The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.
Saddam on trial
: Here’s another contrarian thought on Saddam’s trial: We keep hearing that the Iraqi people don’t have a sufficient system of justice to try him. Crap.
He will be the simplest of criminals to try. In any system of justice, in any definition of civilization, in any scale of morality, his crimes are clear and clearly wrong.
To act as if the Iraqis cannot try their tormenter is the grossest insult.
Well, the omniscient efete elite know what’s best, dontcha know. [ /snark ]
Jeff, sometimes I think in your desire to be contrarian, you write in haste.
If Saddam had ruled in a vacuum, your point would be valid. But consider the number of Iraqis complicit in his rule, and the fact that anyone with legal or judicial experience in Iraq ipso facto was a part of a repressive totalitarian system, whether willingly or unwillingly. It’s easy to take rule of law for granted in this country, but how do you achieve justice when you are coming out of a state of tyranny, where a sizable proportion of the population was complicit?
This is a question that has faced a whole number of countries – post-war Germany and Japan, contemporary South Africa, Rwanda, Poland, Russia, East Germany (albeit over a vast spectrum of intensities). Getting the process right has proved critical to the ability of such countries to move forward, and it has never been simple. It needs to happen, but it needs to happen at the pace that’s in the best interests of Iraq, and not our own domestic politics.
Maciej:
I take as an insult your crack about writing in haste. Most blogs are, then written in haste. Most news stories, too. The issue isn’t haste. The issue is that we disagree. So why not just say it that way?
Can the legacy “justice” system of Iraq try Saddam? Of course not! But can 12 honest men and women be found in the country to compose a tribunal or jury? Of course, it can. Are there issues to deal with? Naturally. Can they be dealt with? Yes.
I said in an earlier (hasty) post that having the Iraqis try Saddam — rather than some international tribunal or the U.S. or, God forbid, the U.N. — would be the best demonstration of the sovereignty of the IRaqi people.
It’s worth the effort.
Maciej raised a good point about experience and complicity of the judicial profession in trying Saddam. It takes more than just the jury to process a trial and in a trial of a dictator justice has to be seen to be done blindly.
I agree with you Jeff, the best option is to have Iraqis try their own criminal. However, what has worked well in other countries is a mix of international and local represantatives. Forget about the hugely expensive and time consuming trials in the Balkans and think about places like Rwanda where such a mixture has proved effective.
I agree with the premise that a trial of Saddam Hussein need not be a complicated, international process.
There are thousands of provable charges of criminal violations against the Iraqi people; many of which would qualify for capital punishment. This case could be the foundation for rebuilding an Iraqi judicial system that, obviously, will be a necessary part of the national reconstruction process.
The sooner that Iraqis are allowed to have responsibility for their own national matters, the sooner U.S. and allied forces can come home. Our country has done an an admirable job of helping to provide the Iraqi people this opportunity to remodel their society. We must show early confidence in their ability and right to do so.
Let the trial be conducted by a duly appointed panel of qualified Iraqi judges, aided by U.S. legal support to insure a fair process.
I do agree, that a fairly comprehensive airing of all the major charges (eg. gassing of the Kurds, mass public executions, theft of public monies, political assassinations, among others) is necessary so that the full impact of this man’s reign of terror is known to the world.
You can only execute a man once, despite his responsibility for the deaths of tens of thousands, and I don’t think anyone is considering a life term in prison for Hussein.
Hussein will likely be tried alone so this trial need not be any more complicated or extensive than the Iraqi interim government would decide.
Even if it is Iraqis who are supposed to try him, it should be after Iraq has its own ELECTED represetatives not the puppet ones.
The current Puppet Iraqi regime will try him the way that suits Saddam’s former murderer American partners.
You know better than anyone that a fair trial of Saddam would reveal the role of many criminals in the US who helped him all the way while he was brutalizing his people. Is it the reason you don’t want him to be tried by an international body? I bit it is.
He was also considered a friend, when he was killing Iranians.
