Legal lynching of Saddam Hussein begins in Iraq

[Karmadillo]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/oct2005/huss-o19.shtml

The trial of Saddam Hussein that begins today in Baghdad, under the auspices of the US-created Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT) and the US-sponsored Iraqi government, is a legal travesty. No credibility can be given to the prosecution of the former Iraqi head of state by a puppet court and client administration that exist only due to the illegal and predatory invasion of Iraq by US imperialism and the continued presence of more than 150,000 American and other foreign troops.

Hussein and his Baathist regime have many crimes against the Iraqi people to answer for. However, the proceedings starting today are nothing but a show trial designed to have the former dictator quickly sentenced to death and executed. The aim is not justice, but to obscure the complicity of the United States, Britain and other major powers in many of Hussein’s atrocities.

Today Hussein is being prosecuted only for 19 charges relating to the massacre of some 150 people in the village of Dujail in 1982. The murders followed a failed assassination attempt on the Baathist leader by alleged members of the Shiite fundamentalist Da’awa organisation—the party of the current Iraqi prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari.

The Dujail massacre has been carefully chosen, instead of other Baathist crimes that were encouraged or sanctioned by the major powers. These include the slaughter of Iraqi Communist Party members in 1979; the murder of thousands of Shiites in the lead-up to the 1980 US-backed Iraqi invasion of Iran; the use of Western-supplied chemical weapons against Iranian troops and civilians during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war; the pogroms against the Kurdish population in the late 1980s; and the butchery of tens of thousands of Shiites and Kurds following the 1991 Gulf War.

more...

[NoBushSpokenHere]

1. Had to turn off CNN this morning due to the trial

I wonder if the 'judge' is one of the AmeriKan regime?

[tocqueville]

4. the judges have been appointed by Bremer

Besides Saddam is tried only for a "minor" crime, which could result in a death penalty

This is an insult to ALL OTHERS who want justice, including Iranians, Kuweitis etc...

The general feeling in Europe is that this is a parody of justice, that no fair trial can be hold in that case unless it's at the International court.

Besides there are already reports that a death sentence will make the Sunni explode

[SunDrop23]

12. I think he is paid by Halliburton.

[Atman]

2. CNN is pointless today. Even the Today Show is running more news

It's disgusting.

There must be serious indictments of Bush admin officials coming today, and the Cabal News Network is going to do it's damnedest to make sure we don't hear about it when it happens.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. Yes, but what else can you do in a situation like this?

Justice has to be done, and has to be seen to have been done, and "a fair trial" does not necessarily mean "a trial with the possibility of aquittal".

The point about the selection of the charges may well be valid, but I don't know enough about the details to be sure, but in general I think the fact that Saddam Hussein is currently being tried by Iraqis in a nominally-Iraqi court (even if it is a court financed, guarded etc by America) is one of the few good things to come from the invasion of Iraq, and should be acknowledged as such.

[tocqueville]

6. he is not tried by pairs, but by enemies

read my post above

[Bridget Burke]

What other "good things" have come out of the invasion of Iraq?

And why are Bush's guys so eager to shut Hussein up? Because he would point out that he had full backing from the US when worse crimes may have been committed.

"Details" do count in legal matters. And a trial with a foregone conclusion is never fair.

[carolinalady]

5. Adjournment until Nov 28--per cnn n/t

[DivinBreuvage]

7. The Nuremberg Trials were show trials too

The mere fact of being a show trial is not in itself sufficient to invalidate the verdict.

[tocqueville]

8. strange conception of justice you have

the International Court has been created among other things to avoid show trials AND GIVE FULL REPARATION TO ALL VICTIMS by showing as much as possible an unbiased truth about the events leading to condemnation.

The US doesn't want Saddam tried there, because they don't want to hear unpleasant truths about former alliances, specially the backing Saddam got to attack Iran.

Another reason is that the court can't condemn him to death.

What's going on in Iraq is nothing else than "soft" lynching.

