees himself as the inheritor of a great tradition and his obligation to carry on where the greatest of his ancestors left off. A good read! good day!

[substand]

first i want to say that i saw one peice of one clip of saddam "on trial" that to me looked like the fonz saying "eyhh..." (i also found a pic online of the same part i'm talking about)... i'd love to find the pic because it was just hilarious... if someone finds it, let me know.

and now to serious matters:



Seven charges were read out against Saddam:

Suppressing Kurdish and Shia uprisings, 1991

(With US agreement and support, and public comments from Daddy Bush and Powell at how allowing the rebels to win was "never a goal for this administration")


Agreement and support for such atrocities was never given by the US. We may have told the iraqis to rise up in revolution, and they may have (and did IMO) think that doing so would bring our support, but we never agreed to saddam's repression nor did we support it. Part of the point of the "no fly zones" was to help stop saddam's supression. I don't agree with telling them to revolt (and by telling them implying we would help), but neither did we encourage saddam. Also, just because Bush 41 did not have the political will, political power, or balls in general to support the destruction of Saddam's Iraq, does not mean we helped it. He may have wanted to, but the fact remains that he didnt. His excuse was that the UN mandate did not include regime change or anything more than pushing iraq back past the Kuwait invasion. He may have beleived that or not, but the fact is that he didn't push further. And one might also point out that a lot of the people complaining about the fact that we didn't go further then are the same ones complaining about the fact that we invaded now.]



Anfal ethnic cleansing campaign against Kurds, 1987-88

(During a war, in which the Kurds were fighting with Iran, and were the US enemy, plus those ever-so-helpful US-provided satelite photos showing the Kurd positions)


I didn't know we actually provided thier positions as if we wanted them killed. I'd like links for it, especially since the iran-iraq war (in which we wanted iraq to win) was almost and basically over by then. But I'm also willing to say that this is a tragedy if true, and I wish we never did it. Not only is it horrific morally, but it also undermines our position now. Plus I find it wierd that if we had supported killing kurds, why would they support us so anally now? I suppose it could be "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," but considering the kurds later affinity for us (even before this war), i would find it hard to beleive that they (at a minimum) saw us as the assholes in that conflict, even if we provided the means.



Gassing Kurdish villagers in Halabja, 1988

(During a war, "collateral damage" is what the US calls it, in which Iran was also using chemical weapons, with 5 US Government reports still publicly available which all concluded Iran gassed the Kurds, by accident...and the entire world knows EXACTLY who supplied Iraq with chemicals and how-to-weaponize instructions)


as far as this goes, its about the same for the US involvement as above. So see above.



Killing political activists over 30 years

("Political activists" meaning Islamic extremists...exactly what the US says they're doing every time they bomb a village in Iraq)


Jeezus Matt... lets not also forget those people who refused to vote "yes" for "saddam as president," and those women who refused to "willingly" be raped by saddam's sons, and those other random people who didn't name thier first born child saddam..



Killing religious figures, 1974

(Such as the Islamic extremist cleric al Sadr? The son of whom the US are currently trying to kill?)



maybe he's indicted on this, and he deserves it. if anything, this indictment shows that we aren't behind it all. saddam was notorious for not even allownig shia muslims to make pilgrimages to holy cities. now they are allowed, and who can blame them for indicting saddam on such charges?




Killing thousands of the Kurdish Barzani clan, 1983

(During a war, when the Kurds were allied with Iraq's and America's enemy, Iran)


again, as far as the US goes, this is described above, but not necesarily as far as iraqis are concerned.



Plus, the invasion of Kuwait.

(Green-lighted by America and even the "new Iraq Prime Minister" Allawi didn't want the invasion of Kuwait in the charges against Saddam. Should be interesting)



green lighted by america in that april glaspie didn't ask before she gave her response and didn't represent our leaders and saddam took it to the utmost extreme of how she meant it.