To whomever made the anonymous statement above:
Why did you not identify yourself, so that we might decide whether or not to take your statements seriously?
I cannot decide whether your words identify you as either supportive of Saddam and anti-U.S., or just a general agonist just to be one.
That geographical location that we call Iraq had an great civilization before there were countries in Europe. If you’re Biblical, before Europe even had people. I think they’ll manage to rise to the occasion.
A couple of points:
1. Saddam Hussein violated laws valid in Iraq during his reign, some of which carrry the death penalty
2. Iraq has working courts now. The coalition does not try “normal” matters (mugging, murder, etc.)
3. The IGC has been setting up a special court to try members of the former regime: a special one for Saddam is just an extension of that
As for those who think the US will worry about our relations with Iraq prior to Gulf I, 1991: nope. We sat out Iran, yes, but that is the worst we did. The UN should be more worried, it still refuses to allow an audit of its food-for-oil books (while saying it must be allowed to audit the books of the IGC and CPA).
“The issue isn’t haste. The issue is that we disagree. So why not just say it that way?”
Because I don’t think we disagree – as far as I can tell, both of us believe Saddam Hussein should be tried in Iraq, by an Iraqi court. My earlier comment was meant to suggest that such a trial is inextricable from the wider legal and social issues that Iraq will face in confronting its recent past, so that even though Saddam’s crimes are incontrovertible, putting him on trial will not be a trivial exercise.
On the issue of “hasty writing – bug or feature”, we do disagree, but I hope you’ll reconsider taking that as an insult.
Feature.
Insult.
> However, what has worked well in other countries is a mix of international and local represantatives.
Define “well”.
If the definition includes words like “better”, be sure to specify “better for whom”.
The UN doesn’t think that violating its resolutions is a personally punishable offense, and even if it did, it decided to give Hussein a pass. (And that’s what it did in late 2002, early 2003.) It can’t go back on that now, even if it has turned out to be a spectacularly bad move.
Kuwait might have a beef, but it looks like the Iraqis are the only ones who have an actual case.
That fact demonstrates the stupidity of “international law”.
Marcel Prez,
Why do you think I would care if you took me seriously? Well, When I left my comment, I hadn’t even read your comment (we were both leaving comments almost at same time). So don’t give yourself too much credit.
Beside, what is so significant about identifying myself. We don’t personally know each other, so why not just considering the comment itself instead of…? After all, you are praising a bunch of powerful leaders that I consider them to be just bunch of murderer.
Now, please Take me seriously, so I can sleep well!!!!
Seriously:
I hope you had a restful sleep. If I felt as angry as you sound, I’m sure I would need some kind of sleep aid.
Please cite for me any references in history of totally unchallenged acts of national charity or total selflessness by the nations or leaders you think better represent those qualities.
We all live on a planet where self and national preservation are facts of life. Human interaction has never been motive-free and history has proven that victims can learn to become victimizers as well.
I don’t believe you are viewing history through clear lenses because of your all-condemning positions on the American participation in the efforts to bring regional peace to people who seem unable to achieve it for themselves.
Is your preferred alternative to sustain the status quo, and let those nations that have political, economic, religious or territorial conflicts just fight it out for themselves … winner take all?
I cannot accept your all-condemning positions and the identifying of our national leaders as “nothing but murderers”, because these statements are ill founded and fly in the face of truth.
I am glad you responded because you gave me a chance to know that your sentients are really as you stated.
Seriously:
The UN and Europe have far more to fear than the U.S. from a tell-all trial. That’s why they want control of the process. We sold Iraq, what, 2% of the weapons they bought? Even Denmark sold them more.
The Iraquis’ are fully capable of trying Saddam. They have the right. What’s the deal with the “fair trial” thing anyway? Is someone afraid he’ll be found guilty of killing 10 mill when it was actually 9.5? After the first 100,000 or so, what difference does it make?
Yikes! I meant “what differnece does it make” for a fair trail, *not* what difference does it make to those who suffered under his rule.