« Home | Order your CHOGM soundtrack now! » | Death to all extremists » | Man-sized Bush turkey » | The unbearable lightness of "binge"... » | Cheney considers legislation against "Iraq revisio... » | Tony Blair makes uncontroversial statement » | Hu you calling stoopid? » | Dr Hu and the Christian Invasion » | Letters to the Skip » | We're not in Kansas anymore » 

Wednesday, November 30, 2005 

Drama as Saddam trial resumes



Top: file photo of Saddam's cunning disguise to evade capture.
Right: Iraqis celebrate their country's improved security levels


By our court correspondent in the Green Zone, Baghdad

Saddam Hussein’s trial resumed yesterday amid dramatic outbursts and scenes of unruliness in the courtroom.
Saddam himself appeared eight minutes late, loudly complaining that his toothbrush had been confiscated while he was brushing his teeth, and that prison wardens had deliberately misplaced the batteries of his Gameboy console.
“How can I conduct my defence in the face of these miscarriages of justice?” roared the former Iraqi dictator.

This outburst was followed by a 10-minute suspension of the live broadcast, during which time viewers in various parts of the country fired numerous shots into the air, loudly praising the occupying forces for the increased levels of security in Iraq since the war.

When the broadcast resumed, the judge was heard reading out the first charge… which, as the Skip had reported immediately after Saddam’s capture in 2004, was “failure to possess any weapons of mass destruction.”

“Despite knowing full well that justification of the war would depend on the discovery of stockpiles of illegal weapons of mass destruction,” intoned the judge, “Saddam Hussein deliberately and with malice aforethought failed to comply by fabricating the necessary evidence, resulting in much unnecessary embarrassment and awkwardness for the invading force.
“At the very least,” he added, “Mr Hussein could have ordered his minions to quickly manufacture a little nerve gas and maybe one or two mobile biological laboratories, so that the inspectors could later have something to show for the time and money that was wasted on a wild and ultimately fruitless goose chase...”

Defence counsellors fined
Meanwhile, two of Saddam Hussein’s defence counsellors were fined in absentia for contempt of court, after they failed to show up for the trial.
Chief defence lawyer, Skippy, immediately objected to this ruling. “Tut-tut-tut-tut-tut!” observed the bush kangaroo, adding that the counsellors in question were unable to attend that morning as they had been separately assassinated over the previous months. However, Skippy’s objection was immediately overruled.
“Being dead is not an excuse,” replied the judge. “After all, the first prosecution witness also died last week, and this didn’t stop him from testifying today...”

The judge then went on to list out the remaining charges against Saddam Hussein, which include:

> Invading a sovereign country without the necessary United Nations permission, and then citing clearly bogus reasons to justify this illegal act;

> Using chemical agents such as white phosphorus, despite the fact that the rules of engagement clearly stipulate that such agents may only be used by the United States and her allies;

> Torturing and abusing detainees in prisons such as Abu Ghraib, without the required approval and supervision of US marines;

> Sexual discrimination in the choice of torturers, with selection limited to male applicants only;

> Maintaining “secret prisons” without the knowledge and consent of the CIA, and in countries other than Poland and Bulgaria;

> Suppressing unfavourable media coverage of his actions by “accidentally bombing”, “threatening to accidentally bomb”, or “joking about threatening to accidentally bomb” any unaccommodating international television stations;

> Failing to provide citizens with sufficient bouquets of flowers to lay at the feet of the conquering heroes, and finally;

> Attempting to evade capture by impersonating Father Christmas… itself a crime according to Islamic law, as Father Christmas is by definition a Christian icon.

The case continues…