I was interested to read this article in which the BBC prominently reported accusations that Saddam was attackedon his way from the court room in which he was being questioned- accusations that have been denied by the US military.
According to the article, the lawyers who made the claim did not “recognise the authority of the court and all the bodies that were interrogating Saddam as it had no legal authority“. Right. So they don’t recognise the authority of the court that represents the democratically elected government of Iraq, which was enabled by the US-British invasion of Iraq. And if these have no authority over Saddam I presume he would have no problem lying to them.
But, my question is this: if the chain of authority which has placed Saddam in court has no weight with Saddam’s lawyers, a chain of authority which includes the US, the UK and the UN’s political apparatus, why should Saddam and his lawyers respect the integrity of the BBC? Why not just lie to them? In these circumstances, then, why is the Beeb playing the matter so neutrally (er, not even neutrally really as the assertions are so much more prominent than the denials)? It should be clear that, on the day that Saddam was being questioned about his mass-murdering activities, his lawyers would be looking for a media distraction.