Unfair trial could make Saddam a hero
At the trial, Saddam Hussein was wearing a dark suit with an open-necked white shirt, carrying an old copy of the Holy Qu'ran and as he was being led in by two guards, he gestured with his hand to slow them down. He sat directly in front of the chief judge.
The trial is being held in a special court, built in the fortified green zone in Baghdad. The security is very tight.
According to media reports, the interim administration in Iraq believes that the trial will shore up support for the fragile government and will focus the attention of people to untold atrocities perpetrated by the Saddam Hussein regime.
What are the charges?
Saddam Hussein has been charged with crimes against humanity over the deaths of 143 Shi'ite Muslim men and boys after a group of young Shi'ites tried in 1982 to assassinate him near Dujail, a town about 60 kilometres north of Baghdad.
As usual, Saddam Hussein remained defiant to the court. Asked his name by the judge, Saddam shot back "You know me. You are an Iraqi and you know who I am. I won't answer to this so-called court ". Who are you? What are you? The occupation is illegitimate."
The judge said: "You are Saddam Hussein, former President of Iraq", at which point Saddam raised his finger to interrupt, saying testily, "I did not say former President".
He pleaded not guilty and said " I am innocent". On the request of the defence team for preparation, the trial has been adjourned for three weeks.
Mixed reactions
The trial has received mixed reactions among Iraqis, depending on whom you talk to. The Sunnis are not happy that he has been put on trial by the Iraqi interim authorities when the country is virtually under the occupation of the US. Furthermore there are no independent judges of foreign nationals in the court and it looks as if the judgment is pre-determined.
However Shi'ias and Kurds are very delighted that finally he faces his accusers. The mighty dictator is now before a court, looks emaciated and thin. He allegedly killed so many people and they think justice should be done to the victims by sentencing him to death.
The Arab world believe that the trial lost much of its meaning, because of the bloody insurgency that now kills Iraqis daily. The severity of insurgency has diminished the memory of past horrors. Egypt's state-owned media chose to mostly ignore the trial.
Why high-profile crimes against humanity put aside?
Many observers have raised questions as to why other serious crimes , such as, gassing Kurds in Halbja in March 1988, where about 5,000 were killed and massacring hundreds of Shi'ites in 1991 when they rebelled against him after the First Gulf War, have been put aside.
There is a view that if these charges were framed and brought against Saddam Hussein, invariably discussion of the US government's share of the responsibility for his atrocities will come up.
It is noted that it was the Reagan administration that stopped Congress from condemning Saddam's use of poison gas and that encouraged American firms and NATO allies to sell him the appropriate chemical feedstocks plus a wide variety of other weapons.
It was reported at the time the US intelligence photos from spy satellites and AWACS reconnaissance aircraft provided the Saddam regime the information about Iranian positions and US Air Force photo interpreters, seconded to Baghdad, drew for the Saddam regime detailed maps of Iranian trenches that let Saddam's Generals drench them in poison gas.
During his dictatorship, when chemical weapons were used in March 1988 against Kurds, the US Assistant Secretary Kelly reportedly visited Baghdad in 1989 and met with Saddam Hussein and praised him for his influence in the Middle East. The current Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld met twice Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.
Other charges may raise embarrassment for the US government and especially for Donald Rumsfeld who might be called as a witness to be cross-examined by the defence team with regard to the purpose of his visit to Baghdad during the 80s.
It is believed by many observers that the US authorities asked the Iraqi prosecutors to search a case where awkward questions in respect of the US were not raised and the Iraqi prosecutors believe that they have found such a case against Saddam Hussein in Dujali massacre where the US would not be involved.
Once the court delivers judgment and if Saddam is found guilty, he faces death by hanging according to new Iraqi laws. Any death sentence will have to be carried out within 30 days of all appeals being exhausted. There is no provision for clemency under the new laws.
That means Saddam could be hanged before being tried for other serious crimes against humanity and genocide.
Defence lawyers' case
The defence team's first line of argument is that Saddam cannot be tried because of the sovereign immunity provisions of the Iraqi Constitution. Iraqi law before the occupation must apply because alleged crimes were committed during that time.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. Furthermore they may argue whatever is built on illegality is illegal. Iraq's invasion by the US-led coalition forces is considered illegal by the UN and therefore, all elections and the temporary government in Iraq are illegitimate.
It is reported that Saddam Hussein is carefully examining the documents in respect of the trial of former Yugoslav President Miliosevic and the tactics, Milosevic used, to prolong trial for more than three years. Saddam's defence team has been marshalled by his eldest daughter, Ragdad, from her exile in Jordan.
Other legal procedural flaws
One of the main shortcomings of the procedure of the trial is that prosecutors do not have to prove the case "beyond reasonable doubt" as is required in criminal trial in almost all countries. If the requirement is less than the "beyond reasonable doubt", it is argued that there will be a gross miscarriage of justice.
The trial also indicates that both the Iraqi authorities and the Bush administration do not appear to be interested in a fair trial of Saddam Hussein because the procedure of finding the accused guilty is seriously flawed.
Another fact is judges' identity has been kept secret except the chief judge. Furthermore it is reported Iraq's current US-backed President has already declared him guilty and his defence team has been given neither all the necessary documents nor time to prepare his defence.
Human Rights groups have expressed unease about perceptions of "victor's justice", warning that the trial must be seen to be fair.
At present, since there are no independent judges of foreign nations, it looks not a fair trial but a revenge trial. A few noted lawyers from Britain have expressed serious reservations about the Iraqi trial and have suggested that he should be put on trial before the UN International Criminal Court at The Hague.
Conclusion
It seems that trial will raise many questions if the procedure does not conform to international standard. Many will compare the procedures of the court in Baghdad with those of the International Criminal Tribunal, before which Slobodan Milosevic is being tried. Both were former Presidents of States.
For the Iraqi authorities and the US Administration, the trial will manifestly demonstrate their commitment to fairness and justice, which are part and parcel of democratic institutions and governments. If the trial is not seen to be fair, Saddam Hussein may become a hero to many Arabs.
Comments