Tareq Aziz takes stand for Saddam

[cal04]

Iraq's ex-Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz made his first public appearance in three years on the stand for Saddam Hussein on Wednesday, calling on the court to try current leaders for attacks on the state in the 1980s. Aziz, the highest profile witness for Saddam, was once the international public face of the toppled leader's government and one of his closest aides.

He tried to turn the tables around in the trial that started in October by accusing one of the parties now in power, the Islamist Shi'ite Dawa of new Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, of trying to kill him and Saddam in the 1980s. Maliki's national unity government of Shi'ites, minority Sunni Arabs and Kurds took office last Saturday on a pledge to rein in guerrilla and sectarian attacks plaguing Iraq three years after U.S. forces toppled Saddam.

In new violence highlighting the challenge the tough-talking Maliki faces, gunmen shot dead a police general in Baghdad and tribal clashes south of the capital killed 16, police said. Saddam and seven co-defendants are accused of bloody reprisals, including the killings of 148 Shi'ites, in the town of Dujail after a failed assassination bid on Saddam in 1982 by the Dawa party. "I'm a victim of criminal acts committed by a party presently in power now. Try them," said Aziz, referring to a hand grenade attack at a Baghdad university in 1980, which he escaped with a broken arm and a few cuts.

"They killed dozens of students." Aziz, a long-time ally of Saddam, said the separate assassination attempt in Dujail was part of a series of operations targeting officials and civilians and Iraqi officials had every right to crack down on the Dawa. "Weren't the killings at Mustansiriya University a mass killing?," Aziz asked the court. "And now you are judging officials, accusing them of mass killings." Aziz, whose family says he is seriously ill, was number 43 on the U.S. most-wanted list of Iraqi officials when he gave himself up in April 2003

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/international/ticker/detail/Tareq_Aziz_takes_stand_for_Saddam.html?siteSect=143&sid=6747831&cKey=1148468048000

[theHandpuppet]

1. Not that Saddam ISN'T a bloody tyrant, but...

... aren't we in the West splitting hairs here? What is the major difference between a Saddam, who ordered the torture and killing of his opponents, and Geroge Bush, who has also killed thousands of Iraqi civilians, holds political suspects in dog pens at Guantanamo, whose miltary leaders were behind the torture at Abu Ghraib? Where's the difference between Saddam invading Kuwait and GWB invading Iraq on a pack of lies? Why does one merit being tried as a war criminal while the other is immune from prosecution?

Seems like we're the pot calling the kettle black.

[Kipling]

2. In both scale and cruelty Saddam has been worse.

Mind you, Bush is still only 6 years in. Give the man time.

[Rhiannon12866]

5. Your reply reminded me of this article from "The Onion."

I agree. And note the date; it's from April of 2003.:-(

Saddam Proud He Still Killed More Iraqi Civilians Than U.S.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27970

[The Stranger]

10. Given the scope of Bush's power, and his ability to do more than simply

order people to be gassed, Bush may eclipse Saddam even in that short time frame.

The repercussions of Bush, including the destruction of the world's environment by refusing to have the world's largest polluter sign the treaty it negotiated (the Kyoto Protocol), the attack on the American system of laws and civil liberties dating back nearly a millenium, the launching of a war that directly killed over 100,000 civilians and will likely result in a civil war indirectly killing twice that, the legalization of torture on a global scale and construction of a world-wide American gulag of torture stations, a new American concentration camp at Guantanamo and the massive reallocation of resources to legalize it -- Bush may have Saddam beaten in spades.

The long-term impact of Bush, including the real historical impact made by Bush, upon institutions that had been the subject of fight and struggle for centuries, simply cannot be overestimated.

Bush has done more damage not only because he controls the most powerful nation the world has ever seen, but he has been able to do the most damage to the history of laws, rights, and justice that had been the legacy of that nation. He had the ability to stab the giant in the heart. Saddam was a small-time desert despot fighting ages-old tribal wars, unable to destroy a history of freedom and liberty in the way Bush has.

[cantstandbush]

3. He's only telling the truth. What would a US President have done

if a militia had taken up arms inside the country? Wasn't that what the Civil War was all about? These hypocritical and trumped up charges against Saddam are just another indication of the corruption and arrogance of the west and its allies.

[geek tragedy]

6. I hope to goodness that was sarcasm.

Otherwise, you just advocated fascism and murder.

