[JURIST] Saddam Hussein defense lawyer Curtis Doebbler, one of the two Americans on Hussein's Dujail trial team, has condemned the ousted Iraqi president's execution [JURIST report] in a statement sent to JURIST only minutes after his client was hanged in Baghdad at dawn Saturday local time:

The execution of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is an unfortunate display of arrogant aggressor's injustice by the United States of America under the leadership of American President George W. Bush. It sets back achievements in international criminal law many decades and sends a clear message to people all over the world that the United States' aggression cannot be stopped by the law. It is truly a sad day for international justice and sad beginning to a new year.

One cannot imagine a greater inspiration to violence against America and her allies than the action taken this morning. The way that the former Iraqi President, and now brave martyr, stood up to the most powerful, deadly and lawless army in the world almost single-handedly for more than a decade will undoubtedly contirbute, as an inspiration, to violence against American interests all over the world.

One can only hope that a new year will bring the prosecution of those who have perpetrated this violation of international law starting with the American President and his governmental allies to the American jurists and their colleagues who willingly worked to ensure an unfair trial and an extrajudicial and summary execution. One can also not but hope that those who pursue these individuals will not use the same illegal means to bring them to justice that they have encouraged by their example, but rather that the law will be used to bring them to justice and restore the integrity of the law that has been lost by this illegal action.

My heart felt sympathies go out to the family of the President and all the Iraqi people who suffer yet another injustice at the hands of American aggressors.

[JURIST] Iraqi television is reporting that Saddam Hussein [JURIST news archive] has been executed. The hanging, reported by US-operated al-Hurra TV as having taken place around 6 AM Saturday local time (10 PM Friday ET), fulfills the death sentence handed down by the Iraqi High Tribunal last month [JURIST report] following the former dictator's conviction on charges [charging instrument, PDF] of crimes against humanity. Hussein and two co-defendants were accused [JURIST report] in connection with the killing, torturing and illegal detention of residents of Dujail, a primarily Shiite town where an unsuccessful attempt on Hussein's life took place in 1982.

One of Hussein's two US trial attorneys, Curtis Doebbler [personal website], commented on the execution in a statement made available to JURIST before the death sentence was carried out. Referring to Saddam's last public letter to Iraqis, Doebbler said, "Even in death the Iraqi President has maintained his integrity in calling for his people heal their wounds and to fight as bravely as he has against the American occupying forces." He continued:

The same, however, cannot be said about the American officials who have orchestrated the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and now the consequential murder of the former President and currently Prisoner of War after an unfair trial.

Even as the time of the extrajudicial execution approaches the United States government has until now denied the former Iraqi President's lawyers to be present at any execution that may take place. This violates the right to fair trial, particularly the right to legal counsel at all times even at an execution.

The United States government has denied the family of the former President the right to his remains if he is executed. One can only speculate that the reason for this immoral action is that the detaining power holding the Prisoner of war wants to make crystal clear its disdain for the law.

More importantly, the execution comes after a trial that has been determined to be unfair by every international expert who has reviewed it. This means that every person who participates in this trial and who did not try to stop it from being unfair is liable to prosecution for war crimes. These accomplices might also ponder the consequences of the United States' example in this case. The United States has said to the rest of world that it will not respect the law and nobody can make it do so by using peaceful legal means.

Today, Saddam Hussein was executed after receiving a fair trial -- the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime. Fair trials were unimaginable under Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule. It is a testament to the Iraqi people's resolve to move forward after decades of oppression that, despite his terrible crimes against his own people, Saddam Hussein received a fair trial. This would not have been possible without the Iraqi people's determination to create a society governed by the rule of law.

[JURIST] A US federal judge has rejected an eleventh-hour bid by lawyers for Saddam Hussein seeking a direct stay of execution. US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a 6-page ruling [text] late Friday evening following a telephone conference with lawyers in the wake of court papers filed around 1 PM Friday afternoon.

