World leaders should take stand in Saddam trial: lawyer (Bring it on, Frenchie!)

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | December 20, 2003

[dead]

Controversial French lawyer Jacques Verges says he is willing to defend Saddam Hussein in court and, if he can, bring world leaders to the witness stand, in what could be a huge embarrassment for the United States, France and other countries.

Verges spoke to AFP yesterday at the end of a visit to Amman to visit the family of former Iraqi deputy prime minister Tareq Aziz to prepare for his defence following his surrender to US troops after the fall of Baghdad.

Asked if he was also ready to defend the former Iraqi leader, who was captured last Saturday night by US troops in northern Iraq, Verges said: "If other people seek my counsel I would have no reason to refuse".

But he insisted that "all Western heads of state", from the time of the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran war to the latest Iraq conflict, should take the stand when the imprisoned former Iraqi officials go on trial.

"At the Nuremberg trial, the four allies accused the Nazi leaders of certain war crimes and crimes against humanity," Verges said, in reference to the trials of leading Nazi party officials after the defeat of Germany in World War II.

"Right now the former Iraqi regime is being blamed for certain events that took place at a time when its members were treated as allies or friends by countries that had embassies in Baghdad and ambassadors not all of whom were blind (to Iraqi crimes)," he said.

"Today, this indignation appears to me contrived," he added.

"When we reprove the use of certain weapons (we need to know) who sold these weapons," he said about Iraq's past purchase of arms from France, Britain, the United States and Russia.

"When we disapprove of the war against Iran (we need to know) who encouraged it," Verges added.

The United States maintained ties with the Saddam regime in the 1980s and tacitly approved the war on its nemesis, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, in Tehran.

Verges also slammed the UN embargo that was slapped on Iraq after it invaded Kuwait in 1990 and criticised the US administration's backing of the sanctions, which he said caused the death of an estimated half-a-million people.

"Mrs (Madeleine) Albright once said that this is the price to pay for democracy," he said of the secretary of state under former US president Bill Clinton.

"If that is the case then it should be said as well and only then will a trial be fair. Otherwise it will be an execution of hostages," he said of the former Iraqi leaders now held at secret locations by the US-led coalition.

A quintessential devil's advocate who has made a career of arguing what most choose not to hear, Verges, 79, has half a century of experience defending unpopular causes.

His clients included the likes of Gestapo chief Klaus Barbie and convicted terrorist Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, alias Carlos.

More recently he became vice president of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic and represented the former Yugoslav leader in a suit before the European Court of Human Rights.

Tareq Aziz's family, which has found sanctuary in Jordan, has sought his help to defend the former Iraqi official, who suffers of heart trouble and diabetes.

"The first course of action I will take is to find out about his health because he is sick and has heart troubles," Verges told AFP, adding that he has a "lot of respect" for the veteran Iraqi diplomat.

Verges is also demanding that the coalition in Iraq release a "written and precise document" listing the charges they have against Aziz and all the other prisoners.

"My course of action ... must benefit all the prisoners because when we solve the status of Mr Aziz we solve the status of the others," Verges said.

AFP

[dead]

But he insisted that "all Western heads of state", from the time of the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran war to the latest Iraq conflict, should take the stand when the imprisoned former Iraqi officials go on trial.

Well, I insist that Anna Kournikova have weekly sleepovers at my house. But without any sort of enforcement mechanism, our demands are not really relevant to anything.

"When we reprove the use of certain weapons (we need to know) who sold these weapons," he said about Iraq's past purchase of arms from France, Britain, the United States and Russia.

I’ll agree with you there, you babbling frog. Although, the order the author placed those countries in could use some serious tinkering.

criticised the US administration's backing of the sanctions, which he said caused the death of an estimated half-a-million people.

Yeah, estimated by Saddam, who was still building palaces throughout that time and sitting on warehouses overflowing with relief supplies. The embargo was a joke, until the material got as far as Saddam. Then he put some real teeth into the sanctions and made sure his people went wanting.

Bring on the trial, Frenchie. And lets find out what Russia and France were sending over there! Let’s find out what Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright did as well. Hell, let’s even have a look at what Reagan, Bush, and Carter were up to as well.

There will be some questionable decisions by US administrations, without a doubt. But there will be ongoing and provable treachery coming out or Russia, China, and France, among others.

[Mr. Bird]

All this talk about a trial proving embarrassing is absurd. It matters not one whit whether the U.S. or any other country implicitly or explicitly supported the regime. Saddam's gassing of the Kurds is reason enough for his execution.

The Iraqis running the trial will not permit one that proves embarrassing to their allies. It will be a parade of atrocities, followed by an execution.

Unless someone has videotape of George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan personally gunning down Shiites in Baghdad, there will be no embarrassment.

[Freemyland]

"Unless someone has videotape of George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan personally gunning down Shiites in Baghdad, there will be no embarrassment"

Dang, you just gave Howard Dean another "interesting theory" to mention the next time he talks to NPR.

[auboy]

["Right now the former Iraqi regime is being blamed for certain events that took place at a time when its members were treated as allies or friends by countries that had embassies in Baghdad and ambassadors not all of whom were blind (to Iraqi crimes)," he said.]

Sounds like CNN is a qualifier, too!

[dighton]

"You'd never believe so much noise could come from a creature that small."

[dead]

LOL! Thanks for the link.

[Catspaw]

Jacques Verges and Ramsey Clark...both have offered to represent Saddam.

What a zoo the trial will be if Verges and Clark have their way.

[dead]

The Sydney Morning Herald has lifted an article from the Washington Post, releasing more information about Rumsfeld’s 1984 meetings with Saddam and Tariq Aziz.

Rumsfeld was told to placate Saddam
By Dana Priest in Washington
December 20, 2003

Donald Rumsfeld went to Baghdad in March 1984 with instructions to deliver a private message about weapons of mass destruction: that the United States' public criticism of Iraq for using chemical weapons would not derail Washington's attempts to forge a better relationship, according to newly declassified documents.

The Defence Secretary, then president Ronald Reagan's special Middle East envoy, was urged to tell Iraq's foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, that the US statement on chemical weapons (CW) "was made strictly out of our strong opposition to the use of lethal and incapacitating CW, wherever it occurs", according to a cable to Mr Rumsfeld from then secretary of state, George Shultz…

Sounds like Rumsfeld’s message was completely logical and correct at that time - "We deplore your use of chemical weapons but would still like to establish peaceful relations with your nation."

Of course, you can question whether that was exactly the right message to send at that time, but its hardly the stuff of “embarrassment.”