Gee, good thing we lost (so far) 860 of our soldiers to bring charges against Saddam for what he did with US support back in the 1980s.


surely you think saddam was bad after the 80's. lesser charges are often used in criminal prosecutions against guilty people and not all at once to ensure that if they are aquitted on those, they can be tried again (so that double jeopardy does not apply)... you sound like a saddam apologist now.



I am not sticking up for the guy, just wondering why the US would reference some times in which we were supporting Saddam... helping him commit this terrible stuff.

Well, by attempting to put the blame on the US for every charge (or by making an excuse for it by using us) you sure seem to be sticking up for the guy.... as in "he's not so bad because america helped him in some cases and (stretching some cases we helped). We were wrong then, but we were also trying to bring down the iranian regime which is horrible, but now may be bringing itself down (and how can we say the iran-iraq war didn't help it any?).




No one seemed over critical when we backed this "madman" in the 80s... giving him military information and weaponry.


actually, you can find many libs who were critical back then about "supporting" Saddam who are now critical about "deposing" him. You can also find conservatives who were "for" Saddam then, but "against" him now. Its one thing to change your mind. Its one thing to change your mind from "this guys ok" to "this guy sucks", and its another to change it from "this guy sucks", now he's "cool." Especially when referring to a guy who is proven and most people would agree is an ass (if they were speaking about anyone else with the same credentials as saddam, but not him in particular)

[MetalMilitia]

Look at it from my viewpoint. It's almost like the US created this monster. Hey was a "key" asset to the US for years.

In fact, Saddam is no better or worse than any number of dictators past or present. General Augusto Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos, General Suharto, Anastasio Somoza, Pol Pot -- these are a few of the bloody dictators responsible for the death of literally millions of people (Pol Pot was responsible for the slaughter of 1.5 million people, Suharto 500,000 or more). These are dictators the United States either supported directly or indirectly over the years.

In general, the American people know nothing about these sadists and murderous thugs or how their government supported them.

US intelligence helped Saddams Ba`ath Party seize power for the first time in 1963. Evidence suggests that Saddam was on the CIA payroll as early as 1959, when he participated in a failed assassination attempt against Iraqi strongman Abd al-Karim Qassem. In the 1980s, the US and Britain backed Saddam in the war against Iran, giving Iraq arms, money, satellite intelligence, and even chemical & bio-weapon precursors. As many as 90 US military advisors supported Iraqi forces and helped pick targets for Iraqi air and missile attacks.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------

Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

--------------------------------------------------------------

Exclusive: Saddam key in early CIA plot

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------

We caught the Wrong Guy

Saddam Hussein, former employee of the American federal government, was captured near a farmhouse in Tikrit in a raid performed by other employees of the American federal government. That sounds pretty deranged, right? Perhaps, but it is also accurate. The unifying thread binding together everyone assembled at that Tikrit farmhouse is the simple fact that all of them -- the soldiers as well as Hussein -- have received pay from the United States for services rendered.

It is no small irony that Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, the monster under your bed lo these last twelve years, was paid probably ten thousand times more during his time as an American employee than the soldiers who caught him on Saturday night. The boys in the Reagan White House were generous with your tax dollars, and Hussein was a recipient of their largesse for the better part of a decade.

If this were a Tom Clancy movie, we would be watching the dramatic capture of Hussein somewhere in the last ten minutes of the tale. The bedraggled dictator would be put on public trial for his crimes, sentenced to several thousand concurrent life sentences, and dragged off to prison in chains. The anti-American insurgents in Iraq, seeing the sudden futility of their fight to place Hussein back into power, would lay down their arms and melt back into the countryside. For dramatic effect, more than a few would be cornered by SEAL teams in black face paint and discreetly shot in the back of the head. The President would speak with eloquence as the martial score swelled around him. Fade to black, roll credits, get off my plane.

Unfortunately, the real-world script has a lot of pages left to be turned. Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, reached at his home on Sunday, said, "It's great that they caught him. The man was a brutal dictator who committed terrible crimes against his people. But now we come to rest of story. We didn't go to war to capture Saddam Hussein. We went to war to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons have not been found."

