Political Views,

Western Kangaroo Court

“It's all about justifying the US invasion"- A top Swiss legal expert
 
The charade trial of illegally toppled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein trial by a western organized Kangaroo court opened under a veil of secrecy on 19 October and was adjourned to 28 November. Saddam Hussein was defiant and claimed that he was the legitimate President of Iraq as he had done when he was first charged in July 2004. (TRIAL OF SADDAM HUSSEIN & THE RULE OF LAW  ). He and six co-defendants are accused of killing 143 people after an unsuccessful assassination attempt on him in 1982. Western media was miffed at the show of defiance by the combative and aggressive former Iraqi leader.
 
Saddam is not the first eastern leader nor would he be the last to be so demonized and humiliated. It is an old western technique against its opponents. Others are North Irish leaders, humiliated by the British and CIA’s once own man in Panama, dictator Noriega and Slob Dan Milosevic with whom the West did business. Captive western media gave full coverage when Milosevic was being charged but once he started hitting back at his accusers, the coverage vanished.

Before the December 1971 war of liberation of Bangladesh, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Indians were called “old witch “and “bastards and a slippery, treacherous people” by US President Richard Nixon and his aide Henry Kissinger in the Oval Office, because USA sided with its ally Gen. Yahya Khan of Pakistan who had let loose a reign of terror on Bengalis; their leaders Sheikh Mujib ur Rehman had won the elections and wanted to form a government.

Saddam Hussein was a secular leader and a staunch friend of India, who consistently supported India on Kashmir and other Issues.

US corporate and British government media outlets have already tried to convict Saddam by playing up the Halabja massacres and other accusations, which are not even part of this trial. When unsubstantiated allegations were made that  Iraq was behind the plot to kill former US President George H.W Bush in Kuwait, father of the current US President in 1993, President Bill Clinton had hit Iraq with missiles. Why no charges against him!
 
The current Iraqi interim government was installed by the US Occupation forces and is composed of former CIA and MI5 intelligence agents, convicted embezzlers, foreign passport holders and other quislings and Iranian supporters. Billions of dollars of revenue from sale of Iraqi oil has been looted by its Iraqi collaborators and US authorities. The trial has aroused little interest among the Iraqis except among some who were prosecuted by him. However, the world knows how US leadership and its policies are disliked and hated in Arab and Muslim world and elsewhere.
 
Most Iraqis are worried about lack of security; lack of electric power and water, still un-repaired sewage disposal, medical and other infrastructure 30 months after US invasion destroyed it, over 50% unemployment, kidnappings for ransoms, daily random killings and almost a raging civil war.
 
It is just another diversionary tactic by US Administration faced with its occupation turned into a horrible quagmire , which has shaken even the neo-cons citadels in Washington  ,  Katrina hurricane after math which exposed the ugly underbelly of US corporate distorted polity and other  policies , which have made George W. Bush the most unpopular  President in recent history , so early in his second term , with polls going up even for his impeachment ,if he misled the US people in his War on Iraq. 

Saddam’s chief lawyer, Khalil Dulaimi, an Iraqi with little experience of major cases, including crimes against humanity, challenged the legitimacy of the court. He asked for 3 months adjournment for preparations of the defense .The legal team backing Dulaimi from London had said earlier that he would present a 122-point document seeking to Show that the court, whose judges were chosen under US occupation, does not have the jurisdiction.

The chief investigative judge, only 34 years old, has prepared the charges. His team sifted through tones of documents and interviewed hundreds of witnesses. He says the trial could help establish the rule of law [!] in Iraq. Names of the judges were not disclosed except the chief judge, a Kurd, natural enemies of Sunni Arabs to which community Saddam belongs. Western experts and media said that this case was taken up because it is the easiest to prove. Nevertheless, an Arab expert on Arab law interviewed by BBC said that the Arab law under which the trial would take place would make it difficult to convict Him as it would recognize Saddam Hussein as the President, who enjoyed the immunity .BBC anchor looked dismayed as generally Western friendly experts are called for comments...
 
“Wonderful material for a US television series but nothing to do with a fair trial,” Swiss legal expert
 
Marc Henzelin, Professor of international law at Geneva University told Swiss Sonntags Zeitung newspaper why he declined to defend Saddam Hussein, who was removed by US led invasion of Iraq, described illegal by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, as it was against the wishes of the international body.
 
Prof Marc Henzelin, who was asked by Mrs. Hussein to defend her husband in Iraq’s special tribunal declined because assurances that his defense was a legal and not a political matter, guarantees to talk to other lawyers to coordinate the defense and that the trial was not turned into a circus show were refused.” Under such circumstances a trial risks becoming nothing more than a show, “he said.
 
Asked if Saddam trial was similar to the Nuremberg tribunals after the Second World War, he said,” In both cases it is the victors holding court over the losers. However, the difference is that the trials of Nuremberg had a historic goal. They wanted To get as close as possible to the truth about the Nazi crimes.” But in this case,” It is the exact opposite. The trial focuses on a small part of the criminal record of the Iraqi regime, and the Iraqi population feels highly emotional about it.”
 
“I think it is all about justifying the United States' invasion of Iraq and to string Saddam Hussein up sooner rather than later without asking too many questions.”

Prof Henzelin who has 20 years of experience as A criminal defense lawyer and visited Baghdad 12 times over the past two years added that investigating magistrates were killed, as well as witnesses and evidence was destroyed during the war. He said that 90 per cent of what was actually going on would not be decided in the courtroom, but during the investigation.
 
 He added,”What is the point of a trial if the defense has not been able to take part in the investigations? Or if it is not possible to call witnesses to the stand because they were executed or have to fear for their lives?”

”The trial of Saddam might provide Wonderful material for a US television series with a lawyer and a prosecutor crossing swords. But this has got nothing to do with a fair trial.”
 
The Special tribunals set up were completely against international law. According to the Geneva and the Hague Conventions [on international law for humanitarian concern and the protection of cultural property in armed conflicts] this court is clearly illegal. Occupying powers have no right to change the legal system of a country. This is precisely what the US has done.

”What's more, the judges were not elected but appointed by the occupying powers. They flew in a nephew of Mr. Chalabi [Salem Chalabi's uncle Ahmed led the foremost Iraqi opposition movement, the US-backed Iraqi National Congress]. He was a lawyer in London specializing in commercial law. Later he was appointed president of the Iraqi special tribunal.”[Ahmed Chalabi is a convicted embezzler in Jordan. As Seymour Hersh, revealed Bush had asked King Abdullah of Jordan during a visit to Washington that he should pardon Chalabi. One wonders what the King’s reaction was to This outrageous suggestion. ] 
 
“Compared to this at the Nuremberg trial the four victorious powers at least assigned their best judges to the task,” said Marc Henzelin
 
“Grave concerns  ... no fair trial guarantees” Human Rights Watch
 
Human Rights Watch said that the trial and those that follow could present ... an unprecedented opportunity to provide some measure of truth and justice for hundreds of thousands of victims of human rights violations that occurred in Iraq between 1979 and 2003," but it was open to serious doubt. The tribunal's procedures would prove to be neither impartial nor independent, defense lawyers were at a crippling disadvantage, and the outcome had already been grossly prejudiced by Iraqi and US politicians and media.