Lessons from the Saddam Trial
By Farah Salka, Staff Writer

Malta, Europe - Three years have passed with the blink of an eye. The renowned Iraqi president is sentenced to death, hanging, to make the picture more vivid.

That Saddam Hussein has been charged responsible for the terrible atrocities in Iraq, after all,  is not really the issue here. It is not so much of an impressive act that a group of “hand-picked” judges reach a common conclusion on pleading someone guilty.

What were the president’s charges? Well, they are expectedly many: Premeditated murder of more than a 150,000 Kurds in the "Anfal" campaigns in the late 1980s, false imprisonment, forcible expulsion of residents, destruction of agricultural lands, and confiscation of the victims’ land, etc... Saddam Hussein has been basically accused of genocide. Fair enough.

The question that follows is, “Who was he accused by?”, ‘The world’ is not precisely the answer on the ground. Hussein’s trial is being reviewed by what is called The Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT) now. SICT is a special court established outside the normal Iraqi judicial system for the specific purpose of bringing Saddam Hussein and members of his regime to justice. How was it initiated? Primarily, an Iraqi Special Tribunal (IST) was established by a statute enacted by two sources: the Iraqi Governing Council and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The CPA, simply and plainly, is the official authority set up by the great United States of America and its allies to govern Iraq during its never-ending occupation.

This plausibly poses legal questions about the establishment of the IST and its legitimacy as an entity, created and controlled by the United States, an occupying power. The process violates the express provisions of international humanitarian law under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Due to all those question marks, the Iraqi acting government issued a law abolishing the 2003 statute and establishing the SICT. This is how the story began.

Allow me to add some interesting series of events. The chaotic proceedings of the trial, dubbed “real trial of the century” by the international media, are quite gripping.

Primarily, the first judge resigned, asserting that he could not handle the pressure. That was weird. Then, his replacement was fired; the authorities attributing this for the bias they thought he showed. That was even weirder. It is just supplementary confirmation that this court is remote enough from being exemplary in terms of modern standards of judicial impartiality. There followed even more. One after the other, three of the defense lawyers were murdered. Now what exactly would explain that?

In generally accepted standards, the most essential constituent of a fair, independent and impartial trial is the absence of political interference.

Pertaining to this, I will not say my opinion but simply mention that even the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention declared the trial unfair and a violation of international law in September 2006. What more blatant evidence are we awaiting? The world stands indifferent.

Since when do crime-makers punish other crime-makers for crimes that do not even measure up to what the latter have committed? What about Afghanistan and what was brought to its people after September 11? Abu Ghraib tortures? The unlawful and illegal invasion of Iraq? What about Guantanamo Bey? What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Are these not termed crimes against humanity? Don’t these deserve some consideration and media focus? Don’t these deserve accusations? Should not someone castigate the US for these various atrocities, initiated or supported by it?

When will the U.S. stop feeding the world manners and guidelines of how states and leaders should ethically act when their actions are most questionable? Why does the U.S solely hold the right of having untouchable “double standards” of wanting to “restore” fairness, openness, and respect of international norms all around the globe simultaneously, not letting anyone touch upon their way of dealing with matters?

I am in no way defending, sympathizing or commiserating with Hussein’s case. I am simply questioning the way his trial has been conducted, incontestable by anybody. Yes I cannot but say that his trial represented an important landmark in the development of international criminal law, whereby heads of State are now no more immune from prosecution, but again excuse my humble questions. Why is it the U.S. that has to judge? And according to what standards? What was the leak exactly? Trying Saddam in Baghdad before a panel of Iraqi judges? Not having a legitimate-enough judicial institution? Not offering adequate, comprehensive media coverage?

Whatever it is, the Iraqi President’s trial constituted the worse form of "victors' injustice" one must admit. It is pure and arrogant abuse of the use of law in our history starting out by the illegal invasion of Iraq and ending by a typical day of what the Iraqi people are living. What are the lessons for future “genocide” trials? One should keep this question in mind lest history repeats itself. And won't it?

[Top]