Indeed, reality intrudes. The push for war before March was based upon Hussein's possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 1,000,000 pounds of sarin gas, mustard gas, and VX nerve gas, along with 30,000 munitions to deliver these agents, uranium from Niger to be used in nuclear bombs....

When they found Hussein hiding in that dirt hole in the ground, none of this stuff was down there with him. The full force of the American military has been likewise unable to locate it anywhere else. Bush was forced some weeks ago to publicly acknowledge that Hussein had nothing to do with September 11th.

The Niger uranium story was debunked last summer.
http://www.alternet.org/story/17391

There will be no fair trial for Hussein, at least nothing in public, because he might start shouting about the back pay he is owed from his days as an employee of the American government.

Because another former employee of the American government named Osama is still alive and free, our troops are still in mortal danger in Iraq.

Hussein was never a threat to the United States. His capture means nothing to the safety and security of the American people. The money we spent to put the bag on him might have gone towards capturing bin Laden, who is a threat, but that did not happen. We can be happy for the people of Iraq, because their Hussein problem is over. Here in America, our Hussein problem is just beginning. The other problem -- that Osama fellow we should have been trying to capture this whole time -- remains perched over our door like the raven.

It seems to me like the CIA ****s up almost as often as they do the right thing.

Do I Like / support the guy?

[bHell No[/b], but traces of some of the "evil" stuff he has done can be linked to the US and CIA activities, and I can't simply deny that.... that is the reason for all this.

-MM- :crs:

[Defiant Noquisi]

In fact, Saddam is no better or worse than any number of dictators past or present. General Augusto Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos, General Suharto, Anastasio Somoza, Pol Pot -- these are a few of the bloody dictators responsible for the death of literally millions of people (Pol Pot was responsible for the slaughter of 1.5 million people, Suharto 500,000 or more). These are dictators the United States either supported directly or indirectly over the years. Perhaps MM over-generalized his statements, its still doesnt make him out to be a Saddam regime sympathizer.

He does point out the uniqueness of this "trial". How does one go about assisting the charging of another of guilt when they "assisted" the alleged guilty party commit the crimes? It would appear to look like entrapment if it had actually been planned that way, which is doubtful.

Unfortunately, America is not guilt free when it comes to state sponsored terrorism and the training of its leaders. The US has trained and supported 11 of Latin America's dictators at Fort Benning. It used to be known as the "School of the Americas" but they changed the name to "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation" to distance itself from the controversy surrounding the training of people who became dictators and oppressive military generals.

Add Manuel Noriega (Panama), Guillermo Rodriguez (Ecuador), Juan Velzco (Peru), Roberto Viola and Leopoldo Galtieri (Argentina), Hugo Banzer Suarez and his successor Guido Vildoso (Bolivia), Juan Melgar Castro (Honduras), and Jose Efrain Montt (Guatemala) to your list. Here is a link to more graduates who have been linked to nefarious activity...

http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=205

This "school" has also supplied books and trained people in coercion as well as using blackmail, torture and the kidnapping and torture of family members to get someone to talk. Get a load of who has been viewing some of this material...

On May 12, 2004, the National Security Archive posted on its website declassified CIA interrogation manuals written in the 1960s and 1980s and a secret 1992 report written for then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney warning that U.S. Army intelligence manuals that incorporated the earlier work of the CIA for training Latin American military officers in interrogation and counterintelligence techniques contained "offensive and objectionable material" that "undermines U.S. credibility, and could result in significant embarrassment."
In March 1992, then-Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney received an investigative report on "Improper Material in Spanish-Language Intelligence Training Manuals." Classified SECRET, the report noted that five of the seven manuals "contained language and statements in violation of legal, regulatory or policy prohibitions" and recommended they be recalled. The memo is stamped: "SECDEF HAS SEEN."

