|
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
but what evidence, if any, do you have that US influence is prevalent in the iraqi judicial system? what gains, if any, would the administration see in a delay of verdict? are there any compelling reasons to suggest anyone other than iraqis have their thumb in the trial pie? i just cant imagine the judges getting a memo from the white house and deciding to postpone anything. |
Here's a few things to consider:
| quote: | Though the SICT is a creation of the Iraqi government, it is heavily influenced -- legally and financially -- by the U.S. government. An October 16, 2005, Human Rights Watch report found that the U.S. Embassy's Regime Crimes Liaison Office "played the lead role in many aspects of the operations of the SICT, including: the building of the courtroom, the conduct of exhumations, interviews with 'High Value Detainees', review of seized documents and preparation of an evidence database, and training of SICT staff."
The Washington Post reported on January 25:
| quote: | The United States has made the prosecution of Hussein -- accused of presiding over the killings of hundreds of thousands of Shiites and Kurds -- one of its priorities since U.S. troops invaded Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration spent hundreds of millions of dollars of a $18.4 billion reconstruction package for Iraq to exhume mass graves and gather forensic evidence. It refurbished courthouses, trained Iraqi judges and provided most of the security for the courts. Americans drafted many of the statutes under which Hussein and his associates are being tried.
Though the United States is a strong opponent of the International Criminal Court, the administration's critics say it should have ensured adequate credibility and help for the Iraqi tribunal by making it international or, at a minimum, moving the trial out of Baghdad.
International qualms about the legality of the proceeding, and about the death sentence that Hussein could face if convicted, have left the United States virtually alone in shepherding his prosecution by the Iraqi government. A U.S. official in Baghdad confirmed last weekend that only the United States and Britain had contributed experts to advise the court on how to prosecute governments for war crimes and other such matters.
The official did not say how many British advisers were taking part; Britain, like other countries, has expressed reluctance to help in the case because it is a capital one.
The U.S. Embassy and the U.S. Regime Crimes Liaison Office run much of the day-to-day arrangements for the trial. Plainclothes security workers, many of them Americans, and Iraqi soldiers guard the turreted, fortress-like former Baath Party headquarters in the American-held Green Zone where the trial is playing out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6012400299.html |
The New York Times reported on May 21 that "American influence" on the SICT "has been undeniably pervasive, with about 90 percent of the $145 million in annual costs for the court and associated investigations paid for by the United States Justice Department, and lawyers sent by Washington acting as advisers."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610260010 |
Incriminating? Ehh, not terribly. I think I have to temper my sentiments a bit more on this one the more I think about it. Not a tono of evidence to conclude anything. Sure I wouldn't be surprised as most folks probably wouldn't be either, and the fact that their rationales had fluctuated a bit as to the reason for the delay is strange, but I have to concede that's nothing concrete to go on.
So I'll back my conspiratorial thought down to a questionable "hmmmm...." level. Fair enough?
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