And it's going to transform him into a martyr in the Arab world. Because the man on the street says that the US has no right to condemn Saddam since they are not much better.

[DivinBreuvage]

9. You tell me, then: was Nuremberg a "soft lynching"?

I think you're absolutely right that the US wants to preclude the discussion of incidents that would highlight its own complicity in Saddam's crimes. Similar accusations can be leveled against the Allies at Nuremberg; but, as they said when the defendants pointed that out, tu quoque is not a defense.

Saddam Hussein is on trial for crimes he is alleged to have committed, yes? Is this wrong? You seem to be saying that if he's not on trial for all the crimes he committed, or for crimes that the US may have endorsed, then he shouldn't be on trial for any crimes at all. I am tempted to say that it's a strange conception of justice you have.

I don't disagree with you that it will probably transform him into a Arab or Islamic martyr, but this would essentially be the case anyway. To the pissed-off jobless Arab in the street listening to the inflammatory speeches of his Imam, it doesn't matter how or where Saddam is tried -- he's still going to get railroaded by the West. Case in point: objective fact vs. Fox news: which one does the Bill O'Reilly fan believe?

You're right that it's a show trial, just as the Nuremberg trials were. But he's still being tried for actual crimes that occurred during his reign, just as the Nuremberg defendants were. And, you're right, the verdict is probably a foregone conclusion, just as most of the Nuremberg verdicts were. But almost no one questions the validity of the Nuremberg verdicts. Do you?

[tocqueville]

13. no I don't, but it's a BIG difference

the Nuremberg trials were in a way the source of modern war crime legislation, besides shortcomings. There was an international panel of judges and "all" the issues were dealt with.

Besides :

"The legal basis for the jurisdiction of the court was that by the Instrument of Surrender of Germany, political authority for Germany had been transferred to the Allied Control Council which having sovereign power over Germany could choose to punish violations of international law and the laws of war."

This is not the case in Iraq

1) the war against Saddam was illegal (who then is legally entitled to judge him ?)

2) Saddam is tried by Iraquis only and for a "minor" crime but risking death penalty at the same time. He is not tried for gassing Kurds or Iranians. It's obvious that reparation (even only if moral) to the victims other than in the "minor" case won't be possible if he is hung. Imagine trying somebody in the US for a case of pedophilia,
but not testing a case of proven murder of another child.

Gary Bass in the NYT comments on the possibility that Saddam could be sentenced to death and executed for a 1982 massacre of about 100 villagers, without ever being brought to trial on the main array of charges against him, including killing political rivals, crushing the Shiite uprising in southern Iraq in 1991, invading Kuwait in 1990 and waging the genocidal Anfal campaign against the Kurds in 1988, including gassing Kurdish villagers at Halabja. As Bass says,

A thorough series of war crimes trials would not only give the victims more satisfaction but also yield a documentary and testimonial record of the regime’s crimes.

But looking at this list raises a more basic question. Why hasn’t Saddam been charged with any crime more recent than 1991?<1>. In the leadup to the war, and in its aftermath, it was routinely claimed that Saddam’s regime, at the time it was overthrown was among the most brutal dictatorships in the world. Even among opponents of the war, hardly anyone doubted or doubts now that the regime often practised murder and torture. Why then aren’t there any charges covering this period? Presumably both documents and witnesses are more readily available than for a crime committed more than twenty years ago.

The purpose of this is to get rid of him as soon as possible and avoid "embrassing" questions. Since the trial doesn't meet international requirements for dealing with war crimes, it's a parody of justice, a soft lynching.

http://crookedtimber.org/2005/09/29/saddam-trial/

[Coventina]

10. While I find it difficult to muster pity for the man....

I still don't understand why the US gov't wants to make him a martyr.

It would be a far worse punishment for him if he were left to rot quietly away in prison. And he'd become less of a lightning rod.

[seabeyond]

11. done with saddam for 45 days, bring on indictments, lol n/t