Victor's Justice

Is it just me, or does the trial of Saddam Hussein appear clumsy, rushed, and even illegitimate to you too?

No matter how they dress it up, it looks like "Victor's Justice" to me.

Most would argue that the crimes Hussein is charged with are crimes against humanity and therefore meet a universal standard. I agree, which is precisely why he should be tried in an international court. I find it hard to believe that this hastily established, American funded, Iraqi Special Tribunal will offer justice of high enough standards than it might have had the court actually existed before the American invasion.

Human Rights Watch has been following Saddam's criminal history very closely for a long time, and have some grave concerns about his trial.

In an 18-page briefing paper released last week, Human Rights Watch highlighted concerns that the tribunal is at risk of violating basic fair-trial guarantees. Problems with the tribunal and its statute include:

• No requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Inadequate protections for the accused to mount a defense on conditions equal to those enjoyed by the prosecution.
• Disputes among Iraqi political factions over control of the court, jeopardizing its appearance of impartiality.
• A draconian requirement that prohibits commutation of death sentences by any Iraqi official, including the president, and compels execution of the defendant within 30 days of a final judgment.

These worries, as phrased above, are merely the tip of the iceberg. For even more iceberg, I highly recommend a full reading of this Human Rights Watch briefing paper, entitled The Former Iraqi Government On Trial.

Note that Human Rights Watch has long been calling for the prosecution of Saddam and his henchmen. From their own World Report 2004:

Human Rights Watch has devoted enormous efforts to investigating and documenting the Iraqi government’s atrocities, particularly the Anfal genocide against Iraqi Kurds. We have interviewed witnesses and survivors, exhumed mass graves, taken soil samples to demonstrate the use of chemical weapons, and combed through literally tons of Iraqi secret police documents. We have circled the globe trying to convince some government—any government—to institute legal proceedings against Iraq for genocide. No one would. In the mid-1990s, when our efforts were most intense, governments feared that charging Iraq with genocide would be too provocative—that it would undermine future commercial deals with Iraq, squander influence in the Middle East, invite terrorist retaliation, or simply cost too much money.

It is probably fair to say that this group is concerned about the fairness of this trial not because they care about Saddam Hussein, but because they know he is guilty of many crimes, want the process to be legitimate and desire true justice for any and all of Saddam's victims.

Back to the idea of "Victor's Justice" again, or the idea that a victorious invader is applying different rules to judge right and wrong for themselves and for their enemy. Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Scott McClelland responded to questions of the Court's authority by claiming that

Saddam Hussein is facing Iraqi justice.

Is that true, though? As Jim Lobe from Inter Press Service News Agency points out in this enlightening article,

the basic law under which Hussein is being tried was written under the supervision of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and has been modified only slightly since the transitional government was constituted last spring.

According to HRW, Washington has so far spent some 128 million dollars on the investigation and prosecution efforts against Hussein and more than a dozen of his aides to date. It also covered the costs of converting the former Baath Party headquarters in Baghdad into a courthouse where this and other trials are to be held.

According to the New York Times, the U.S.-led Regime Crimes Liaison Office, which also included lawyers and international justice experts from other Coalition countries, particularly Britain and Australia, has been "the real power behind the tribunal, advising, and often deciding, on almost every facet of its work, always behind a shield of anonoymity".

Iraqi justice indeed.

As a final thought, I want to point out some of the charges that have been brought against Saddam (so far):

• killing
• forced expulsion
• the imprisonment of people
• torture
• the failure to comply with international law.

I must ask, in all seriousness:

When will we see the establishment of 'Special Tribunals' for the trials of George W. Bush & Tony Blair?