Kollar-Kotelly wrote:

As Judge Reggie Walton recently concluded in a strikingly similar matter, this “Court lacks habeas corpus jurisdiction over an Iraqi citizen, convicted by an Iraqi court for violations of Iraqi law, who is held pursuant to that conviction by members of the Multi-National Force-Iraq.” Al-Bandar v. Bush, et al., Civ. A. No. 06-2209 (RMC) (D.D.C. Dec. 27, 2006) (denying motion for temporary restraining order to prevent transfer of petitioner to Iraqi custody); see also, Al-Bandar v. Bush, et al., Civ. A. No. 06-5425 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 29, 2006) (denying motion for stay or injunction enjoining transfer of petitioner to Iraqi custody pending appeal). A United States court has no “power or authority to review, affirm, set aside or annul the judgment and sentence imposed” by the court of a sovereign nation pursuant to their laws. Hirota, et al. v. General of the Army Douglas McArthur, et al., 338 U.S. 197, 198, 69 S. Ct. 197, 93 L. Ed. 1902 (1948); Flick v. Johnson, 174 F. 2d 983, 984 (D.C. Cir. 1949). Accordingly, this Court has no jurisdiction to prevent the transfer of Petitioner Hussein to the custody of the Iraqi government, as that would effectively alter the judgment of an Iraqi court.

Moreover, Petitioner is not being held under the custody of the United States, and as a result, this Court lacks habeas corpus jurisdiction. Petitioner’s counsel agreed that, while Petitioner may be held by members of the United States Military, it is pursuant to their authority as members of the MNF-I. The MNF-I derives its “ultimate authority from the United Nations and the MNF-I member nations acting jointly, not from the United States acting alone.” Mohammed v. Harvey, 456 F. Supp. 2d 115, 122 (D.D.C. 2006). As such, it is clear that Petitioner is either in the actual physical custody of the MNF-I or in the constructive custody of the Iraqi government, and not in the custody of the United States. Id. As Petitioner is clearly not held in the custody of the United States, this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

[JURIST] Iraqi officials have said that final preparations are underway for the execution by hanging of Saddam Hussein [JURIST news archive] before 6 AM local Baghdad time (10 PM Friday ET). Observers eligible to witness the execution have been told to be in attendance by 5:30 AM local time and are said to be already gathering in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, where a gallows has been set up [VOI report], according to al-Hurra satellite TV. Iraqi sources told the Iraqi Voices of Iraq news agency that the decision to go ahead with the hanging before the Eid holiday had been made after a meeting of top officials [VOI report], including "Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi and the ministers of defense, interior, national security, national security adviser Mowafaq al-Rubai’i and U.S. advisors." AP has more. Reuters has additional coverage.

As of 9 PM ET no ruling on the US handover of Saddam to Iraqi authorities prior to his execution has come from the US federal court in Washington where Saddam's lawyers had sought an eleventh-hour temporary restraining order [JURIST report] to stop the transfer and execution. The US Department of Justice has argued in court papers that Saddam and his co-defendants eligible for handover are not subject to US federal court jurisdiction, but rather are aliens under the jurisdiction of foreign courts. AP has more.

9:07 PM ET - AP is reporting that a US federal judge has refused to block Saddam's handover to Iraqi authorities. US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled after a telephone conference with lawyers that "Petitioner Hussein's application for immediate, temporary stay of execution is denied." Earlier Friday evening, the US DC Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stop the US handover of Awad Hamed al-Bandar, the former chief justice of Saddam's Revolutionary Court, also scheduled for execution. AP has more.

[JURIST] A three-judge panel of the US DC Circuit Court of Appeals Friday rejected [order, PDF] an amicus brief [text, PDF] filed [JURIST report] by seven retired judges who argued that portions of the new Military Commissions Act [JURIST news archive] affecting Guantanamo detainees were unconstitutional on the grounds that the brief's description of the amici as "judges" was inappropriate. Citing Advisory Opinion No. 72 [text] issued by the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference of the United States, a majority of the panel said that the term should not be used in legal proceedings to describe former judges. The Advisory Opinion says, in part:

Judges should insure that the title ‘judge’ is not used in the courtroom or in papers involved in litigation before them to designate a former judge, unless the designation is necessary to describe accurately a person’s status at a time pertinent to the lawsuit.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a) provides that “[a]ny [non-governmental] amicus curiae may file a brief only by leave of court or if the brief states that all parties have consented to its filing.” (emphasis added)... The unopposed motion for leave to file states (at pages 1-2) that counsel for both sides have consented to the filing of this amicus brief.

