 A lawyer for Tariq Aziz has denied a British newspaper report that the former Iraqi deputy prime minister will testify against Saddam Hussein.
| "Nope. Nope. Ain't gonna do it." |
The lawyer, Badie Izzat Aref, said Mr Aziz would not give evidence against the former leader, whose trial is set to begin on Wednesday. Separately, Human Rights Watch has warned the proceedings might not meet international standards. Saddam Hussein's trial will be taking place in an undisclosed location.
| "International standards" require that bloody-handed tin-hat dictators go into exile in the south of France, there to plot their return to power, rather than getting a bullet to the back of the head when pulled out of their ratholes... |
The Sunday Telegraph said in return for his testimony, the main charges against Mr Aziz would be dropped and he would be allowed to live quietly and plot his own return to power work on his autobiography. Mr Aziz has so far not been charged with any specific crimes. He has been held at a secret location since his surrender in April 2003. A US official told the paper: "Things are very delicate and a plea bargain is never sealed until the witness takes the stand and delivers his side of the deal."
| They're making the assumption that Tariq's testimony would be necessary and that he wouldn't lie through his teeth as he was noted for doing. Not only is neither self-evidently true, both are unlikely. |
His lawyer, Mr Aref, said of the Telegraph report: "It's completely false, I have always said that Tariq Aziz never had any intention of testifying against Saddam." He added: "What I told the British newspaper is that during a questioning session, Tariq Aziz was asked about who in Iraq took sovereign decisions like declaring war, suppressing a revolt or a civil mutiny. Tariq Aziz's answer was that sovereign and political decisions were in the hands of Saddam and he had nothing to do with them."
| "He was just a toady. Everybody knew that." |
Human Rights Watch on Sunday voiced concern over the possibility that the trial might not be fair.
| They weren't too concerned over the fairness of the trials, if any, Sammy gave his opponents, starting with his first party congress, when he shot a few of his rivals himself... |
It fears the death penalty might be applied, and highlights the defence's claim that it has not had enough time to prepare its case.
"How long do you need?"
"Sixty years oughta do it!" |
It is also worried about the possibility of political interference and the fact that the burden of proof does not have to be beyond reasonable doubt. Five judges will open the proceedings against Saddam Hussein and seven associates accused of killing more than 100 civilians in the Shia Muslim village of Dujail in 1982. It is not clear what other charges will be filed. The start of the trial has been delayed several times, amid criticism of the tribunal's legitimacy and fears for the security of its judges.
| Why didn't the lawyers use that time to get their case together? |
Speaking on the BBC's Sunday AM programme, lawyer Abdul Haq al-Ani, who says he is authorised to speak on behalf of Saddam Hussein's defence team, said he had no evidence that any of the deposed leader's former colleagues would testify against him. He said the trial had no jurisdiction as it had been set up by an occupying power which was not entitled to change the legal system of an occupied country. "Saddam Hussein is entitled to a fair trial. This won't be a fair trial because it has been created to fit the offence," he said. |