Posted on 01/24/2006 3:47:56 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
THE trial of ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was postponed after the newly-appointed chief judge objected to being searched, a defence lawyer said today.
"What happened was when the new judge came to the court he was searched vigorously by the Americans, which he did not like," said Najib al-Nuami, who represents Saddam.
Rauf Rashid Abdel Rahman "complained about it, saying why should he be searched", according to Mr Nuami.
Another defence lawyer, who declined to be named, said he too heard the hearing was postponed because Judge Abdel Rahman "was unhappy with security procedures, including searches".
The court put off the hearing, which would have been the eighth since the trial began three months ago, because some witnesses were unable to attend, according to investigating judge Raed al-Juhi.
"Due to the fact some of the complainants could not make it to attend the court, some of them are out of Iraq and some are on pilgrimage, the court decided to postpone the session until Sunday," he told reporters, reading from a court statement.
He declined to take questions.
Security measures are very strict with lawyers, witnesses and journalists carefully vetted and searched at the court.
Judge Rahman, a previously unknown Kurdish magistrate was appointed at the last minute yesterday to preside over the trial after the previous chief judge Rizkar Mohammed Amin quit following criticism he was too lenient with the defendants.
Saddam and seven co-defendants face charges including murder and torture over the massacre of more than 140 Shiites following an attempt on the life of the ousted dictator in 1982 in the village of Dujail. If found guilty, they could be hanged.
To hell with the trial; just shoot him and get it over with!
Let Sadaam stew.
Yes, invoke the Mussolini option. This whole trial is a farce.
Postponed because he objected to being searched? WTF is this?? You'd think that an Iraqi judge with enough love of country to risk life and limb in presiding over the Saddam trial would be a little more selfless in bringing that monster to justice. What a prima donna.
Should have back filled that hole when we had the chance.
drop the idiot in the middle of a Kurdish village. see if he makes it out.
Another defence lawyer, who declined to be named, said he too heard the hearing was postponed because Judge Abdel Rahman "was unhappy with security procedures, including searches".
Consider the source the Sun is quoting.
Could it be that as stated from a court statement.
"Due to the fact some of the complainants could not make it to attend the court, some of them are out of Iraq and some are on pilgrimage, the court decided to postpone the session until Sunday,"
I think so.
No either kill him, or let him go to take control of Iraq.
What if they handed him over to Iran?
<< No either kill him, or let him go to take control of Iraq. >>
At present, in islamic North Africa, Arabia, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf region and, from Kabal and Islamabad to Bali, throughout the islamic world, because of the way he and his gang have been seen to be controlling and/or have been represented by the likes of al Jazeera, the BBC and CNN International as controlling the court proceedings, he is in control of Iraq.
/sarc off
Just shoot him and Ramsey Clark too.
What, and run the terrorist operations from the five star hotel in Tehran?
I did miss the source that of that quote. Thanks for pointing that out.
The whole idea of a trial was to establish guilt or innocence. But Saddam Hussein was manifestly guilty, and there was never any reason to search for innocence that did not exist.
He should have been sentenced to death and put on a gallows long ago. It mocks his victims' suffering to somehow pretend that there is some chance that this man is innocent.
Now, the show "trial" that was supposed to "show" just how evil Hussein has instead turned into a silly circus: from hordes of defense lawyers, to "judges" who behave like spoiled and sullen children, to allowing Saddam Hussein to rant and wag fingers at the court.
There was never any need for a historical record to be developed from a trial. That's a fundamentally flawed idea: a trial is an adversarial proceeding that is ill-suited to the development of a rounded historical record. If you want history written, hire historians and not lawyers and judges.
Sentence him, hang him, and be done with this.
Sounds like a circus.
It is a circus. Show's over when they put him in a glass box to stand trial. Until somebody shuts his ass up in court, it will remain a circus, and he may even get off.
I'd prefer 45MM. And I'd prefer them a little lower, after all, he can't and won't be using them anyways.
What the (bleep) were they thinking? Or were they???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.