Saddam's Lawyers Seek to Prevent Handover for Execution

Saddam Hussein remains in a U.S. military prison. Today, his lawyers are asking the U.S. not to hand him over to the Iraqis for execution, saying it would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

"According to the international conventions it is forbidden to hand a prisoner of war to his adversary," Saddam's lawyer, Khalil al-Dulaimi, said in Amman, Jordan.

"I urge all the international and legal organizations, the United Nations secretary-general, the Arab League and all the leaders of the world to rapidly prevent the American administration from handing the president to the Iraqi authorities," he told The Associated Press.

An official close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said that Saddam would remain in a U.S. military prison until he is handed over to Iraqi authorities on the day of his execution.

al-Dulaimi also says the sectarian violence in Iraq will escalate it Saddam is executed.

"If the American administration insists in handing the president to the Iraqis, it would commit a great strategic mistake which would lead to the escalation of the violence in Iraq and the eruption of a destructive civil war," he said.

< Blizzard Two Arriving: Open Thread | Obama Gets Tough: Denounces Escalation Policy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Right (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 11:06:34 AM EST
    Why even imagine that the Iraqi government has anything to say about this sham trial.

    The US has dictated everything that it can control up to this point. The only way Sadaam will get a repreive is if it was in the plan from the beginning.

    I believe that Bush actually wants (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 11:11:21 AM EST
    the escalation of the violence in Iraq and the eruption of a destructive civil war, to use as one of his excuses for killing... sorry... I mean sending more US troops.

    `Execute the Dictator' card (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 01:28:58 PM EST
    As long as Saddam is dead by time to make the State of the Union address it'll be okay with bush

    Yes, it is all choreographed by Rove.

    The last announcement (the death sentence) came right before mid-term elections. State of the Union Address is obviously the next stop in this deadly farce.

    Riverbend notes the timing of the sentence:

    Sunday, November 05, 2006

    When All Else Fails...

    ... Execute the dictator. It's that simple....

    ....Judge after judge was brought in because the ones in court were seen as too fair. They didn't instantly condemn the defendants (even if only for the sake of the media). The piece de resistance was the final judge they brought in. His reputation vies only that of Chalabi- a well-known thief and murderer who ran away to Iran to escape not political condemnation, but his father's wrath after he stole from the restaurant his father ran.

    So we all knew the outcome upfront (Maliki was on television 24 hours before the verdict telling people not to `rejoice too much'). I think what surprises me right now is the utter stupidity of the current Iraqi government. The timing is ridiculous- immediately before the congressional elections? How very convenient for Bush. Iraq, today, is at its very worst since the invasion and the beginning occupation. April 2003 is looking like a honeymoon month today. Is it really the time to execute Saddam?

    I'm more than a little worried. This is Bush's final card. The elections came and went and a group of extremists and thieves were put into power (no, no- I meant in Baghdad, not Washington). The constitution which seems to have drowned in the river of Iraqi blood since its elections has been forgotten. It is only dug up when one of the Puppets wants to break apart the country. Reconstruction is an aspiration from another lifetime: I swear we no longer want buildings and bridges, security and an undivided Iraq are more than enough. Things must be deteriorating beyond imagination if Bush needs to use the `Execute the Dictator' card.


    As long as bush can't use it as a... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 01:37:56 PM EST
    ..."Get Out of Jail Free" card.

    This really is nothing short of a slow motion international murder of a tyrant, by tyrants, for tyrants, and in the interest of continuing tyranny.


    International Tribunal (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 01:35:19 PM EST
    He would not have been captured and brought to trial had not Iraq been invaded.

    I believe the invasion was an overt and illegal aggression.

    Any trial in resulting from that is in my view illegitimate.

    I voted for the International Tribunal only because I think that under the circumstances it is probably the fairest option.

    I would have preferred to see the Iraqis overthrow and try him on their own, but under the circumstances and considering the sham the trial was he should not be turned over to the Iraqis for execution.

    Trying Saddam in Iraq as has been done is I think equivalent to Iraq invading the US, capturing Bush, and setting up a kangaroo court to try him for his assaults on the Constitution and the deaths of American soldiers in his fictitious WOT.

    The thing is we gain nothing (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by plumberboy on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 06:56:46 PM EST
    The thing is we gain nothing with Saddam's death.This is true with all execution's they serve no purpose for gain in our society. Saddam's country was invaded by a lie he was arrested on a lie the fact is  he didn't have any wmd's which is what we originally sought his arrest for,crimes against humanity was threw in after no wmds and they still needed his arrest and execution to stick.I am not saying he deserves to walk just there is a lot of lies and contraversy around this whole situation.The other thing is a lot of the way he carried himself when in power is typical for the region we must not forget it's a different culture there, but it's their culture not ours and as long as they were not the ones who bombed our country I really don't understand why we are still tracking these people.The fact is if we would have went and took the guy's directly responsible for the 9/11 attack's out and went home it would have sent a clear message.