Advisory Opinion No. 72 of the U.S. Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct, which addresses the situation when a former judge appears as counsel, does not instruct that granting the motion would create an appearance of partiality or otherwise implicate the Canons on Judicial Conduct. Amici former federal judges are
represented by private counsel. Briefs by former judges and other such amici can be of assistance to the courts... The federal rule and this court’s practice (including in the instant cases) of accepting amici briefs present every reason to allow the retired judges, no less than law professors, public interest groups and associations, retired members of the military, scientists, and other interested persons, to file an amici brief...Indeed, denying the unopposed motion for leave to file may itself create an appearance of partiality. As then-Judge Alito observed in granting a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief without the consent of the parties:

A restrictive policy with respect to granting leave to file may also create at least the perception of viewpoint discrimination. Unless a court follows a policy of either granting or denying motions for leave to file in virtually all cases, instances of seemingly disparate treatment are predictable. A restrictive policy may also convey an unfortunate message about the openness of the court. Neonatology Assocs., P.A. v. Comm’r, 293 F.3d 128, 133 (3d Cir. 2002).

[JURIST] An Iraqi judge on the appeals bench of the Iraqi High Tribunal [official website] that earlier this week rejected [ruling in Arabic, PDF] Saddam Hussein's appeal [appeal brief, in English] of his November death sentence [JURIST report] for crimes against humanity said Friday that Hussein would be executed "today or tomorrow," adding to the prevailing confusion [JURIST report] about when and even if the ousted Iraqi dictator will be put to death for crimes against humanity committed in the town of Dujail in 1982. Kurdish judge Munir Haddad, the judiciary's appointed representative at the execution, was quoted by AP as saying "All the measures [for the execution] have been done" and "I am ready to attend and there is no reason for delays."

Saddam has not yet been handed over to Iraqi authorities, contrary to an earlier statement by his defense team, but defense lawyer Najeeb al-Nauimi told AP late Friday that the transfer from US custody would only occur "a few minutes" before the execution, and "the Americans want him [Saddam] to be hanged respectfully." AP has more.

[JURIST] State-run television in Iran [JURIST news archive] has reported that Iranian Minister of Justice Jamal Karimi-Rad [Wikipedia profile] has died in a car accident [IRNA report]. While details have been sparse, it is believed that Karimi-Rad’s son was driving [BBC report] when their car collided with a truck as the family was traveling south of Tehran to the central city of Isfahan. Karimi-Rad’s wife and two sons suffered injuries, and were taken to a nearby hospital in Qom.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [JURIST news archive] was quoted by IRNA as expressing condolences to “Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iranian nation and the late minister's bereaved family as well as the Judiciary”. The accident has been blamed on bad weather, which has been described elsewhere as icy conditions [RFE report]. Besides being Justice Minister, Karimi-Rad was also spokesman for the Iranian Judiciary [official website], giving him roles in both the judicial and executive branches of Iran's government. Iran Focus has more.

[JURIST] The top Iraqi defense lawyer for Saddam Hussein [JURIST news archive] said Friday that US authorities have asked the defense team to pick up Hussein's personal belongings in preparation for a reportedly-imminent transfer [JURIST report] of the ousted Iraqi president to Iraqi officials for execution. Khalil al-Dulaimi told AP, however, that he had not yet given permission for anyone to pick up Hussein's effects and that the custody handover had not taken place. Meanwhile, confusion over when the former Iraqi dictator might be executed continued, with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki saying in a statement released by his office that "our respect for human rights requires us to execute him, and there will be no review or delay in carrying out the sentence" [AP translation]. Another top Iraqi official told AFP, however, that an execution is unlikely during the Muslim Eid holiday, which begins Sunday in Iraq and will last until at least Thursday.

Saddam is being held by the US military with other high-security detainees at Camp Cropper [Wikipedia backgrounder], near Baghdad International Airport. His transfer to Iraqi authorities and eventual hanging are expected to take place in secret [JURIST report], although Iraqi officials have promised to fully record them. On November 5, the Iraqi High Tribunal [official website] sentenced Hussein and two other co-defendants to death [JURIST report] for crimes against humanity committed in the town of Dujail in 1982; the death sentences were confirmed [JURIST report] by the court's appeals chamber last week. Hussein is still on trial for genocide [JURIST news archive] in connection with the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds in the 1980s; that trial has been adjourned until January 8. AFP has more. AP has additional coverage. Voices of Iraq has local coverage.

12:05 PM ET - Reuters is reporting that chief Saddam defense counsel Khalil al-Dulaimi says that American authorities have now told him that they have handed Hussein over to the Iraqis.

1:55 PM ET - A US State Department spokesman has said that Saddam is still in US custody [Reuters report], contrary to an earlier statement by his lawyer.

