October 19, 2005
SAY A PRAYER FOR IRAQ
Saddam stands trial at last for massacre (Oliver Poole, The Telegraph, October 19th, 2005)
Saddam Hussein will go on trial in Baghdad today in the first court case brought against an Arab leader for crimes against his own people. But the legal process will be under scrutiny as well, with widespread accusations that it exists merely to enforce "victor's justice".The former Iraqi president faces charges related to the killing of 143 people in the village of Dujail in 1982. It is expected to be the first of several trials intended to bring him to account for the brutalities inflicted on Iraq during his rule.[...]
In the past eight months many of the Iraqi judges and lawyers have received training in international law from British, American and other international experts.
Mock trials were staged in London and a number of western legal experts have expressed faith in the court's ability to administer the rule of law.
But human rights groups, including Amnesty International, have repeatedly given warnings that the trial risks not being fair.
Whether Iraq’s future is bright or not, it is impossible not to be awed by what Iraqis have accomplished in the past year. A huge turnout at the polls under conditions of extreme danger to elect its first democratic government, a popular constitution approved by all ethnic and sectarian groups and now an unprecedented public calling to account of a tyrannical leader through legal process. All this is historically counter-cultural and has been accomplished in the face of a violent insurgency and the dismissive and strident opposition of most of the Western intelligentsia. Even conservative voices are coming more and more to waffle and wring their hands over “international norms” and other such tranzi fables.
To put all this in an historical context, is this not as if, after Cromwell won the English civil war, he took only two years to establish full-blown late 19th century British democratic constitutionalism in the face of unremitting criticism from scholars and churchmen and ongoing civil strife at home?
Posted by Peter Burnet at October 19, 2005 5:56 AMWho care if its a fair trial? Where was Amnesty international when Saddam ordered the nerve agent attacks on the Kurd villages? I have an idea, lift him in by helicopter to the Kurds and kick him out the door, justice done!
Posted by: BillMill at October 19, 2005 8:53 AMAh, human rights groups. Always the drunk looking for the car keys under the streetlight...
By the way, how is Slobo's trial coming along?
Posted by: Rick T. at October 19, 2005 9:00 AMTrials are used to determine guilt or innocence. Sadam is manifestly guilty of murder on a mass scale. There is no need for a trial. What he deserves is a sentencing hearing to determine the just severity of punishment for his actions.
Posted by: Luciferous at October 19, 2005 10:19 AMThe temptation is to say that we are uniquely prisoners of our pieties, but I think (tentatively) that that would be wrong. I think in the end this just doesn't matter enough for us to ignore our pieties.
Posted by: David Cohen at October 19, 2005 10:47 AMWho will be the first political figure in America to follow Ramsey Clark and basically exonerate Saddam?
Cynthia McKinney? Howard Dean? Barbara Boxer? Gavin Newsom? Jesse Jackson?
Posted by: jim hamlen at October 19, 2005 11:28 AMA local newspaper hereabouts had the headline yesterday "Justice or Revenge? Saddam goes on trial." This for a "news" story.
I'd like to hear what AI's definition of a "fair trial" is. Under anything even approximating a reasonable trial, Saddam has a 0% chance of being acquitted, but that doesn't make it unfair...
Posted by: b at October 19, 2005 11:39 AMPat Buchanan.
Posted by: ratbert at October 19, 2005 12:22 PMThis is not about guilt or innocence. The purpose of this trial (and trials of similar criminals) is to document and expose the magnitude of the crimes committed, so as to prevent the supporters of the old regime from crawling back out of their holes and from under their rocks, as they've done in far too many parts of the ex-Soviet Empire. Also on trial, indirectly, are those who were on the outside giving aid and comfort (Food for Oil...)
Both of those are what the Amnesty types seem to fail to grasp, but I wouldn't be surprised that they do so deliberately.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 19, 2005 7:13 PM