    Yep... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 07:19:12 PM EST
    ...that pretty much nails the whole situation. Really well said, plumberboy.

    Another U.S. Dog and Pony Show (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by aappundit on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 07:40:38 AM EST
    "The hanging of Saddam will probably  increase the violence in Iraq." The Bush administration's  rush to try and convict Saddam may be as stupid as the war itself." I agree with Satya Sagar, writer, video maker and journalist based in New Delhi. who wrote recently, "While the show trial of Saddam Hussein would rank quite low in the various crimes that George Bush Jr. and his men have committed till now in Iraq its exposure is still an extremely necessary exercise for several reasons. For, to use a Saddamism, this was nothing short of a `Mother of All Trials', where it was not just the defeated dictator of a devastated nation but a series of principles, arguments and concepts used to justify the US occupation of Iraq that were also up for judgment in the larger court of global opinion.

    For instance, with the early collapse of the cooked up charges of the former Iraqi regime's alleged possession of  `Weapons of Mass Destruction' the elevation of Saddam to the post of the globe's Number One Monster and knocking him down was the sole rationale left for the US occupation. Securing Saddam's conviction thus became top priority even if this meant trampling on all notions of fairness and principles of jurisprudence.

    What was also on trial along with Saddam was the lofty claim by the Bush regime that the US invasion was supposed to bring `freedom, democracy and rule of law' to Iraq. Given the pathetic performance of the Iraqi High Tribunal there is little doubt that not even the most ardent supporters of Bush Jr. believe such nonsense anymore (maybe they do, but I am essentially an optimist by nature).

    Formally trying Saddam in a court of law - and not shooting him on capture- was necessary also to establish the `moral' and `civilizational' superiority of the Western `fair play' over the `despotic' East. Never mind, of course, the many hundred thousand Iraqis who have been executed without trial through direct armed action by US forces or the sectarian and other violence provoked by their political manipulation.

    Lastly, Saddam's trial was also part of the political theatre that the US and its `Coalition of the Killing' wanted to enact to explain the death and injury of their own soldiers to their people back home. The message the trial was supposed to give to domestic audiences was that `it is fine for you to send off your sons and daughters to die' so that at the end of the horror show this infamous villain would have been finally brought to justice."

    Looking glass logic and results (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 08:22:48 AM EST
    the elevation of Saddam to the post of the globe's Number One Monster and knocking him down was the sole rationale left for the US occupation.

    And the elevation of George W. Bush to the post of the globe's Number One Monster and knocking him down was the [one of the results of that twisted rationale]:

    -George W. Bush, 25 percent
    -Osama bin Laden, 8 percent
    -Saddam Hussein, 6 percent

    al-Dulaimi is in error about international law (1.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 11:19:45 AM EST
    If boston.com got it right, Khalil al-Dulaimi's argument is a gross misreading of international law.

    It's central weakness is labeling the government of Iraq "Saddam Hussein's adversary." The US invaders are both the Detaining Power and the hostile power in this case. As such, the US has a duty to repatriate Saddam Hussein to his "own country" at the close of hostilities or after the end of criminal proceedings for "indictable offenses."

    As we are no longer at war with the government of Iraq, and since Saddam Hussein's trial is over, it's time to give him back.

    Justification 101 (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 11:23:16 AM EST
    What would bush do without you guys?

    Logic 101 (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 11:26:55 AM EST
    You want international law to be followed, but now you don't like the result when it is.

    Extended Logic (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 11:31:40 AM EST
    and Comprehension 101, Gabe. Go sign up. It's an elective.

    I want the sham exposed. Oh, and people who disingenuously try once again to conflate 'legal' with 'right' to perpetuate the sham too.


    Yeah, (none / 0) (#7)
    by aw on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 11:33:14 AM EST
    we've been following international law so carefully up to now.  

    it's time to give him back.
    Consequences be damned, right?  No, wait, I bet you think the consequences are irrelevant.

    Well that's a switch. (1.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 11:38:42 AM EST
    So now you want to throw out international law? One of the heavy bludgeon's used against the Bush Administration, and now that you don't like it you're just going to ignore it?

    You're determined to miss the point (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 11:46:35 AM EST
    even when it's smacking you in the face, aren't you, Gabe? ;-)

    Being international outlaws (none / 0) (#10)
    by aw on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 11:53:38 AM EST
    is what got us to this place.  I don't remember you arguing against this illegal war.