The Archive also posted a declassified memorandum of conversation with a Southern Command officer, Major Victor Tise, who was responsible for assembling the Latin American manuals at School of the Americas for counterintelligence training in 1982. Tise stated that the manuals had been forwarded to DOD headquarters for clearance "and came back approved but UNCHANGED." (Emphasis in original)
http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=98

How does one go about convicting someone of a crime without admitting its own guilt? Easy! Learn from the US!

[MetalMilitia]

NEW YORK -- U.S. news networks agreed to let the American military censor out certain images of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s court hearing Thursday in Baghdad, one in a bizarre series of events surrounding coverage of the session.

American and Iraqi officials did not want any footage shown of Iraqi guards or court personnel, and they asked broadcast and cable news nets to honor this request.

But the situation took an unexpected turn even before the hearing began, when U.S. officials ordered CNN and Al-Jazeera, the pool camera crews, to disconnect their audio equipment. Officials said it was the wish of the Iraqi judge.

Following the hearing, the CNN footage was taken to the convention center, where a CBS News employee transmitted the footage after it was viewed and okayed by two military censors.

As the silent footage of Hussein began to air on U.S. networks around 8:30 a.m. ET, CBS News anchor Dan Rather explained that the tapes had been "taken to another location, edited, and what you're seeing is in effect a censored version" of what happened in court earlier today.

"And whether you will hear what happened in court is yet to be determined. We know that Saddam Hussein challenged the whole legitimacy of the court," Rather said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/variety/20040701/va_ne_al/sounds_of_silence_3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kinda makes you wonder if he might have mentioned that the US backed him at one point? I know the US is going to distance himself through all of this, but I would expect at some point he will reference help (wheter directly or indirectly) that the US had given him.

Freedom of Press my ass :D

-MM- :crs:

[MetalMilitia]

According to American journalists present at the 30-minute hearing of Saddam and 11 former ministers at Baghdad airport, an American admiral in civilian clothes told camera crews that the judge had demanded that there should be no sound recording of the initial hearing. He ordered crews to unplug their sound wires.

Several of the six crews present pretended to obey the instruction. "We learnt later," one of them said, "that the judge didn't order us to turn off our sound. The Americans lied - it was they who wanted no sound. The judge wanted sound and pictures."

http://www.k1m.com/antiwarblog/archives/000110.html

What don't they want the US public to know!?

-MM- :crs:

[Emerald_Dragon]

>Plus I find it wierd that if we had supported killing kurds,
>why would they support us so anally now?

my guesses would be, 1) they didn't know we helped SH kill them, 2) they're using us to get their independance, 3) the Israelis training them are leading them pro-USA.


>...a secret 1992 report written for then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney

that's a new twist!? is that aka the VPOTUS? one and the same? that's gotta be wrong.those 11 dictators must be wrong too. trained in the School of Americas? WTF?!


>What don't they want the US public to know!?

i bet Al-Jazeera recorded it. but hell, they are biased in their own way too, and anyone who hears anything from them will state it thus and dismiss it. Freedom of the Press? In the new Iraqi Democracy? a hellofaway to start.

[humanhybrid]

Freedom of the Press? In the new Iraqi Democracy? a hellofaway to start. As we today have celebrated an independance, shouldnt we stand back and look at what freedoms that we have lost because of the lies and misleading props that caused us to occupy a soverien country. Saddam is truly still the president of the Republic of Iraq. Regardless of the rogues having captured him. :mad:

[Defiant Noquisi]

As we today have celebrated an independance, shouldnt we stand back and look at what freedoms that we have lost because of the lies and misleading props that caused us to occupy a soverien country. Saddam is truly still the president of the Republic of Iraq. Regardless of the rogues having captured him. :mad: Good! Then Isreal doesnt exist because it is an occupier in a foreign land, Egypt and Sudan can give their countries back to the Nubians, Australia can be given back to the Aboriginals, New Zealand to the Maori's, all the people who created Liberia can kick their own asses out and you get out of MY country too! Ridiculous!

