The rush to lynch Saddam Hussein was an act of expediency for the Bush family and an act of vigilantism for an administration whose contempt for international law has only been trumped by its effrontery. Indeed, Saddam Hussein received fewer due process rights than the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg. At Nuremberg, jurists enacted a "law of complicity" which balanced the complicit nature of modern war crimes with the individual's actions. They realized that war criminals act in complicity with a vast network of international financiers, arms suppliers, diplomatic liaisons, and nefarious politicians, and sought to establish a standard by which war crimes could be judged.
But this trial never held to such standards. It was a travesty right from the start. Political figures and government officials publicly declared Saddam's guilt even as the trial progressed. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the powerful Shi'a political party, insisted "the government wants to see Saddam dead." Adel Abdul Mahdi, another prominent party leader, stated "[Saddam} deserves to be put to death without trial." Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stated "[Saddam's] execution...will come soon, just after the court ruling." A week later, Shi'a cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, whose faction formed part of the Iraq government, declared, "Saddam needs no trial and must be treated as he treated the Iraqi people. I demand his execution immediately." Any one of these prejudicial statements could have been grounds for appeal at Nuremberg.
Saddam was also never properly informed of the charges against him. Instead, he and eight other Ba'th Party defendants were given a "referral decision" from an investigative judge which offered vague charges without indicating the defendant's respective roles or even the theory of liability to be used against them. They were charged as a group for having committed "crimes against humanity against a number of citizens in the town of Dujail...on July 8, 1982." Only after the prosecution closed its case was Saddam's alleged role disclosed. And to compound the mockery, two extra charges were added at that time: enforced disappearance and "other inhumane acts."
Nor were the material facts to be used against Saddam ever disclosed--facts like his mental state, effective authority, or knowledge of the acts of his subordinates. Such facts, guaranteed by any legitimate court and certainly guaranteed at Nuremberg, are central to mounting a proper defense and assured by international law. But this court was never hampered by such triflings as international law.
When concerns were raised by Saddam's defense that they had inadequate time to prepare, their concerns fell on deaf ears. As if to underscore those fears, 700 pages of documents were introduced as evidence halfway through the trial and handed to them without explanation. Yet even this was not unusual for this case. Documents were regularly produced and used as evidence against the defendants on the same day!
As if these miscarriages aren't damning enough, witness statements were read into the record without allowing the defense access to the witnesses, a tactic reminiscent of the Salem Witch Trials in which accusers gave damning testimony then left without fear of cross examination. It's also reminiscent of the Nazi show trials or the trials of Stalinist Russia (read a great editorial on this subject on the World Socialist Web Site). At the very least, and despite his clear complicity in mass murder, Saddam should have been granted the same due process of law extended to such butchers as Martin Bornamm, Hermann Goering, and Rudolph Hess--if only to bolster the court's legitimacy. But this case was never about justice. It was about silence.
Saddam Hussein was facing myriad charges of which this trial was the first. Curiously, it focused on the 1982 slaughter of 148 Shiite men in Dujail. But Saddam was scheduled to stand trial for other atrocities as well--namely the mass murder of Kurds in 1987-88 and the suppression of Kurdish-Shiite revolts in 1991. Those trials would have brought out some damning evidence against the United States. The fact that Carter acquiesced when Saddam declared war on Iran. The fact that Reagan armed Saddam to the teeth with arms and chemical weapons (including anthrax) in violation of the Geneva Protocol during his eight-year war with Iran. The fact that Reagan backed European arms sales to the dictator. The fact that Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam while he was using chemical weapons and assured him of U.S. support. The fact that the U.S. provided Saddam with satellite images of Iranian troop positions that led to the massacre of thousands of Iranians. The fact that Bush 41 encouraged the Kurdish-Shiite revolt then left Saddam to maintain order. If these trials were held, that vast network of complicity might face trial as well. Donald Rusmfeld might have to give testimony, U.S. defense contractors. Maybe even Father Bush. And that certainly wasn't going to happen.
In December, 2002, Bush, Jr. seized 800 incriminating pages of a 2,000 page Iraqi report to the U.N. Those pages contained the names of U.S. companies that supplied arms to Saddam, including details on weapons, dual-use technologies, and materials of mass destruction. The censored report, which rightfully belongs to Saddam's victims, would have presented compelling evidence against past and present U.S administrations.
How convenient, the hangman's noose.
I agree with Paul Rockwell at CommonDreams.org when he asks: Is there really a legal and moral difference between German industries that manufactured ovens for concentration camps, and U.S. and European industries that supplied Saddam with cluster bombs, nuclear materials, anthrax spores, helicopters, and chemical weapons to kill innocent Kurds and Iranians?
If this trial demonstrates one thing, it demonstrates that the law of complicity devised by the jurors at Nuremberg is no longer applicable. That law was predicated on a balance of power that existed between The West and Soviet Union--a balance that collapsed with the Berlin Wall. The American Empire is now far more powerful. And nowhere is the arrogance of this new supremacy more clearly demonstrated than in its disregard for international law.
Saddam's lynching was more than just an act of political expediency. It was a warning to others, like Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, now surrounded by U.S. troops: Don't expect the protocol of international law to save you. The American Empire is now beyond the law. If we want you, we'll get you.
And despite the assurance of your allies, you will be next.
Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net
John,
I hope you're right. At the very least, Saddam's trial should have been conducted by the World Court. The Iraqi government has no credibility, either in or outside Iraq. And though he was lynched for a variety of reasons, his death was still a lynching.
Posted by: Andrea | January 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM
I can agree with what you stated and would like to point out in what respect the hangings carried out in Iraq are in contraventional of article 6 of UN law regarding genocide.
Trials of accused involving genocide must be held in a competent court ,however given the sectarian violence in iraq and the influence and infiltration of the the justice system there trials are prejudiced ,unfair and in themself acts of genocide of the defendents.
The american administration is also guilty of assisted genocide.This will be dealt with at a later date by the UN.
Posted by: john | January 16, 2007 at 02:59 PM
I can agree with what you stated and would like to point out in what respect the hangings carried out in Iraq are in contraventional of article 6 of UN law regarding genocide.
Trials of accused involving genocide must be held in a competent court ,however given the sectarian violence in iraq and the influence and infiltration of the the justice system there trials are prejudiced ,unfair and in themself acts of genocide of the defendents.
The american administration is also guilty of assisted genocide.This will be dealt with at a later date by the UN.
Posted by: john | January 16, 2007 at 02:59 PM