A Trial for Saddam Hussein

Saddam Hussein now will stand trial for his crimes. The lessons of the trial could be as critical as Saddam’s capture.

All trials reflect fundamental underlying principles. In Western societies they seek to settle disputes or to right wrongs, with advocates for the parties involved and impartial judges and jurors who make their decisions based on objective laws. The goal is justice. In dictatorships, “show trials” keep the physical trappings of a civilized system – a courtroom, a bench, a judge – but their goals are to terrorize the victim on trial and the population through the arbitrary use of power and to degrade them by forcing them to pretend that the proceedings have legitimacy.

After World War II there was no effective free German government to try the Nazi leaders, and in any case, by what standard would they be tried? The Nazis might argue that they came to power through elections, and that the enabling acts that they used to persecute alleged internal enemies were passed by the Reichstag. The forms of the law were satisfied even as the actual rule of law was destroyed.

The special Nuremberg tribunal both extracted justice from the Nazi tyrants and helped reestablish the principles of justice and civilization in Germany and in Europe. The Nazi defendants were allowed to have counsel and the charges – waging an aggressive war, war crimes and crimes against humanity – were spelled out. The fact that some of the accused were acquitted showed that this was not a mere show trial by the victors.

Most Nazi defendants argued that they were only following orders, that they were doing what the citizens of any country are obligated to do: obey the laws and the commands of their rulers. The Nuremberg tribunal rejected that argument, a decision that points to the most crucial aspects of any law: it must be based on sound moral principles to be legitimate and it does not absolve individuals of their personal moral responsibility if the law is clearly unjust. Although the trial had its problems – the Soviets were judges but were guilty of many of the same atrocities as the Nazis – it did reaffirm in the Western world that only a higher moral law makes manmade law legitimate.

Israel’s 1961 trial of Holocaust architect Adolph Eichmann was noteworthy because it was the country founded by so many Holocaust survivors that brought him to justice. Further, an important lesson was reaffirmed by Hannah Arendt in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. After any political or human disaster like Nazi Germany it is crucial to learn why it occurred in order to ensure that it never happen again. Arendt’s book showed that Eichmann was not some hate-crazed, ranting anti-Semitic monster. Rather, he was a little bureaucrat, an apparatchik whose narrow soul and obsession with the morality of duty led him to participate in one of history’s most heinous crimes. The lesson of Arendt’s book was that we must question any philosophy that teaches us mindless or fanatical obedience.

The Iraqis will try the Butcher of Baghdad in circumstances very different from the allied trials of the Nazi leaders. Western Europe had the cultural, institutional and philosophical elements necessary for free societies that respect and protect the freedom of individuals – elements that were abandoned by the Nazis. Iraq and most Middle East countries never had those prerequisites to freedom.

Thus, if Iraq’s interim leaders try Saddam, they will not only be extracting justice but also will be establishing the underlying principles that they believe should govern their country. The trial will have regional implications as well. The other Middle East countries are simply variations – albeit sometimes less virulent – of Saddam’s regime. Their cultures and governments are repressive and corrupt. Major parts of their populations accept the crudest kinds of radical Islamic fanaticism. A trial that upholds the sound principles of a free country – individual rights and limited government to protect the lives, liberties and property of the citizens – will be an indictment of the cultures and governments in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, Egypt and the Palestinian authority.

It is very difficult for countries to reverse decades or centuries of failed societies; the former communist countries are still struggling. Ideally, Saddam’s trial will illuminate the principles that will light the path for those individuals in the Middle East who are trying to reform their respective countries. Hopefully Muslim and Arab Hannah Arendts will arise to explain the defects of their societies and to point to the principles that are universal and proper for individuals in any country or culture. Hopefully the trial will be a first step in the process by which the peoples of a despotic region of the world will make their counties into fit places for human beings to flourish.