I would almost agree with what you said except I doubt you would leave America. Dont you see what you are saying here? My people have lost ALOT of freedoms but I doubt you would leave, where would you go? You can double standard this country all you want, but by your own posts you would be just as guilty as Bush or any other occupier.

Saddam was captured, his government was eradicated and there is no turning back. Iraq hasnt been a republic for many years since before Saddam took control. Do you support the forced imprisonment, torture, mutilation and murder of the Iraqi people that Saddam committed against them? Hey, I can agree that Bush and freinds may have been just as misleading to gain support for this war as Moore was in blasting him for it. Leaving out American interests, that doesnt excuse the fact that the Iraqi people were prisoners under their own forced regime. Not to mention the fact that many of its populace did NOT believe in the same Muslim dictates as those who ran the country, yet were subjugated because of it.


republic n.

A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.

A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. Do you support the genocide of the Kurds? Saddam was doing his utmost best to wipe them out. Turkey, a US ally wasnt helping the Kurds much either, what with bombing them and all and Kurdish support of Iran. Since the Kurds have lived in Iraq for hundreds of years, would it be feasible to get rid of Iraqi's since they are occupying Kurdish soil in the north? In fact, Saddams hometown was Kurdish long before it was Muslim. Im just showing you the can of worms you open by what you post.

When will you believe and accept that the people of America are just as responsible for its own deceit as those leaders commiting it?

[dutchie]

The question if Saddam should be punished for his crimes is really academic, because he is going to be tried by his own countrymen. Whatever the outcome of it will be, it is none of our business really. Of course I think he is a damn murderer, but I also think we should start treating the new Iraqi government as an entity that at least deserves a chance.

[Defiant Noquisi]

The question if Saddam should be punished for his crimes is really academic, because he is going to be tried by his own countrymen. Whatever the outcome of it will be, it is none of our business really. Of course I think he is a damn murderer, but I also think we should start treating the new Iraqi government as an entity that at least deserves a chance. Well said Dutchie, you are right. It isnt our business but the government will be sticking it own nose in to make sure its interests as decided by them are protected.

[humanhybrid]

Do you support the forced imprisonment, torture, mutilation and murder of the Iraqi people that Saddam committed against them? Hey, I can agree that Bush and freinds may have been just as misleading to gain support for this war as Moore was in blasting him for it. I do not support forced imprisonment nor torture nor occupation to plunder the wealth of another nation. What is the diffrence between Saddam or Bush? NONE! Bush is controlling by bombs and occupation. Saddam did it in diffrent ways to control the intrests of the Republic or country. I guess you can then justify the white man then as to what he did to systmatically destroy the Indian. Your sick and demented way that you justify and condone the actions of the USA is terrible.

[Defiant Noquisi]

I guess you can then justify the white man then as to what he did to systmatically destroy the Indian. Your sick and demented way that you justify and condone the actions of the USA is terrible. I never said anything of the sort, dont twist my post around to satisfy your agenda. You need to step back from your fluffy viewpoints and realize that you are an imperialist and a hypocrite. Further, I will add ignorant since you believe we were "systematically" destroyed when in fact we are still here.

You missy, are living on soil that was once soveriegn territory. If espousing the importance of soveriegnty is so important to you..then get the fork out of MY NATION! A REAL republic!

The implication of your words is do what I say and not what I do. Typical crooked politician platform.

If you are so unhappy with the way things are in this country, instead of whining in the forums, why not renounce your citizenship, give your property back to the Indigenous people who REALLY own it and move somewhere else that will make you happy? And as long as you dont do the same to the Mexicans who are also Indigenous people.

Voicing your views is fine but at the same time you also have no right to impose your opinion on the Iraqi people. Doing so places you in the same league as those you are "throwing stones" at. That glass house is looking pretty fragile. :Bott:

PSA: No offense meant towards the many fine people of this country who are of the non-Indigenous persuasion. Im just trying to prove to HyperHybrid the error of her rants.

