As the trial of Saddam Hussein gets underway in an Iraqi court, there will be an attempt to focus on the legitimacy of the trial itself instead of Saddam's crimes. Human Rights Watch (which I generally view in a positive light) is already questioning the impartiality of the court and complaining that some evidence of Saddam's other atrocities have been compromised.
My problem with this view is that this is not an ordinary trial. This is like a supra-national gangland trial, with witnesses and judges being targeted for assassination and intimidation. Even more than a trial, this is a national catharsis for Iraq and as such should be left to the Iraqis. Any American or coalition pressure or influence will undermine the court's credibility, just as an international tribunal would have made it into a huge propaganda coup for Saddam.
The complaints that Saddam is being singled out as the world's bad man fail to measure the weight of his crimes. There are arguments being based on sovereignty and the illegality of invading a country and putting the head of state on trial. Of course, there will be cries that George W. Bush should be the one on trial (where is George Galloway, anyway?) and there will be attempts to frame Saddam as a sympathetic character.
This will be long and tedious, but hopefully we won't have the interminable running joke that we have seen in, for instance the trial of Slobodan Milosevic. The judge here looks to be firmly in charge and will not likely allow the trial to get away from him.
It is a foregone conclusion by most people (though, not surprisingly by all) that Saddam will be found guilty, and in this case it is indeed a show trial. But the term show trial implies trumped-up or manufactured charges. Saddam's crime are well-known, and even touted by the man himself.
The very image of Saddam in the dock shows that he is already receiving more justice than he allowed so many for so long.
Good Post and I linked to it on my site.
Posted by: JackAssFestival | October 19, 2005 at 12:33 PM