The meeting took place on Monday, but I'm not at liberty to disclose the contents of the talks.
The trial would proceed in the absence of the defendant because the defendant would refuse to cooperate. They might as well sentence them without a trial.
If the trial is held on October 19, the Americans will have a difficult time convincing anyone that this is a fair and just trial when no proper procedure has been followed. It would be a show trial.
Until now we cannot get on the with task of disputing the illegality of the trial or any charge because no official document has been presented so far. It's our right to see the charges.
The Iraqi government wants to speed up the trial but the United States knows they are not ready. The Americans may want to show that this is a fair and just trial, which could work to our advantage.
The whole trial, the bloodshed in Iraq, the killings, the violence and everything else wouldn't have happened, had the Americans not invaded Iraq. After invasion and occupation, the occupying power is responsible for protecting the lives of the people under occupation.
There are too many people in the world who are claiming they are defending the president without the family's knowledge and we don't know who authorized them.
The trial is totally meaningless. It's a political issue, not a legal issue. The procedures and the outcome were decided a long time ago. The people behind this want a lynching they don't want justice.
It's one thing to topple a regime, but it's another thing to dismantle a state and not replace it with an apparatus to maintain order.
There was never any proper legal team. It was a media hype more than anything else.
We have not had any charge laid formally against the accused, nor have we had any evidence as to what the elements are of the charge. There has not been a single document served to the defense on the charges, not any shred of evidence, nothing.
This move is to put the defense team on a proper legal foundation and when the family appoints lawyers it then knows who is whom.
I have heard nothing whatsoever about this alleged media speculation. This is a matter for the judiciary to decide on, not for politicians and Jalal should know better than that. Why should he make a statement on the accused to the public The court, the judge need to decide on this.
How can one review thousands and thousands of pages in just a matter of a few days This court has been deliberating with the evidence for the past year, but it has been keeping it away from the defense, which is not fair.
They have more than one counsel in every country claiming to represent him. This can lead to conflicting legal opinion that may damage the interest of the client.
The court isn't even halfway ready to try the case. It's simply political capital being used to follow the referendum on the constitution.
This capable team will be entrusted with preparing the defense case when the trial begins and disputing its legality and procedures that deny the President justice.
There is no way you can have a trial in a country where there is absolutely no authority. That is the situation in Baghdad today.
We have formed a legal defense team that includes prominent American, European, Asian and Arab lawyers who were chosen on the basis of competence and merit to put up a strong defense.
The defense team has not yet been finalized. It will be made public when the accused (Saddam) gives his approval to the new team.
The man has been denied legal access, he has not been given enough legal advice or told of his rights, and he can't see the lawyer of his choice. That is not how it works.
Picture Quotes to Inspire and Delight
Picture Quotes to Inspire and Delight