|
Interview of Badie Arief Izzat on 12 April 2007 in Damascus, Syria
Badie_Arief_Izzat_is_Tariq_Azzizs_laywer_and_is_representing_the_accused_in_the_Anfal_trial_in_Iraq_1337_t.jpg
<http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/interviews/000569.php>Izzat
is the lawyer of former deputy prime minister of Iraq Tariq Aziz, and
currently is the chief attorney of the defense in the Anfal (gassing of
the Kurds in Halabja in 1988) trial. He was recently whisked from Iraq
by the U.S. military after being threatened by the Iraqi judge in his
trial since he is accusing the Iranians, instead of the regime of Saddam
Hussein, for gassing the Kurds in Halabja in 1988.
Izzat graduated from Baghdad University in 1963, was Iraqs deputy
minister of information, then after disputes with the regime of Iraq
left in 1972 to set up his private practice. He had the view that the
Ministry of Information was expressing the views of the Baath Party
rather than the views of the people of Iraq, so thats why I left. I
must say that I was a member of the Baath Party, and I resigned from it
in 1969 because we dont have the same views on major issues in Iraq.
Below is the full interview, which is recommended in addition to the
news piece.
Read the abbreviated news story for Al-Jazeera English
<http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/iraq/000568.php#more>
We recommend reading this story online
<http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/interviews/000569.php>
Badie_Arief_Izzat_is_Tariq_Azzizs_laywer_and_is_representing_the_accused_in_the_Anfal_trial_in_Iraq_1340_p.jpg
<http://jeffpflueger.com/dameasy/photography/pictures/images/Middle_East/Syria/Damascus/Badie_Arief_Izzat_Interview/Badie_Arief_Izzat_is_Tariq_Azzizs_laywer_and_is_representing_the_accused_in_the_Anfal_trial_in_Iraq_1340.html>*Dahr
Jamail: Why did you take this job of defending people from the previous
regime?*
Why did I take this position of defending people of the previous
regime? Had this happened by a coupe de tat or a change of regime
internally, probably I would not have taken the job. I probably would
not have defended the symbols of the previous regime. However, this
regime was overrun by an occupation force, by an outside power, which
had no right to do, and I feel it is my duty to defend the people who
are representing the previous regime.
In fact, I felt so strongly about it I am acting on behalf of 15 of the
detainees and probably have the largest number represented, and Im not
charging them anything for my services.
*DJ: What has it been like for you working on this trial?*
It was disturbing to me right from the outset when I was attending the
investigation sessions that I noticed that the investigating judge was
spending more time on politics than law, and this explains why I spend
as much time on politics as the law.
The problem started when I started to defend Tariq Aziz, the deputy
prime minister and the highest ranking Christian member of the
government and known to have many secrets from the former government.
This caused a great deal of discomfort to the current government, that
Im defending Tariz Aziz as well as others. This is why theyve tried to
shut me up or get me out.
I was in a double jeopardy situation. My life was threatened by the
militias, the religious fanatics in Iraq, and those who opposed the
previous regime. And at the same time the court was also trying to get
rid of me on the basis that I was one of the people exposing the
weaknesses in the trial before the public at large, both in and outside
of Iraq.
The militias, there were three attempts on my life. My office was burned
down. Some of my children were kidnapped. One of my assistants was
assassinated, and I believe these militias are Iranian-backed. My
children who were kidnapped, there was much assistance I had in getting
them out of this dilemma. I got them out safely. This was the immediate
and most prominent danger that I had-that my family was threatened, so I
got them out.
On the side of the court, right from the outset I noticed that the court
was trying to highlight the things that I do or dont do. They were
trying to frame me so they can dispose of me in the trial, so they want
to get rid of me being a member of the defense team.
*DJ: When did you begin to feel this court was unfair?*
The first incident took place about five or six months ago. During the
court proceedings I referred to the prosecutor as My learned brother.
That raised hell in the court. The judge said I shouldnt call him a
brother, but Mr. Prosecutor. Based on this, the judge sent me to 24
hours in detention.
This obviously caused the Americans quite a lot of concern. It was quite
an embarrassment to them, so after just a few hours in the prison they
got me out and they removed me from the detention center into one of the
safe houses in the green zone. The Americans convinced the judge that
I should be released because otherwise it would be an embarrassment, so
I was released.
*DJ: Can you describe what happened recently which caused you to be in
Syria today?*
The other incident which took place about 15 days ago I entered the
court and raised my hand and said I had something to say about certain
issues. There were a number of other counsels who raised their hands
before me, so they should have had priority. But the judge immediately
came to me to speak because I think he had particular intentions. I
usually have a feeling when the judge begins to look in the upper
gallery, which has blackened glass so you cant see into it. When the
judge looks there, this generally means there are senior officials, like
[Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri] al-Maliki or others. So as soon as I raised
my hand he looked up, I had the feeling he wanted to give me the
priority so he could show them how he was going to deal with me or
penalize me. The angle was such that the judge could see through the
glass, but not us lawyers.
I told the court that the court and Iraqi government had been going
along the line that it was Iraq who used the chemical weapons on the
Kurds during the Anfal campaign. I told them I had evidence on CD
documents which shows the Iranians, and not the Iraqis, which used the
cyanide and this documentation was from the Americans themselves. The
judge at that point lost his temper and he began to shout and me and
said I had no business in involving Iran, that Iran never used chemical
weapons. He pointed to the defense and said, It is those who used the
chemical weapons on the Kurds in Halabja. He was so angry and
unbalanced in his attitude that it reminded me that somebody had told me
on 1 March that I understood the judge was in Iran. So I thought that
was what triggered this great deal of anger in the judge.
Under the rules of justice, a judge should not be visiting one side that
is accused of crimes. He went to Iran, while Iran is, at least in our
eyes, accused of these crimes and he was the guest of the Iranians.
Under the rules he is not entitled to visit one side and take their
side. I know the people who saw him traveling from Iraq to Iran on 1
March. At that point, the judge looked up to the place where the
officials are and said, I just remembered that a few months ago you
accused this court
|
| |
| |
|
