ML: There has been much speculation about the legal team for President Saddam Hussein. Please explain what is occurring.

CD: The situation is that there are a number of lawyers who have been asked by the family and the President himself to represent him or at least discuss with him the representation. As you know, every individual has the right to choose their own lawyer, but that’s not a right to be given a list of numbers and say "pick five numbers from this" like you might do in a lottery.

For instance, it’s a right that you have a right to consult a lawyer and to decide whether you want that person to represent you. It’s not one that the court has the right to impose on you. It is, I repeat, a right that every defendant has. In this instance, the defendant has exercised the right by saying that he would like to meet with several lawyers with the view to determine whether or not they could represent him. He has been denied that by United States and Iraqi authorities.

We put the first burden on the United States to protect that right because they are the occupying power in Iraq. The Iraqi authority that we view as an administrative arm of the occupation, would still have that duty to respect that right and to date they have violated it.

Rights come with obligations, especially human rights. There are obligations for states and in this case the United States is violating clearly delineated international human rights and international humanitarian law obligations. The Iraqi interim entity is violating rights that they have themselves stipulated to under their own internal instruments, like the transitional administrative law that was adopted under the occupation on 8 March 2004, which they apparently themselves agreed to.

ML: Is there actually a government in Iraq? Has anybody recognized it? How can they even make stipulations on this?

CD: That’s something that certainly is questionable. Under international law a government has de facto authority. That means it has, among other things, control over its people. You could argue very strongly that the current people who are in power in Iraq are there merely because the occupying forces keep them in power.

In fact, one of the basic principles of international law is that you can not claim territory through the use of force. Other states have a legal obligation not to recognize things that are done based on the use of force. If I steal your car and then I try to sell it, that contract of sale would not be enforceable because I had stolen it in the first place.

You have an obligation under international law to insure restitution after you’ve committed an international act. If this is an illegal invasion, as the overwhelming majority of the world’s leaders, the world’s legal scholars and most people I’ve met, understand it to be, then what flows from it can not be given legal recognition. In other words, the United States is not empowered to set up a government in Iraq. Only the Iraqi people can do that and they can not do that under occupation by a foreign power.

ML: Realistically, President Saddam Hussein is going on trial on October 19 and a public official has come out and said he will be quickly hanged and another government official has said he should be hanged 50 times. How can this happen? Is it because of military force that is over there that this can be allowed to happen?

CD: That’s a lot of it. I am sure you are familiar with the saying "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I think we’re very close to that latter situation.

ML: A recent editorial in an Australian newspaper read, "Iraq is a mess. There’s only one person who can straighten it out and unfortunately, he’s in a 12’ x 12’ cell." What are your thoughts about that statement?

CD: The President of Iraq was somebody whom many people respected in that country and was somebody who had to deal with a very difficult situation in that country.

I’ll tell you one thing. Everybody I’ve met inside and out of Iraq who is Iraqi has, even if they don’t agree with him and even in some ways if they hated him, they still have respect for his ability to have held the country together in very difficult circumstances. Governing a country is not an easy thing to do.

And moreover, in most places in the world, but particularly in the Middle East, because of the oppression of the people there in many different countries because of the colonial attitude that has existed, the people have a very strong resilience to dealing with their own problems and wanting to be governed by their own people.

Think about it in America. Who would you rather be governed by? A person who isn’t perhaps the best person or somebody who’s invaded your country and taken over the country from outside.

ML: From what you know now, what do you think will happen in the trial?

CD: I don’t think there should be a trial at this point for a number of reasons. One I’ve already given you because I think this situation is an illegal situation. The situation is ridiculous.

As I indicated, under international law, you can not recognize an illegal situation. A state can not benefit from an illegal situation that is created. That would make a mockery of the law.

ML: Is there any power on this Earth that can stop this travesty? It’s not even on the U.N. agenda to stop this trial.

CD: I think it’s not so much on a public agenda. But I can tell you haven spoken to representatives or sometimes the head of mission of every U.N. state that is represented in the Security Council. They do understand that this situation has significant deficiencies and is a significant violation of international law. Whether they’ll have the courage to stand up, I think you should be putting that question to them. Unfortunately, I don’t always influence their decisions as much as I’d like to. But that doesn’t change the situation in that it is an illegal situation.

Another reason why there should not be a trial is that their have been gross violations of his (Saddam Hussein) human rights. Look at, for example, two articles that are binding on those two countries just as much as any other law. Those are articles 10 and 14 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. In other words, the articles respectively that cover the rights and security of person and the right to fair trial.

If you go through those articles, you will find almost every provision in those articles, have been violated. To have a trial in that circumstance is not only irreparable damage to the human rights of the individual involved, but I would think very, very significant damage to the rule of law.

ML: Are you still a part of the legal team?

CD: At this point the President is not represented by any lawyer he has chosen. He has said that himself. He asked to meet Ramsey Clark and he has asked to meet me. He has been denied that right. We have repeatedly asked the authorities, but they have denied us that right. In late June, the American authorities said this would be all resolved in three weeks and we’d be able to meet him in three weeks. Then we reproached them about four weeks later and said you told us this before, what is happening with this. They denied they even received anything from us and we have it in writing. I sent them a copy and said, "Look, this is your statement, not mine." They never replied.

ML: How is the President handling this?

CD: I admire my colleague Khalil Dulaimi who is keeping contact with the President. He has also stated that he is not a person who is able to do this. This is one of the most complicated cases he’s ever seen. Of course, any lawyer who has any degree of humanity is not going to step aside and not give this person an opportunity to meet anybody. That’s the worst thing that could happen to somebody being held in incommunicado detention essentially and only as we’ve seen in The Sun and other public forums being abused by his captors. He’s maintaining that link of humanity with him. But he’s not a doctor. He’s not a psychologist. He’s not even a lawyer who’s familiar with the law that much that is going to be applied in this case. He’s an Iraqi lawyer and the law being applied has been written by Americans in this instance.

ML: Was he chosen by the occupiers to represent the President?

CD: He was asked by the family after he was chosen by the court. The court chose him. He has said himself that he is not a lawyer chosen by the President. He’s not a lawyer the defendant has chosen himself. The defendant is not going to say, "I don’t want anybody to see me."

We are taking the best steps we can from this position. It is very difficult to defend somebody who you have no access to; you are not able to provide legal advice to; and when you don’t even have a clear enunciation of the charges, or the evidence.

The most important issue right now is the person being accused be granted a lawyer. Everybody has a right to a lawyer and that’s the first step in trying to make sense of the injustices that are being perpetrated here. I think the fact that they do not want to give that person access to legal counsel is a clear indication that they, at this point, are not either able or willing to provide for respect for the basic rule of law.