Saddam admits razing farms in Dujail case

By Mussab Al-Khairalla

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Saddam Hussein admitted in court on
Wednesday that he ordered the trial of Shi’ite Muslims who were
later executed in the 1980s, but justified it as a legitimate
punishment saying: “Where is the crime?”

Saddam made the surprising admission, along with another
that he ordered people’s farmland to be razed, during his
second day in court this week on charges of crimes against
humanity.

In hours of proceedings, prosecutors read out documents,
showed satellite images and played audio tapes in an attempt to
link Saddam to the execution of 148 Shi’ites from Dujail after
an attempt on his life in the village in July 1982.

“I referred them to the revolutionary court according to
the law. Awad was implementing the law, he had a right to
convict and acquit,” Saddam said, referring to his co-accused
Awad al- Bandar, the former chief of the Revolutionary Court.

“I razed them … we specified the farmland of those who
were convicted and I signed,” Saddam told the court.

“It’s the right of the state to confiscate or to
compensate. So where is the crime?” he asked.

Describing how gunmen fired machine guns as his motorcade
drove through the town during a visit, Saddam said: “I saw the
bullets with my own eyes, I was sitting on the right side.”

The trial, which began last October, was adjourned until
March 12, the latest in a series of adjournments in the stilted
process that some international observers have criticized.

Saddam was uncharacteristically subdued in court as chief
prosecutor Jaafar al-Moussawi presented what he said were
documents containing Saddam’s handwriting, showed aerial
pictures of fields laid waste around Dujail and played an audio
tape of Saddam in discussion with a Baath party official.

On Tuesday, Moussawi presented what he said was a death
warrant signed by Saddam.

In previous proceedings, the judge heard testimony from
witnesses recounting how they were tortured by Saddam’s aides,
but was shown no direct evidence linking Saddam to the crimes.

If convicted, the former president could face death by
hanging.

Prosecutors had hoped the Dujail case would prove more
clear cut than other, more complex cases involving charges of
genocide where Saddam’s responsibility may be more difficult to
prove. But so far Dujail has proved less straight forward than
might have been hoped.

Defense council have argued that Saddam, a Sunni who
justified his harsh rule by the need for national unity, was
Iraq’s president at the time and that he acted within the law.

“What we saw today was not Saddam admitting guilt, but
admitting to the fact that he acted in accordance with his
official duties and powers,” said Nehal Bhuta, a legal expert
from Human Rights Watch who has been monitoring the case.

UNITY

Following a week of sectarian violence that has killed
hundreds and pitched Iraq toward civil war, Saddam used an
opportunity to address the court to recall the unity of Iraqis
in the war he waged against Iran in the 1980s.

The former leader’s trial has been overshadowed by fears
that Iraq’s sectarian tensions are out of control, but Saddam,
who has dominated court proceedings in the past with lengthy
tirades against the U.S.-backed tribunal, spoke of unity.

“Saddam didn’t win in 1988 but the Iraqi people won …
Arab and Kurds and all other religions and sects,” he said.

“The people must be united,” he said. “All religions, all
ethnic groups.”

When chief judge Raouf Abdel-Rahman, a Kurd who has been
strict with the eight defendants, politely asked Saddam to
finish, Saddam said:” Give me some time, I have been your
president for 35 years. I am still the president of Iraq
according to the constitution.”

Saddam’s calls for Iraqi unity come a week after suspected
al Qaeda militants bombed a Shi’ite shrine in Samarra, sparking
reprisal killings against minority Sunnis and stalling U.S.-
backed efforts to forge a government of national unity that
would include Shi’ites, Sunnis and Kurds.

The trial has been marred by the killing of two defense
lawyers, the resignation of the previous judge and concerns by
international human rights groups who say violence in Iraq
makes a fair trial impossible.