30 minute delay to allow "court officials" to censor Saddam trial

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=6336854&cKey=1135251333000

<snip>Barzan, who has emerged as the most outspoken of the defendants, eclipsing even Saddam, complained about the way the trial was being televised. It is being broadcast with a delay of 30 minutes to allow court officials to censor images and sound.

Occasionally the officials have cut the sound, usually when Saddam or Barzan have been speaking.

"If the sound is cut off once again, then I don't know about my comrades but I personally won't attend again," Barzan said on Thursday. "This is unjust and undemocratic."

The first witness to testify on Thursday spoke from behind a curtain to protect his identity, but, like some earlier witnesses, said nothing directly implicating either Saddam or the other defendants in the Dujail killings.

I'm surprised Saddam has been allowed to live long enough to be tried by this kangaroo court.

Apparently. This thing becomes more farcical by the day. It is a foregone conclusion that they will, this show trial is a joke, Saddam knows it, and he is acting like it.

Now they are censoring it too...

indicted as co-conspirators. It's probably the deal they cut to try him.

It is apparent that Saddam will not be able to address the issue of the origin of the WMD's he used. There will be no admission as evidence of the photos of he and Rumsfeld exchanging a handshake. None of the communications between Iraq and the US after Iraq used chem weapons against Iran will be allowed. Doing so would saw a couple of legs off of the table that supports the claims of the US. That table is rickety already!

Why doesn't someone ask Bush, when he mentions WMD's, where Iraq got the WMD's used against Iran and against his fellow Iraqis? If he was wrong to use them wouldn't his suppliers have been wrong as well? If a junkie is caught with drugs and is willing to tell the police from where the drugs came, aren't the police obligated to pursue the supplier as well?

Certain topics mentioned by Bush should require a throat-clearing 'ahem' from whomever he is speaking to, followed by the actual truth. Whenever he mentions the budget, a statement informing readers that the costs of operating in Iraq were not included. Whenever Social Security is mentioned, that 'ahem' needs to be followed by a statement telling folks that Social Security funds are still being incorporated into the larger budget, to reduce the larger-than-reported deficit. Whenever the Iraqi use of chemical or biological weapons is discussed, it needs to be said that we sold them to him and congratulated him on their initial use, so to speak.

The list of corrective 'ahems' is large.

and over-the-top outrage. I mean, it's the only thing it's missing.