[humanhybrid]

You missy, are living on soil that was once soveriegn territory. If espousing the importance of soveriegnty is so important to you..then get the fork out of MY NATION! A REAL republic! What makes you think I live on your land. And you still BELEIVE the very people who now occupy your ancestors land, who is now occupying Iraq. YOUR a shame! Ya go ahead and support Bush the WAR CRIMINAL! You deserve him and the chickenhawks and their land. good day!

[Defiant Noquisi]

What makes you think I live on your land. And you still BELEIVE the very people who now occupy your ancestors land, who is now occupying Iraq. YOUR a shame! Ya go ahead and support Bush the WAR CRIMINAL! You deserve him and the chickenhawks and their land. good day! You are completely irrational and must enjoy misenterpreting my posts like your buddies in the government. What is this mess and where is the proof?..

And you still BELEIVE the very people who now occupy your ancestors land, who is now occupying Iraq. At least I dont go out of my way to prove myself an emotional sham such as you do. Shame? Hardly, I dont post all freaked out with emotional abandon and ignore people who ask me valid questions.

If you dont live in this country, what country do you live in? And in what way are you qualified to speak out against US policy? Lets talk about YOUR country's politics then because Im sure it isnt perfect either. Otherwise, since things are sooooo bad for you here, give up your citizenship and move somewhere that will make you happier.

[humanhybrid]

At least I dont go out of my way to prove myself an emotional sham such as you do. Shame? Hardly, I dont post all freaked out with emotional abandon and ignore people who ask me valid questions.

If you dont live in this country, what country do you live in? And in what way are you qualified to speak out against US policy? Lets talk about YOUR country's politics then because Im sure it isnt perfect either. Otherwise, since things are sooooo bad for you here, give up your citizenship and move somewhere that will make you happier. Your out of line, stay on topic at least.

[Defiant Noquisi]

Your out of line, stay on topic at least. So then let me get this right...

You say Im out of line even though I point out the truth.

Im out of line for asking you questions that have everything to do with the topic yet you refuse to answer them.

Im out of line for questioning why old crap is being discussed when there is a country to be rebuilt.

You say I support Bush yet you want a dictator/murderer/torturer back to subjugate the people.

You dont even know what "republic" means and take offense when I post it for you.

You get snotty and accuse me of not using Google(in another thread) when its apparent you cant even use a dictionary.

You say there is NO difference between Bush and Saddam even though Bush has never resorted to cutting off American citizens body parts as Saddam has to his own people.

You act all knowledgable about war and military when you post as if you dont know the first thing about it.

You misinterpret my posts to suit your agenda and then accuse me of being out of line.

You get all twisted and hostile when I point out your own politician like thinking.

You post "chicken hawks" in plural and yet the only leader I know of currently who would fit this description is Bush himself.

Your fast on the draw when it comes to Bush and the US being in Iraq but you try to shoot me down for supporting a trial that will be held by the Iraqi's.

You are a sympathizer to a mass murderer and somehow are capable of justifying this and probably sleeping at night too.

And *I* am out of line? Yeah sure, at least Im not some fanatical genocide supporter.

[Conservative Front]

Here's my question to everyone. What do you suggest we do with him?

[Defiant Noquisi]

Here's my question to everyone. What do you suggest we do with him? Its not up to us, its up to the Iraqi's. He is going to stand trial but who knows what will come of that. Since he didnt commit actual crimes against us other than thumbing his nose in our face, its up to the Iraqi's to see that justice is done for the sake of the people. Hopefully they will see to it that a just punishment for the genocide Saddam committed against them is carried out. :shot:

[MacRasta]

I hope so too.

Imagine him getting in power again ......

Mac

[humanhybrid]

Well, we wouldnt have this now would we? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=4&u=/nm/20040709/ts_nm/security_usa_qaeda_dc

[substand]

What is the diffrence between Saddam or Bush? NONE!

