WAR: Saddam Trial Defense Lawyer Kidnapped

The lawyer of a co-defendant of Saddam was kidnapped Thursday, along with seven others. It is said that several masked gunmen (estimates are between 5 and 10) stormed his office and dragged him out. The apparent target of the kidnapping is the lawyer of a former Iraqi judge who is standing trial alongside Saddam.

The lawyer's name is Saadoun Sughaiyer al-Janabi. Al-Janabi is the attorney for Awad al-Bandar, one of seven Baath Party officials being tried alongside Saddam. Awad al-Bandar was the head of the Revolutionary Court during the 1982 massacre of Shiites in Dujail. He is accused of issuing execution orders for 148 people. There is no word yet on who the other seven are.




This is breaking news, so I will update as more comes out. In the meantime, who would stand to benefit from this? Saddam? Coalition? Insurgents? And if you have a suspicion, do you have a reason why as well? I could see this being a delay tactic by either side, but that is awfully cynical.

Swiss news has him kidnapped from his house. I don’t think anyone really knows what happened yet.

Related News Links:
www.boston.com
www.cbs4denver.com
www.cnn.com
www.swissinfo.org

[edit on 20-10-2005 by Hamburglar]

How convenient hours after the announcement the trial would have a special hearing on Sunday, they say he has been kidnapped! :shk:

I am not buying it for one minute. More then likely a car drove up and said we do not want that witness to give testimony, so come on get in we have got to get you out of town fast.

BTW You beat me by one minute


Also you might want to edit co defendant out, the story mentions nothing other then that he is one of the trial lawyers



[edit on 10/20/2005 by shots]

One minute... Isn't it always like that...

BTW, I understand your skepticism, but, why kidnap a DEFENSE attorney? How would that help the powers that be? I could see it if they kidnapped the witness (although that witness may yet be one of the seven others), but I don't get the taking of a lawyer for the defense.

Remember that, this is almost like kidnapping Saddam's lawyer. How would that help in the case of this witness? I can't see how it could.

I'll hold my skepticism for now.

BTW, I understand your skepticism, but, why kidnap a DEFENSE attorney? How would that help the powers that be? I could see it if they kidnapped the witness (although that witness may yet be one of the seven others), but I don't get the taking of a lawyer for the defense.

Since there is more then one defendant involved in the case the answer is simple; without a defense team the trial cannot continue. What better way to get an extension w/o asking then just to kidnap one of the lawyers?

As for the witness involved he is a prosecution witness and not a defense witness who is hospitalized, therefore impossible for him to one of the others kidnapped

I'll hold my skepticism for now.

same,

the word "staged" comes to mind

You know what's annoying? Random "no" votes suggesting a fix to the introduction (specifically the grammar/structure).

Folks, if you want to vote no, let me know what to fix (a little more clearly than the cryptic "fix introduction for grammar/structure"). That would help a lot.

Shots: I can see it as a delay tactic, but couldn't the prosecution achieve the same effect by saying the mystery witness is still not "well" enough to leave the hospital and take the stand? I'm still not convinced this is a prosecution move.

Plus, this is a lawyer for Saddam's co-defendant. In theory, the trial for Saddam could continue and a new trial could commence later for the co-defendant.

Originally posted by infinite
same,

the word "staged" comes to mind

Perhaps, but could you give me a solid scenario for why this might have been staged?

Who benefits?

Are you suggesting the defense staged it to gain a continuance, or did the prosecution stage it to avoid having to reveal their mystery witness?

What is your theory on who and why?




Edit to include infinite's quote.

[edit on 20-10-2005 by Hamburglar]

Staged...

One theory comes to mind is that the defence lawers can argure that the area is unsafe and try to get the trial moved else where...

Shots: I can see it as a delay tactic, but couldn't the prosecution achieve the same effect by saying the mystery witness is still not "well" enough to leave the hospital and take the stand?

He is not a mystery witness they (meaning the defense knew he was going to testify). And in this case since the witness in question knows he is perhaps going to die, thus the prosecution wants a sworn deposition that can be used in court if and when it is needed to prove its case.

I'm still not convinced this is a prosecution move.

No one ever said it was. The prosecution is not the one that got kidnapped it was a member of the Defense team.

As I understand it, (I could be wrong) the prosecution team is being protected by the Iraqi Police simply it is they who are prosecuting Saddam.

I think you are somwhat confused on the issue here.

You are right, Shots, I was confused. I thought initially that you were suggesting the prosecution was using this as an excuse to postpone because they were afraid of the testimony of their own witness (like the witness might name the wrong names).

My apologies, and thanks for the tip. It was getting annoying.

I wonder if the next target for kidnapping would be Saddam itself and then they will hang him somewhere in the desert from a date palm.

I would believe that there are factions who would stop at nothing to hold up the proceedings, OR keep the trial on the front pages?

Yesterdays news said that there were witnesses afraid to show up. Now we know why?

Ha... here's a name being dropped by no one else than a Times editor...

"...the special tribunal organizing the trial has been subjected to constant manipulation and intimidation by Ahmad Chalabi, the ceaselessly conspiring émigré politician who has made anti-Baathist vendettas his latest political platform."

NYTs op/ed

Vendettas.

Ahmad Chalabi, used to be and probably still is under the US pay roll so I would not be surprised if he is behind all the problems that will arised with the trial.

Here's a wild thought...

Suppose this defense attorney was devising a way to introduce testimony that Saddam didn't have WMDs?

That is a good one psyopswatcher taking in consideration that Mr. Chalabi was one of the President Bush Insiders that presented prove that Saddam indeed was ready to manufacture MWDs.

Originally posted by psyopswatcher
Here's a wild thought...
Suppose this defense attorney was devising a way to introduce testimony that Saddam didn't have WMDs?

It's wild, but with a team of 12 or so other lawyers, how would just one's dissapearance keep that from coming to light?

Perhaps the defense attorney was simply kidnapped by angry citizens and/or relatives of the defendant's victims and assumed he would be replaced by a less experienced attorney in hopes of giving the criminal a slimer chance of getting a lighter sentence. It may not seem to make sense, but ordinary average citizens who are not educated on the law system would probably believe it?

Thats my theory.

He has been found dead.
He was killed.

Saddam´s Trial Lawyer Found Dead

Originally posted by Hamburglar

It's wild, but with a team of 12 or so other lawyers, how would just one's dissapearance keep that from coming to light?

One thing to point out though is that of the 12 or so lawyers, this guy was the one that was very vocal about the world court not providing the required information the defense team needed. Just last week he was making statements to the press that the defense team still had not received formal charges against Saddam, nor had they been provided the rules of the court. NPR had a soundbite of him saying "how in the world can you defend a person when you don't even know the rules of the court you will be operating in?"

And now he's dead.

EDIT: I originally stated that NPR interviewed him, but then I thought - wait, I'm not sure that was a formal interview, so I changed it to "had a soundbite of him".

[edit on 10-21-2005 by Valhall]

Correction!

This is NOT the guy who spoke on NPR. And I can't believe this, but I actually found the archived audio file on NPR's site. Most the time I can't ever find a reference to a story I hear on NPR. My day is complete! LOL

www.npr.org...