Saddam's Execution Is a Black Eye on Iraq's History
The last week of 2006 has been so eventful and newsworthy that for a moment I am not sure what to discuss. But it doesn't take too much deliberation in my mind to decide upon the topic of Saddam and the haunting images of his hanging.
I firmly and fully believe that Iraq took the wrong path in hanging Saddam. I recognize that I'll take much opprobrium from my more conservative countrymen over that opinion, but that's fine with me. I have no intention of writing a testimonial for Saddam; there's really no doubt that he was a horrible, awful man. (What kind of man would lure his defecting sons-in-law back into the country under the guise of a pardon and then have them shot three days later, and leave his daughters husband-less and his grandchildren fatherless?) A merciless man met a merciless end, which to some is poetic justice. And despite my opposition to the death penalty as a routine form of punishment, I can understand this thinking, and at times, find myself aligned with it.
But Iraq had an opportunity here to start over, on a positive and hopeful foot. The country which for decades has been mired in political unrest, rebellion, coups, and dictatorship, was finally on the cusp of a new era in its history. Though sectarian violence has quickly morphed into veritable civil war without any signs of stopping, the Iraqi government at least had the opportunity to show the world, especially its fundamentalist neighbors (and the United States), that there is virtue in forgiving enemies rather than taking animal vengeance on them. Iraq is the center of much of the world's attention these days, and what a signal it could have sent to the world for Iraq to bring the Hussein regime to justice in a manner that was actually just.
That opportunity was fully and publicly squandered by the Iraqis, and by our government, which had so many fingers in this stewpot that it's difficult not to see it as a complicit puppetmaster, and the hooded hangmen who brought Saddam to the gallows as American doppelgangers.
The whole process was disorderly and flawed.
It was the U.S. government, through the Coalition Provisional Authority, that laid the ties for the construction of the Iraqi Special Tribunal, which makes the U.S. ultimately a bit player in the whole Saddam trial and execution. Despite the Court's official-sounding title of a court of general jurisdiction, the tribunal was and still is an ad hoc tribunal convened solely to try Saddam and his minions. While this might seem innocuous in light of courts like the ICTY and ICTR which were set up solely to try suspects in specific situations, this was, in my view, a really problematic set-up for the fledgling democracy in Iraq. Not having secured the country, and not having established the legitimacy of the Iraqi government in the eyes of its people, the Coalition Provisional Authority gave the greenlight for institutionalized vengeance upon the former regime. It's my opinion that the trial of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen should have been saved for a time several years in the future, in order to provide some level of emotional detachment. In addition, it would ensure that the trial would be free, fair, and adequate, and more importantly, that the people most severely impacted by his human rights violations would have the opportunity to confront him in court. In the meantime, Saddam could have remained detained as a prisoner of war until the U.S. was ready to withdraw, or until some other arrangement could have been made for his detention by the Iraqi government until conditions settled down enough for his trial to go forward.
Here, it seems the largely Shi'ite and Kurdish Iraqi government hurried this trial through as victor's justice. There were allegations of governmental interference (which ultimately led to the resignation of one judge), partiality rather than impartiality, lack of security for defense counsel, and lack of access to prosecutorial evidence. Moreover, according to what I have read, the Hussein defense team was not permitted to present its entire defense case. Given the high profile of the case, and the scrutiny with which the trial will be judged by history and by the Iraqi people, the Iraqi government had the responsibility to carry out the trial of the accused in a manner that comported with international standards, and in a manner that ensured that the defendants were given the most absolutely airtight degree of due process. And the U.S. government, as an occupying power, had the responsibility to make sure that this occurred as well.
It would have made much more sense to have made the Iraqi tribunal a hybrid one, similar to the Sierra Leone Special Court. That way, the trials would have received international oversight, rather than mere international consultation that could be ignored at will. But, this was an unlikely outcome from Day One, since the U.S. invasion of Iraq and toppling of the Hussein regime was not the result of international consensus, but rather the result of unilateralism on America's part.
What is also ridiculous to me is the fact that Saddam was tried, and executed, only for the 1982 Dujail massacre, which was a massacre of 148 Shi'ites. There was no trial for the gassing of Kurds in 1988 at Halabja. There was no trial for the brutal repression of the Kurds and Shi'as after the first Persian Gulf war. Why was it that they sought justice only for the Dujail massacre? Why did they not try Hussein for all of the incidents which they claim constituted crimes against humanity? It doesn't really make much sense. It does not provide an explanation to the victims of all of his crimes. And it does not provide closure for the Iraqi people on those incidents. It does not allow the world at large, and Iraq in particular, to learn about the man, and why he did what he did. (And despite what many people probably think, I think it does matter to know his motivations and to get his side.)
I'm inclined to think that the best solution of all would have been for the Iraqi government to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission similar to that established in South Africa after the end of apartheid. Without the context of court, and criminal charges, and possible punishment, with only a room where both sides could hash out their grievances, maybe the Iraqis could have gotten down to the heart of the matter. Maybe Saddam would not have reacted like a caged animal and made the courtroom his pulpit and stage. Maybe the trial would not have become a farcical exchange of polemics and venom between lawyers, judges, and defendants. Maybe the Hussein regime would then have had to face their victims and seek forgiveness for their infractions. And if that didn't work, or if the TRC determined that the crimes deserved to be prosecuted to the utmost extent of the law, they could then have pursued criminal punishment through the Iraqi court system. Imagine the example the world could have taken from that.
The Iraqis blew their chance. It's really quite a shame.
Congratulations, Mr. Bush. Your experiment in democracy is off to a great start.
posted by Dreamer @ 10:38 AM
0 Comments
