It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Saddam's attorney: 'When is this man going to be charged?'

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer spoke Friday with Saddam's attorney, Giovanni di Stefano, about his client's situation.



Never mind about photographs of Saddam Hussein in his underpants. That will be dealt with by the Pentagon and their aggressive inquiry. But I would suggest that Mr. [Donald] Rumsfeld and President Bush's aggressive inquiry is into why no charges have still been laid against the president, Saddam Hussein, after 19 months in custody and only two legal visits within that 19 months.

The whole question, Wolf, is this: nineteen months and no charges. If there was no evidence that this man had committed the crimes that the foreign minister had said from Kuwait -- and that may or may not be so -- why not bring charges?

The whole world is now beginning to have its doubts, not only on the legality on the war, but if the war was so legal, why not challenge this man? Where are the charges?

Nineteen months, not a single charge. Not one count. Why not charge him with murder? Rape? Genocide? War crimes?

source:
CNN.com

Intersting interview with the Saddam's attorney, who presents some questions, that need an answer.

So, really, When is this man going to be charged for the Crimes he Commited?

But we cannot preach the gospel of democracy. We can't say that we are going on a mission of peace and bring soldiers there and say we want to bring freedom and then not respect that freedom, because that is what we are bringing to Iraq.




posted on May, 21 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I agree....Saddam should have been charged by now...this is long overdue.



Why not charge him with murder? Rape? Genocide? War crimes?

He is definately guilty of at least rwo of these, why wait....send him to the peoples court now.

War and Bush aside.....Saddam should have already been to court by now and have had a fair trial by the people of Iraq. I know that's kind of hard to do rigth now....but it can be done.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
I agree....Saddam should have been charged by now...this is long overdue.



Why not charge him with murder? Rape? Genocide? War crimes?

He is definately guilty of at least rwo of these, why wait....send him to the peoples court now.

War and Bush aside.....Saddam should have already been to court by now and have had a fair trial by the people of Iraq. I know that's kind of hard to do rigth now....but it can be done.

I mean, by convicting this man, its the easiest way of proving this Invasion was Legal - but no.

Instead this man has been held captive for 19 Months with only two visits, not granting him his basic rights.




BLITZER: You say two legal visits. He's been visited by his attorneys on two occasions, but he's had other visits from [the International Committee of the] Red Cross representatives, is that right?

DI STEFANO: Do you call that a visit? A Red Cross -- we're talking about a man that is 19 months in custody, hasn't seen his grandchildren, hasn't seen his wife, hasn't seen -- never mind about what he may or may not have done. Everyone has basic rights.

Never mind whether he did those for the people or not. You have a man in custody; the American government has the responsibility for him. And if they want to be liked in the world, if they want to be understood, they had better get things and do things properly.

BLITZER: You realize that a lot of our viewers in the United States and around the world hearing you now saying Saddam Hussein deserves these legal rights will argue, you know, this is a brutal dictator who, when he was in power for those decades, he didn't care about anyone's rights. If someone looked at him in the wrong way, he ordered them dead.

Why should he get some rights that he never granted anyone else?

DI STEFANO: Let us not then have a masquerade of hypocrisy. Let us be a country that simply shoots him. Even that solution may be acceptable to some.

But we cannot preach the gospel of democracy. We can't say that we are going on a mission of peace and bring soldiers there and say we want to bring freedom and then not respect that freedom, because that is what we are bringing to Iraq.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Oh BS...We arent the ones who are going to try him, IRAQ is. And untill the "insurgents" get their collective heads out of their rears, that wont happen. It isnt our fault the country isnt ready yet. They could be, but they choose to keep starting up stuff, soooo....Saddam sits.

Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll die in prison. The pictures are grand. The world is better off w/o this guy. 19 months is nothing compared to the life long suffering he has inflicted on his own people. The only thing that would make me smile more, is if his sons were in there with him.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll die in prison. The pictures are grand. The world is better off w/o this guy. 19 months is nothing compared to the life long suffering he has inflicted on his own people. The only thing that would make me smile more, is if his sons were in there with him.

Thanks for Identifying yourself by writing the post above.

Keep up the Good Work!



[edit on 21/5/05 by Souljah]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I don't see how not having visitors is a violation of basic rights

I mean...there are people in jail now that do not even come close to doing what Saddam has done and they are not allowed visitors....

I understand the speedy trial thing.....he wants a trial, let's give hime one.

