Did You Know...



By Michelle Malkin  •  November 28, 2005 10:47 AM

…and Ramsey Clark is there to hold his hand. From Breitbart/AP:

The trial of Saddam Hussein for alleged crimes against humanity resumed Monday in a heavily guarded courtroom, with the former Iraqi president trying to take command of the proceedings and angrily complaining about having to walk up four flights of stairs in shackles under foreign guard. A former U.S. attorney general sat with the defense team.

After a short session in which the first testimony was read into the record, Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin adjourned the trial until Dec. 5 to allow time to find replacements for two defense lawyers who were slain and another who fled Iraq after he was wounded.

Dressed in black trousers and a gray jacket, Saddam was the last of eight defendants to enter the courtroom, walking with a swagger, appearing confident and acknowledging people with the traditional Arabic greeting, “Peace be upon the people of peace.” He also carried a copy of the Muslim holy book, the Quran.

…Amin had ordered all handcuffs and shackles removed from Saddam and the seven co-defendants before they entered the courtroom. Mortar fire echoed through the center of the capital just before the session began.

Once inside, Saddam had a brief but heated exchange with Amin, complaining of having to walk up four flights of stairs in shackles because the elevator wasn’t working.

The judge said he would tell the police not to let that happen again. Saddam snapped: “You are the chief judge. I don’t want you to tell them. I want you to order them. They are in our country. You have the sovereignty. You are Iraqi and they are foreigners and occupiers. They are invaders. You should order them.”

Saddam also complained he was escorted up the stairs by “foreign guards” and that some of his papers had been taken.

“How can a defendant defend himself if his pen was taken. Saddam Hussein’s pen and papers were taken. I don’t mean a white paper. There are papers downstairs that include my remarks in which I express my opinion,” he said.

Saddam’s half brother and fellow defendant Barazan Ibrahim also complained to the judge that he had not received proper medical treatment since being diagnosed with cancer and that this amounted to “indirect murder.”

Saddam then complained that he had written three or four memos to the judge since the Oct. 19 session but received no response. The judge said he was unaware of them.

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and former Qatari Justice Minister Najib al-Nueimi sat with the defense team inside the heavily guarded room, along with Saddam’s chief lawyer, Khalil Dulaimi.

They must not be feeding Saddam enough Cheetos.


Patrick Hynes of ABP guest-blogging at Right Wing News:

In Iraq, the trial of Saddam Hussein will recommence today. The former president of Iraq is to face a series of trials for his crimes against humanity. Meanwhile, here in the United States, the manner in which Hussein was brought to justice – the U.S. led invasion of 2003 – faces a trial of its own. Senate Democrats have all but overtly charged President George W. Bush with lying Americans into war (though RWN readers know full well this implication is a cheesy and seditious political stunt.) These two events, occurring conterminously, provide the White House with a powerful opportunity, if played correctly, not only to regain the upper hand in the ongoing Iraq debate, but also, in my opinion, to end this silly debate permanently.

The White House only now has just begun to fight back. Why they allowed things to get this far is beyond reasoning. Nevertheless, here we are. And the president and his surrogates need to call his critics out on the carpet: They cannot retroactively oppose the Iraq War and agree with the prosecution of Saddam Hussein at the same time…

…Simply put, if George W. Bush lied us into war then the prosecution of Saddam Hussein is a sham; Saddam is the innocent victim of George W. Bush’s zealous war hawkery. This is true if Bush’s critics are of the moderate “one more resolution” variety, the moonbat “no war for oil” variety, or even the present day revisionists who supported the war once and told the same “lies” that Bush has told.

The question remaining is whether or not the Bush administration, which has been surprisingly cordial to its enemies has the gumption to challenge the likes of Harry Reid, et al on the deplorable position they have taken on Iraq.


Update: Jeff Goldstein has an exclusive look at Ramsey Clark’s legal pad. 😉


Protest photo of the day
The trial of Saddam Hussein
No Cheetos? It’s a guuulag!
Saggy Saddam in briefs
Ramsey Clark’s bloody resume