Baghdad — Saddam Hussein pleaded not guilty to charges of murder and torture as his long-awaited trial began Wednesday, with the one-time dictator arguing about the legitimacy of the court and scuffling with guards.
The first session of the trial lasted about three hours, and the judge ordered an adjournment until Nov. 28.
Mr. Hussein and his seven co-defendants could face the death penalty if convicted for the 1982 massacre of nearly 150 Shiites in the town of Dujail. They are being tried in the former headquarters of Mr. Hussein's Baath party.
After presiding judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin, a Kurd, read the defendants their rights and the charges against them – which also include forced expulsions and illegal imprisonment – he asked each for a plea.
Advertisements
He started with the 68-year-old ousted dictator, saying “Mr. Saddam, go ahead. Are you guilty or innocent?”
Referring to his arguments earlier in the session, Mr. Hussein replied quietly: “I said what I said. I am not guilty.”
Judge Amin read out the plea as “innocent.”
The confrontation then became physical. When a break was called, Mr. Hussein stood, smiling, and asked to step of the room. When two guards tried to grab his arms to escort him out, he angrily shook them off.
They tried to grab him again, and Mr. Hussein struggled to free himself. Mr. Hussein and the guards shoved each other and yelled for about a minute.
It ended with Mr. Hussein's getting his way, and he was allowed to walk independently, with the two guards behind him, out of the room for the break.
Saddam Hussein defiantly speaks to Presiding Judge Rizgur Ameen Hana Al-Saedi as his trial begins in Baghdad on Wednesday.
Photo: Bob Strong/AFP/Getty Images
Latest Comments in the Conversation
Editor's Note: Globeandmail.com editors read and approve each comment. Comments are checked for content only, spelling and grammar errors are not corrected and comments that include vulgar language or libelous content are rejected.
An INSIDER Edition subscriber
refuses to come to terms with reality. For in his heart of hearts, he
is still the President of Iraq.
By the way, how is former President of Panama General Noriega, doing in
his post- Presidential home in sunny Florida--compliments of the US
taxpayer?
I thought this thread was about Saddam's trial - instead it seems to have attracted the usual anti-US frothing. Froth, froth, froth - where's my rain jacket. The invasion of Iraq was fully legal. The Gulf War Part I was halted only in terms of an Armistice. This means that the state of war had never been terminated by a peace agreement. Indeed, the ongoing no-fly-zone constituted a continuing act-of-war in support of UN resolution 688. In fact, for most of the interim period, France was involved in enforcing the zone.
In 1998, US President Clinton authorized Operation Desert Fox - which involved bombing targets in Iraq. I don't remember the left-lib frothers frothing about impeaching President Clinton.
An INSIDER Edition subscriber
I used to work with a bunch of Iraqi's.They told me life was really easy before 1991, then they left because it was difficult to run businesses, find jobs, gas, food, y'know, all those little comforts in life.Then again, they didn't really have very many nice things to say about Saddam.Now that an entire generation of Iraqi's have been punished and impoverished for Saddam's tyrannical ways, the 'global community' aka the US, can go back home and leave those Iraqi's who stayed to try to figure out how to piece everything back together.They even have a handy dandy little piece of paper called a constitution to act as a doctors note when people ask what the hell they were doing there in the second place.I'm sure Saddam's fate in court will be of little consolation to those millions of people.