Notice how Stefano did not deny or make any arguement when Blitxer said


You realize that a lot of our viewers in the United States and around the world hearing you now saying Saddam Hussein deserves these legal rights will argue, you know, this is a brutal dictator who, when he was in power for those decades, he didn't care about anyone's rights. If someone looked at him in the wrong way, he ordered them dead.

At least he understands that his client is guilty of the above



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
what is that suppose to mean? sarcasm? tell me you feel bad for saddam. it wouldnt surprise me..



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I suppose i should of expected souljah to use this to further his political agenda
. I agree saddam should have been tried and executed by now.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Its not Americas job to try him, Its IRAQs!! We got him for them, now all they have to do is stop blowing themselves up, form a governement and deal with it.

[edit on 21-5-2005 by spliff4020]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   


At least he understands that his client is guilty of the above

Ofcourse he is Guilty - but if he is guilty, for example; the crimes over the Kurdish people, then the American goverment is Also guilty, for cooperating with Saddam regime in that years, and for giving him money, and chemical weapons and diplomatic support.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   


At least he understands that his client is guilty of the above

Ofcourse he is Guilty - but if he is guilty, for example; the crimes over the Kurdish people, then the American goverment is Also guilty, for cooperating with Saddam regime in that years, and for giving him money, and chemical weapons and diplomatic support.

Whoa! Whoa! what are you talking about the US giving saddam chemical weapons, please provide some links to back your claims. thanks.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah


At least he understands that his client is guilty of the above

Ofcourse he is Guilty - but if he is guilty, for example; the crimes over the Kurdish people, then the American goverment is Also guilty, for cooperating with Saddam regime in that years, and for giving him money, and chemical weapons and diplomatic support.


Yes, and if Reagan was still alive and in office it might make a difference.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Whoa! Whoa! what are you talking about the US giving saddam chemical weapons, please provide some links to back your claims. thanks.

This is one, long, long article about that:

How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons

Learn more About Chemical Weapons



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Wow, you didn't know? That Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam are good buddies? There are pictures of them shaking hands, smiling, drinking together. Saddam got any WMDs he used on th kurds/Iranians from America.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Wow, you didn't know? That Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam are good buddies? There are pictures of them shaking hands, smiling, drinking together. Saddam got any WMDs he used on th kurds/Iranians from America.


Your lack of history knowledge is astounding. Ever heard of the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?"

Franklin Roosevelt had his picture taken with Stalin many times, any connection there?



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
What kind of example is this setting to all the Iraqis who allegedly suffered under the harsh rule of Saddam Hussein? Charge the man or release him. At least if Iraq now has any relation to the U.S. justice system to set an example for other Middle Eastern countries this should be done immediately.

If there isn't any evidence to charge the man with crimes, then I see no reason for him to rot in jail.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
problem is Souljah, that he kill so many people that it takes time to gather evidence and the insurgents who are still loyal to Saddam are preventing people from digging up bodies. with the evidence we do have people want to make sure he is tried in all counts and many of it is ridiculous but thats how justice works.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   
its not us that is going to try him though. its iraqs problem...we got him...its up to them to deal with him. let him sit there for years. its more than his victims were allowed.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Problem IS:

That the United States have proclaimed the Invasion in Iraq legal, because the goverment of United States KNEW that Saddam was in violation of several International Laws, was holding WMD's, in contradiction of international laws - and thats why United States invaded.

Well - the "goal was achieved" wasnt it?

Saddam is arrested and in custody - why dont the US want to SUE his Ass now that they have HIM for all those Crimes he commited, that were the Reason for the Invasion of Iraq and the current possible "Civil War in Iraq - Scenario"?

Great - "You got him, and now WHAT?"



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Problem IS:

That the United States have proclaimed the Invasion in Iraq legal, because the goverment of United States KNEW that Saddam was in violation of several International Laws, was holding WMD's, in contradiction of international laws - and thats why United States invaded.

Well - the "goal was achieved" wasnt it?

Saddam is arrested and in custody - why dont the US want to SUE his Ass now that they have HIM for all those Crimes he commited, that were the Reason for the Invasion of Iraq and the current possible "Civil War in Iraq - Scenario"?

Great - "You got him, and now WHAT?"


Now what??? Wait from them to get their collective a**es together and try him. Its their problem, not ours. We aint gonna sue him because he doesnt have anything left for us to take, but his life, and thats for his own people to do, not us.

On a side note, I do think they better hurry up. I would hate to see what would happen if he died while in our custody.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join