Being PRO-Saddam means you're the opposite of PROgressive.

I doubt Lincoln would have gassed the people of Halabja.

Oh, and Saddam was a brutal military dictator.

[Rhiannon12866]

4. I just received this write-up from The Guardian.

Aziz testifies at Saddam trial

Staff and agencies
Wednesday May 24, 2006

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi foreign minister and international face of Saddam Hussein's regime, made his first public appearance in three years today at the deposed Iraqi leader's trial in Baghdad, hailing Saddam as a "colleague and comrade".

Mr Aziz, 69, who also served as Iraq's deputy prime minister, is the highest-profile defence witness in Saddam's trial for alleged crimes against humanity. He entered the court clad in white short-sleeved pyjamas with a black trim and looking frail.

The former Iraqi dictator and seven former members of his regime are charged over a crackdown on the town of Dujail following an attempt to assassinate Saddam.

Hundreds of men, women and children from Dujail were killed after shots were fired at Saddam's motorcade in the town in 1982. Dozens died in prison, from torture and poor conditions, and 148 men and boys were sentenced to death by Saddam's revolutionary court for alleged connections to the assassination attempt.

Mr Aziz, who has been held in US custody since the fall of the regime, with his family complaining he is ill and should be freed, insisted the arrests were a normal response to what had happened.

"If the head of state comes under attack, the state is required by law to take action. If the suspects are caught with weapons, it's only natural they should be arrested and put on trial," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1782078,00.html

[Disturbed]

8. Tariq Aziz held in solitary confinement for three years with

no charges against him. Is that justice?

[Rhiannon12866]

9. Of course it's not justice.

Just as those in Gitmo have yet to receive justice. And I question how this time in court will benefit anybody. Saddam was a brutal leader and a murderer, no question. But the Bush* administration isn't the best qualified to judge any of these people. I thought that the Iraqi people were supposed to judge them. That's what has to happen, without US interference.:-(

[upi402]

7. I have a grim thought recurring;

That a deal will be sought by the fledgling "government" in Iraq and the Sunni's. Saddam will be spared execution for the sake of order and coalition power intrigues. Then, after BushCo is out, Saddam will retake power.

Don't know why I keep returning to this scenario :shrug: Probably improbable.

[Rhiannon12866]

11. This is not as far fetched as you think.

The new government in Iraq is not working. And it's been said that if Saddam had not existed, since he managed to hold together these warring factions which Bush* didn't even know about until his Super Bowl party in January of 2003, then he would have had to be invented. It's a scary thought, that he could retake power, but not improbable. If you read the posted articles, he said he still considers himself to be the elected president of Iraq...:-(

[enigma000]

12. but his power base is destroyed

his Baath party is in ruins and the Shia are in charge now - and they, as a rule, hate Saddam.

Plus, I don't think the Iraqis want another tyrant...

[upi402]

13. Do you think the Shia would allow him as figurehead?

I mean as a method of consolidating power...
Saddam is acting defiantly in court, shouting that he's still the boss and praising Allah or Mohamed or whatever.
I just wonder if the Shia could swallow this in order to run their theocracy.
If so, get ready for Jeb to prop him up in order to take control of Iraqi oil away from the theocratic evil-doers.
:rollseyes:

[Rhiannon12866]

16. The point here is that Saddam ran a secular government.

He was not religious in any way, and this is the reason that Osama bin Laden referred to him as "an infidel." That's one huge reason why the Bush* administration's attempted connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda is ludicrous. And would a tyrant like Saddam allow terrorist groups to operate in his country? Of course not!:shrug:

[Rhiannon12866]

14. Of course the Iraqis don't want another tyrant, and this would be a

terrible thing for this part of the world, but this also means that there will never be a united Iraq. These groups have hated each other for centuries, despite what George Bush* believes can happen here. Whether this is good, or bad, I certainly can't judge. I only know what I've read. And only history will judge what happens here. My sad regret is that the American occupation has caused so many unnecessary deaths.:-(

[Rhiannon12866]

15. Actually, the last paragraph of this article was what struck me.

We know that this was not a fair election, but he does have a point, LOL!:-)

"Do you want to shut people's mouth this way?" Saddam asked, being told by the judge in return: "Quiet. You are a defendant." "I am Saddam Hussein, your president, and you did elect me," Saddam shouted back.