Court TV Host: Discuss the trial of Saddam Hussein with international tribunal lawyer and Court TV consultant Simone Monasebian. The former Iraqi dictator took the stand today, insisting that he is still the country's lawful president and calling on Iraqis to end sectarian violence and unite their efforts against American troops, before the judge decided to close the proceedings to the public.

Court TV Host: Simone was just on The Best Defense, and she's here with us now! Welcome, Simone, thanks for joining us!

Simone Monasebian: Happy to be here and looking forward to hearing what the viewers think about Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic or anything else re international crime or terrorism.

Question from tribe: Could Saddam be attempting to prove he's insane?

Simone Monasebian: Well, I do not think that is what he is trying to do, although his behavior is indeed bizarre and self-destructive, as compared to what we see in U.S. Courts. I think he is trying to "prove" he is still president, and the U.S. and the U.K. should be on trial. Moreover, the insanity defense is something he would object to and has not been successful in international criminal courts with regard to people who have acted as or even more bizarrely.

Question from greenacres: How does this judge differ from the one who resigned?

Simone Monasebian: Good question. First there are some similarities: both are Kurds. But this new judge (Judge Rahman) is much more strict. The former Judge (Rizgar Amin) would allow a lot more of the shenanigans. This judge has no patience for that. Interestingly, enough, the defendants used to castigate Judge Amin, but recently after seeing the toughness of this Judge had the nerve to ask for Amin to return.

Question from yoursandybaby: Why do you think the first judge seemed to let Saddam do what he wanted?

Simone Monasebian: Well, I think he was a conscientious judge who was trying to be fair. He knew the trial had a lot of legitimacy problems, and was worried that Saddam and others would boycott if he held the reigns too tight. He bent over backwards to keep the accused there. He believed their absence would make the court seem even less legitimate.

Question from Gibby: Do you think that the strictness of Rahman is a reason for Saddam acting the way he has been?

Simone Monasebian: Well, each judge sets the tone for what will be allowed in the courtroom, and today we saw Saddam raise his hand to speak. Sometimes he behaved as the judge asked. I think he would behave even worse were the judge less strict. But no matter who is judge, Saddam will not focus on the 1982 case of crimes against humanity, and is determined to lodge a diatribe about what the West is doing in 2006.

Court TV Host: Earlier, you said that Saddam was trying to put the U.S. on trial...here's a follow-up...

Question from Time4Truth: Simone- Do you think that he thinks he can actually pull that off or is this just another attempt to prolong the trial?

Simone Monasebian: I think that he either is deluded in to thinking if he prolongs things he might regain the presidency, or is under the belief that the court is so unfair and that he has no chance to win on the Dujail events of 1982 so at least he if he is going down, he will take the West down with him, whether by ridiculing the legitimacy of the court which was created by occupiers, or by inciting violence against the occupiers.

Question from tribe: What are the legitimacy problems with this trial?

Simone Monasebian: Several: 1) That the judge is (a Kurd) is said to have several family members who were allegedly killed in the genocide of the Kurds for which Saddam will be tried on in the next case after the Dujail proceedings.
2) That the court is illegitimate because it was created by occupiers.
3) That it is a one sided court trying only Saddam's "crimes" but not the crimes of the West.
4) That it has the death penalty, as opposed to the war crimes tribunals in the Hague, and other places.
5) That there are several procedural rules that are believed by many to be pro-prosecution.

Question from moonunity: I know there are lots of delays in this trial, but why such a long one until April 5th now?

Simone Monasebian: Well, you're right that it would seem to make a lot more sense to run the trial straight through, but for various complicated reasons that is not the way these war crimes trials take place. My understanding is that the prosecution requested the adjournment, and like the defense, who have been granted such adjournments in the past, today the prosecution was given one. It seemed like a good time to stop now that all eight defendants have completed their testimony. All sides will be preparing between now and April for the next phase of the case, which will begin in three weeks. We can expect that a handwriting expert (the first expert witness) will be coming in April.

Question from courttvaddict: Why is their system so different from America where they ALLOW disrespect and talking out of turn? Can't they hand cuff him to a chair and tape his mouth closed? He is not representing himself.

Simone Monasebian: The judge has found various other ways to deal with him: 1) throw him out, 2) cut off his mike, 3) hold proceedings in a closed session, where he may not be as apt to play to the camera. But I agree with you that there should be no place in any courtroom for contumacious behavior.

Court TV Host: To close, let me just ask about the impact of Slobodan Milosevic's death - another head of state on trial for war crimes - any points of comparison - any impact on international tribunals, or perceptions of Saddam's trial?

Simone Monasebian: Well, it is said that both men looted their countries' banks amassing and secreting billions of dollars before they were apprehended, and with that kind of money they are capable of much mayhem. It appears that Milosevic smuggled drugs into his cell in order to manipulate the proceedings. To perhaps stop the trial, or get him to Russia. Here Saddam has had his own methods of manipulation. This trial is however much shorter than the Milosevic trial would have been. Milosevic's trial lasted for over 460 days. Saddam's trial for only 15 so far. I expect this trial to be completed in the summer. As we know Milosevic's trial was never completed due to his death this weekend. It is important that victims of these dictators have their day in court. It is important that the international community is resolute that we will not allow heads of state to do whatever they want to their people. These trials are important to create a historical record, so that these type of events never happen again. I will close this session with the poignant words on the cemetery of the mass graves in Srebrenica, Bosnia, where Milosevic's victims have a concrete slab to commemorate the killing of 8000 civilians in 1995: "May vengeance turn into justice -- May mothers' tears turn into prayers that there be no more Srebrenicas". We owe it to the victims to make these words ring true. Holding heads of states accountable for their actions is really crucial to preventing these things from happening in the future. But even more important is preventing and stopping these crimes before and while they were happening. Once we get to punishment we have already failed the victims.

Court TV Host: Thanks, Simone, for being our guest today.