home

Saddam: Silent and Amused

According to a new AP article, Saddam is not only not talking to authorities, he is amused and having fun.

He doesn't have a lawyer in the room, but Saddam Hussein apparently is practicing what most attorneys would advise: Don't talk. Diplomatic and military officials say the former Iraqi leader has provided little useful information in interrogations so far - and may even be having fun....In a recent interview, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said he occasionally sees the interrogation briefing reports. "He's a pretty wily guy, and he's not giving much information that I've seen. But he seems to be enjoying the debate," Armitage told WPHT-AM radio in Philadelphia.

There are signs the intelligence phase of Saddam's capture is coming to an end. The investigation is now a joint effort by the CIA and FBI:

The questioning of Saddam - initially handled by the CIA - is now a joint CIA-FBI operation, a sign that the aim is changing from finding intelligence to gathering evidence for any eventual trials. The people who are asking the questions at the moment are from the FBI, said a U.S. intelligence official, speaking on the condition of anonymity....A team of 50 Justice Department prosecutors, investigators and support staff has traveled to Iraq to help assemble a war-crimes case against Saddam and others in his former government.

Justice officials take pains to say that the United States is there only to assist the Iraqis with advice on what their options for a trial might be. The officials say they are helping the Iraqis to organize evidence and lay out possible charges, and aiding them in finding cooperating witnesses and key documents. The U.S. team is joined by legal experts from Britain, Spain and Poland.

Jaques Verges, the French lawyer requested to represent Saddam by his family, wants the Geneva Convention applied to Saddam and wants him tried in the International Criminal Court in the Hague. We also think Saddam should be tried by an International Criminal Court. Human Rights Watch explains here:

An internationally led tribunal would be a far better option, whether a fully international tribunalor, more likely, an internationally run tribunal with significant domestic participation, such as the special court set up for Sierra Leone. Because its personnel would be selected by the United Nations rather than by Washington's surrogates, an internationally led tribunal is more likely to be seen as legitimate. And because it can draw from a global pool of talent, it would be better able to secure the experienced and fair-minded jurists than a court that must look only to Iraqis. An internationally led tribunal could still conduct trials in Baghdad and involve Iraqis as much as possible, but it would be run by international jurists with proven records of overseeing complex prosecutions and scrupulously respecting international fair-trial standards.

< Supreme Court Hears Case Challenging Method of Execution | Is Clarke Credible? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort: