An Interrogation in the U.N. Oil-For-Food Scandal

I was reading a French e-newspaper article titled UN investigators want to interrogate Tareq Aziz on oil-for-food.

Aziz is the former Iraqi deputy prime minister and one of Saddam Hussein's right-hand man. His lawyer is Badie Aref Izzat. The article goes on to say that Aziz is ready to name people involved in the oil-for-food scandal which will not only threaten Kofi Annan but also "several leading figures and companies in FRANCE, Russia, and other countries."

So the country of FRANCE is involved in the scandal somehow: Some people & companies have profited from it.

Knowing that information, Aziz's lawyer has recommended (as one of Aziz's four options) to be interrogated in FRANCE.

"I think the best solution is to have this meeting in another country, like France, Germany, Switzerland or Sweden. You can't reach the truth inside a jail. And these countries will be too embarrassed to refuse," the lawyer said....I think France would be the most suitable place, as it was opposed to the invasion and it was also against the embargo," Aref explained.

*knock knock* Hello, McFly!

I don't think so. That would be a very unwise move. If he wants to "demand the meeting be transferred to another country", then a sound and very wise decision would be to eliminate FRANCE, Russia, Syria, Jordan, Iraq (duh), Turkey, and the countries that fall under the "others" category (that profited from the oil-for-food scandal) from that list of countries.

Why?

To avoid any...snafus. Any interferences. Any "noise in the lines". Any bribery attempts. Any malarky of any kind.

Because malarky is going on, y'know.

Not only is this lawyer suggesting that his client, Aziz, should demand that the meeting be held in France...But he is also suggesting that Aziz's "moral sense will prevail on his political instinct."

Excuse me, but...what moral sense does he refer to?
Does Aziz have a moral sense?

Allow me to point out one area where Aziz's so-called "moral sense" is lacking:

The only time he was allowed to see his client so far was for a six-hour meeting on December 23. Aref said Aziz had ruled out testifying against the former president then and would probably not change his mind.

Pretty much the entire world knows that "the former president" -- namely Saddam Hussein -- was a bad guy. A good percentage of that whole would even say he was an evil guy. This, based on what they know he has done to his own citizens, to women, and other reasons too numerous to list.

Aziz's reason for not wanting to TESTIFY against the former president:

"He is not faithful to Saddam Hussein, he is just faithful to Iraq and for the moment his country is under occupation. All he told me was: 'When I am free, I will write a book about Saddam Hussein'," the lawyer said.

Yeah right. Testifying is harmless. Don't expect me to buy into that lame excuse.

He doesn't want to testify because he would be a very valid and key witness to convict the currently condemned man. And let me point out that the lawyer also admitted that Aziz is a "very clever man" as well as a "political man". So...being clever and political...he darn well knows what he is doing. Even while confined.

"He is a political man, he is very clever, he holds a lot of information on this issue and he will assess the benefits that can be derived," Aref said. "But I believe that his moral sense will prevail on his political instinct."

*cough, choke, sputter* Whatever. Let him keep assessing his dreams of benefits because that's all they are from behind bars: Dreams.

Truly, this Aziz person is in no position for making any sort of demand. Not even coming from a so-called lawyer. He wants the chief scientist (Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash) in Saddam's former biological warfare program to be released because she is dying of breast cancer.

How about this for an answer? No.

She can be treated for such medical needs while in custody. It's been done before. This lawyer does not need to warn any government about anything in regards to prisoners of war who have committed acts that have resulted in, or would eventually lead to, the deaths of many innocent people. Especially citizens of their own country. This is no "humanitarian emergency." It's an attempt to let loose on earth a hazard that's currently contained.

She can be treated while remaining in custody.

If you take a life or lives -- and you weren't acting in self-defense -- then you can do the time to pay for the crime. Any health problems that arise while in jail should have been considered while your freedoms were in tact before you made a choice to jeopardize being confined to a prison.

We have choices in this life. She made her choice. So did Aziz. They can stay where they are.