    When the post-execution bloodbath takes place, let's discuss this again.


    As long as Saddam is dead by time... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    ...to make the State of the Union address it'll be okay with bush. I can hear him now:

    "The state of our Union is strong, and growing stronger daily with the death of the world's greatest threat ever, Saddam Hussein."

    Oh, boy, I can hardly wait.

    Gabe (none / 0) (#17)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 01:23:13 PM EST
    I think what they are saying is that you want to apply international law to an unlawful government. I personally do not acknowledge the legitimacy of the current Iraqi "government". Handing ANY POW, or whatever we call them these days, to the current ruling group in Iraq is no more legal than handing them to the militias.

    That makes more sense (none / 0) (#19)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 01:34:20 PM EST
    Now that's consistent, unlike some pick-as-you-like conclusion that we can only apply international law if such application has good consequences. Moreover, it doesn't rely on the equally falacious "two wrongs make a right" idea.

    I disagree--and so does the UN--about the lawfulness of Iraq's government, but your's, Che, is a credible argument. Were the Iraqi government not representative of Saddam Hussein's "own country" (I'm taking that language directly from the Convention), the US could not repatriate him there. Further, it's unlikely that the current Iraqi government would be considered a neutral third party to which Saddam Hussein could be transfered (under the Convention), especially since they intend to kill him.

    Nice job, Che. (Even though we disagree. ;)


    So what should be done to us? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 03:21:33 PM EST
    ...for our flagrant disregard of international law in starting a war of aggression for no reason, for telling the world to shove the Geneva Conventions up their collective as*?

    What will happen is what is happening now.  Failure.

    That is what comes of murdering people who have done nothing to you, ruining a nation beyond the ruin it already suffered, and doing so with so little regard for the Iraqi people and our own soldiers that it defies the imagination American freedom is supposed to engender.

    We have f*cked up beyond all measure, and we will get nothing in return by failure and shame, which we deserve.

    It's time for us to take our medicine and grow as a nation.  While the planet dies from our abuse, we violently tilt at windmills.

    Make no mistake, my friend, a hundred years from now, we will be viewed as the most useless, wasteful, destructive people ever to walk the planet...unless we start changing things in a hurry.

    Saddam will be handed over, don't you worry.  The Bush administration doesn't care a whit about what the American people think about anything, why would he care what anyone thinks here.  Sociopathy is what rules our policy.  Craziness.  


    We agree to disagree (none / 0) (#23)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 02:05:16 PM EST
    Bush has always seen Iraq (incorrectly) as part of the WOT. From my readings on him, he seems to believe that the execution of SH will give the "terrorists"/opponents pause. It will make them second guess their strategy. Now, since Iraq has become a mess, Bush needs another "demonstration of our resolve".

    Iraqi government (none / 0) (#27)
    by diogenes on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 07:41:34 PM EST
         The Iraqi government has survived votes for a constitution and was elected.  In the Middle East only Israel and perhaps Lebanon have as "legitimate" a government.  Other countries in the middle east are ruled by military dictatorships and kings.
         No international tribunal will give anyone guilty of genocide a death penalty anymore, so people are really saying that they do not think that Saddam should get the death penalty.  Say so directly, without this equating of the Iraqi government with militias within Iraq or with the dictatorships of Qaddafi and others.

    Batteries, diogenes. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 07:53:58 PM EST

    An American yardstick (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 10:20:20 PM EST
    Other countries in the middle east are ruled by military dictatorships and kings.
    and iraq has American rulers. If we weren't there that gov't wouldn't exist; we judge shopped until finding one who would kick the defendant's lawyers out of court; we refuse to leave even tho an overwhelming majority of iraqis want us to; we selected the leaders who ran; we kill the leaders we don't want in power.

    iraq is as much a democracy as it was when saddam got elected ... except now more iraqis are dying.


    48 hours (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 09:06:41 PM EST
    Execution (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 10:05:43 PM EST
    Saddam Hussein , condemned to death and with all appeals exhausted, is trying to turn his death into a "sacrifice" for the Iraqi nation. In April 2003 Saddam was universally reviled but the country is now in such a horrible state that some Sunni Arabs do see Saddam as a symbol of the united Iraqi nation. Saddam, however, spoke in his typical racist way of the need to fight the "raiders and the Persians", according to al-Hayat in Arabic (i.e. the Americans and the Shiites). Sadr Movement spokesmen demanded that he be executed on the eve of the Day of Sacrifice (Eid al-Adha)--i.e. this weekend.

    Juan Cole