Of course, I don't quite know why Hussein should be a defendant in a trial similar to the Nuremberg Trials. After all, he's not the one who attacked another country.
Sure, he might well have been a SOB of a dictator but there's no international law prohibiting a country from being ruled by a dictatorship. There is also no international law that requires any country to have a corporatist/fascist system like the US -- even if we try to pass it off as a democracy.
When Hussein had the people executed who tried to overthrow his legitimate government in the 90s, he did so under martial law. In fact, since these people were counting on the help of the US, a country that had previously attacked Iraq, one could actually try them for treason -- and Hussein apparently did just that. There's no international law against this either. While the UN doesn't approve of capital punishment, many countries, including the US, legitimately apply capital punishment in cases of treason.
As for the people Hussein had supposedly killed during the 80s, well, Iraq was at was with Iran so these people might well have been war casualties. Then Iraq was attacked in 1991 by the US, so I'm sure a number of Iraqi were killed during these hostilities as well. So how does anyone establish that Hussein had these people killed?
If anybody needs to be tried in a trial similar to the Nuremberg Trials, it would be both Bushes and Blair. After all, contaminating Iraq twice with "depleted" uranium munitions (which are radioactive) qualifies as a crime against humanity because it affects future generations also.
On the whole, the US has committed numerous war crimes from using Agent Orange in Vietnam which caused millions of birth defects to the use of "depleted" munitions in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, in fact testing radioactive weapons in the Western part of the US, all these are crimes against humanity.
As the US screams about weapons of mass destruction, should we invite the UN to check our own arsenal?
Just because Bush riled Americans up with claims that Hussein is comparable to Hitler doesn't make this a fact.
On the whole, the Iraqi people certainly enjoyed more freedom during the Hussein administration than they do now when our troops just fire into crowds, torture Iraqi people who happen to have some relative the US doesn't approve of, rape women, etc.
So, basically, just what exactly is the charge against Hussein? That he's not a nice guy? On those standards, we'd have to try most of the world's population as well, and definitely 99% of all politicians.
Having a reasonably good memory, I seem to recall that we attacked Iraq over some weapons of mass destruction and not to dictate to the Iraqi which form of government they may have. So, after all this hoopla over the "capture" of Hussein, may I ask where these alleged weapons of mass destruction are? Let's face it, finding some ancient antibiotics in some guy's fridge and a few nuts and bolts under someone's rose bush doesn't qualify, and neither does Bush's claim that Hussein might have planned on obtaining some WMDs in the future.

Of course, I don't quite know why Hussein should be a defendant in a trial similar to the Nuremberg Trials. After all, he's not the one who attacked another country.

Oh noo... he NEVER attacked another country. Nor did he ever renig on a cease fire agreement or violate over a decade of sanctions. There is also no international law that requires any country to have a corporatist/fascist system like the US

Someone needs to look up what a facist gov system is.. reading can be so fun sometimes. If only more would try it

even if we try to pass it off as a democracy.
we are a republic.. that reading thing again.

When Hussein had the people executed who tried to overthrow his legitimate government in the 90s, he did so under martial law.

You mean.. like a facist?
In fact, since these people were counting on the help of the US, a country that had previously attacked Iraq, one could actually try them for treason -- and Hussein apparently did just that.

He tried them and sentenced them to death by chemical weapons....a violation of international law
There's no international law against this either.
Sure there is.
As for the people Hussein had supposedly killed during the 80s, well, Iraq was at was with Iran so these people might well have been war casualties.
Yeah, jews in Germany were just "war casualties" right? No big deal, it was done under martial law and sentenced to death. Great argument....
Then Iraq was attacked in 1991 by the US, so I'm sure a number of Iraqi were killed during these hostilities as well. So how does anyone establish that Hussein had these people killed?
Wow you've made a compelling case indeed. At least we can take comfort in a kangaroo court and predetermined sentence of death.
If anybody needs to be tried in a trial similar to the Nuremberg Trials, it would be both Bushes and Blair.
Your such a sore loser.
After all, contaminating Iraq twice with "depleted" uranium munitions (which are radioactive) qualifies as a crime against humanity because it affects future generations also.
But gassing kurds and iranians is just fine? Interesting point of view
On the whole, the US has committed numerous war crimes from using Agent Orange in Vietnam which caused millions of birth defects to the use of "depleted" munitions in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, in fact testing radioactive weapons in the Western part of the US, all these are crimes against humanity.
The BMOC is most definately kicking ass and taking names.
As the US screams about weapons of mass destruction, should we invite the UN to check our own arsenal?
Of course not, the UN is irrelevent to our issues, we allow them token input only.
Just because Bush riled Americans up with claims that Hussein is comparable to Hitler doesn't make this a fact.
Yeah, we didnt even get to inspect Hitler for lice
On the whole, the Iraqi people certainly enjoyed more freedom during the Hussein administration than they do now when our troops just fire into crowds, torture Iraqi people who happen to have some relative the US doesn't approve of, rape women, etc.
Nice rhetoric without fact or basis, but you are making that quite the habit.
So, basically, just what exactly is the charge against Hussein?
He's evil
That he's not a nice guy?
BINGO!

On those standards, we'd have to try most of the world's population as well, and definitely 99% of all politicians.
We'd have to try all those angry powerless liberals .. what a quagmire

Having a reasonably good memory,
Thats debatable

I seem to recall that we attacked Iraq over some weapons of mass destruction and not to dictate to the Iraqi which form of government they may have.We attacked them to overthrough their gov, and install a gov of our liking, remember?
So, after all this hoopla over the "capture" of Hussein, may I ask where these alleged weapons of mass destruction are?

The bigger question is.. who cares! I think KHaddaffi has them but hes giving em up

Let's face it, finding some ancient antibiotics in some guy's fridge and a few nuts and bolts under someone's rose bush doesn't qualify, and neither does Bush's claim that Hussein might have planned on obtaining some WMDs in the future.
We found those! Ohhhh thats it, hang sadam high... i knew it all along.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.