[JURIST] Lawyers for Saddam Hussein have reached across the Atlantic in last-ditch legal bids to stop US authorities from handing their client over to Iraqi officials for expected execution [JURIST report]. On Wednesday, UK-based Saddam defense lawyer Giovanni di Stefano asked the Washington DC-based Inter-American Human Rights Commission [official website] for urgent interim measures against the US under Rule 25 of its Rules of Procedure [text] to "prevent the transfer of the Applicant into the hands of an authority that has indicated it will execute him after what has been deemed by a number of third party organizations an unfair trial." On Thursday he also asked a US federal court for a temporary restraining order to stop the handover.

Di Stefano told JURIST in an exclusive statement Friday:

While the USA has physical custody of Saddam Hussein et al it is bound by international law. Although the application to the Inter American Human Rights Commission has not received a response, and notwithstanding that an application made yesterday to the United States District Court of Columbia for a Temporary Restraining Order has not been sealed, the appropriate Defendants including President Bush, the Defence Secretary and two Military Commanders who have actual custody of Saddam Hussein have been served with the papers....To violate or circumvent the applications by handing over Saddam Hussein before the Courts can properly evaluate [those] is a potential impeachable offence.

The execution of Saddam Hussein serves no useful purpose. If it occurs - to steal the words of the late Enoch Powell - I predict a river of blood flowing throughout the Middle East which will lead to all corners of the world. Had Saddam Hussein received a fair trial with proper standards and burden of proof and rules of evidence and had he been convicted and then sentenced to death the said river of blood may well only be a small lake. As it is there has been no fair trial and the consequences are that Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to death based erroneously. I am however, hopeful that the US Government will understand the risk it takes if it violates the letter and the spirit (a) of its own laws and (b) of international treaties it has signed and President Bush will invariable face justice by a Democratic Congress post January 3rd 2007 if he choses the said course of action whilst the applications are pending.

[JURIST] The State of California has decided not to appeal a December 21st decision [text, PDF] of the California 1st District Court of Appeal [official website] restoring voting rights [JURIST news archive] to approximately 100,000 inmates serving a year or less for felony convictions in local jails. The case, filed by the League of Women Voters of California [advocacy website] and other voter and prisoner right interest groups, challenged a December 2005 interpretation of Art. 2 Sec. 4 of the California Constitution [text] by Secretary of State Bruce McPhearson [official website] maintaining that those serving short term sentences for felonies in county jails were not eligible to vote.

The court’s decision relied on Section 17 of the California Penal Code [text], which defines felonies and misdemeanors. When a person is sent to a local jail, typically for confinement as a condition of probation, they are not actually convicted of a felony, which would allow their voting rights to be stripped. AP has more.

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice [official website] reported Thursday that incidents of intimate partner violence [CDC backgrounder] in the United States have declined in recent years [press release]. The study was conducted by the DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics [official website], and analyzed crime rates [JURIST news archive] from 1993 to 2004. While the overall rate of nonfatal intimate partner violence was 5.8 victimizations per 1,000 US residents 12 years old and older in 1993, by 2004 the rate had reduced to 2.6.

The study, entitled Intimate Partner Violence in the United States [text], showed that crime trends differed with respect to numerous factors, including gender, income, and ethnicity. For example, while there was a 26% decrease in female victims from homicide by intimates (from 1571 in 1993 to 1159 in 2004), there was a 45% decrease (698 to 385) in male victims. There is, however, no expert consensus as to what has slowed the instance of crime. AP has more.

[JURIST] Somalia Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Ghedi [BBC profile] announced Thursday that Somalia’s parliament will declare 3 months of martial law starting Saturday, in the hope of reestablishing order following the fleeing from Mogadishu of militias seeking to establish Islamic law in the country [JURIST report] after troops from neighboring Ethiopia intervened [AP report] on the side of the UN-supported government which until recently had been in exile. A spokeswoman for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) [official website] told reporters that as soon as the security situation could be assessed, humanitarian aid flights would begin. The International Committee of the Red Cross [advocacy website] is also closely monitoring the situation [press release].

While the majority of Islamic militia fighters left Mogadishu this past week without incident, it is not believed that the relative calm in the city will continue for long. Somalia has suffered through an internal civil war and several failed peace talks [BBC timeline] since the collapse of civilian government in 1991. The Islamic Courts [BBC profile], reportedly the most popular political party in the country, were seeking to promote Islamic law rather than clan allegiance, even though all but one of the 11 courts come from the same clan. CBC has more.