Besides the obvious fact that Bush is a white anglo-saxon prostestant male and Saddam is a nominal Muslim Arab, there are some other differences:

1) Bush was elected with less than 50% of the popular vote in an election, while Saddam was elected with 100% of the vote in a farce.
2) Bush used conventional weapons to oust a man who used wmds to control Kurds in his country.
3) Bush does little to nothing to his political enemies, while Saddam arrested, tortured, and raped family members of his political enemies.

Need I go on? Perhaps you need to stop taking everything informationclearinghouse has to say as absolute truth (as in the equivalence of Hussein and Bush) just because they have a ".info" after their name. You realize that all it takes is a couple of bucks to get a domain name, right?

[Defiant Noquisi]

Well, we wouldnt have this now would we? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=4&u=/nm/20040709/ts_nm/security_usa_qaeda_dc Also adding to what subs has posted, what does an alleged plan coming from Osama's camp have to do with Saddam's trial? Especially when it is noted in that same report that the information is "cryptic".

[MetalMilitia]

SADDAM'S 'STROKE'

Ex-dictator's lawyer says he had brain scan and could die.

SADDAM Hussein has suffered a minor stroke and could die before his trial, his defence lawyers claim.

The multinational legal team is still awaiting permission to visit the deposed Iraqi ruler.

A letter demanding their doctor be given access to the former dictator was yesterday sent by Jordanian lawyer Mohammed al-Rashdan to Salem Chalebi, the head of the Iraqi prosecuting authorities.

Mr al-Rashdan said: "Our information is that he's in very poor health. We understand from the International Committee of the Red Cross that our client has had a brain scan to discover how badly he has been affected by the stroke. We believe he could die because of his health problems.

"We also think an attempt may be made on his life."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14467737%26method=full%26siteid=50143% 26headline=saddam-s--stroke--name_page.html

"Stroke" yeah, ok. Maybe they don't want him spoting off how he was backed by the US through all those years.

-MM- :crs:

[Strife]

Count me in on conspiracy here.

[ConspiracyTheorist]

SADDAM'S 'STROKE'

Ex-dictator's lawyer says he had brain scan and could die.

SADDAM Hussein has suffered a minor stroke and could die before his trial, his defence lawyers claim.

The multinational legal team is still awaiting permission to visit the deposed Iraqi ruler.

A letter demanding their doctor be given access to the former dictator was yesterday sent by Jordanian lawyer Mohammed al-Rashdan to Salem Chalebi, the head of the Iraqi prosecuting authorities.

Mr al-Rashdan said: "Our information is that he's in very poor health. We understand from the International Committee of the Red Cross that our client has had a brain scan to discover how badly he has been affected by the stroke. We believe he could die because of his health problems.

"We also think an attempt may be made on his life."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14467737%26method=full%26siteid=50143% 26headline=saddam-s--stroke--name_page.html

"Stroke" yeah, ok. Maybe they don't want him spoting off how he was backed by the US through all those years.

-MM- :crs:


What I think is happening, is Hussein is going to tell the doctor everything he knows, if he goes down, someone can take the U.S. government down too.


Hussein is going to die in prison, due to his knowlege of the attrocities commited at the request of the U.S.

Reminds of Rudolf Hess, who apparently strangled himself to death....which is kind of odd, since it's impossible, unless it's done by noose, which it wasn't.

[Defiant Noquisi]

Hmm, I might almost believe that allied forces doctors could be trusted since this is an election year.

[mickydoolittle]

Click the link damnit (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/12/iraq.saddam/index.html)!

This is like the dr swabbing the condemed's arm prior to inserting the needle for the lethal injection.

They're going to kill him anyway....why waste time, money, and energy on repairing him?

And furthermore...YEA AMERICA!!!!!

[DontBeAfraid]

Did you mean swabbing?

[mickydoolittle]

uhhmmm...that is what I wrote.... :wink:




:2thumbs: