Planned Iraqi tribunal sparks controversy

WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 (UPI) -- The U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council voted Monday to create an Iraqi-led tribunal to prosecute human rights abuses committed under Saddam Hussein.

The tribunal, which might eventually try Saddam among others, promises justice for oppressed Iraqis. Several top Baath Party members are now in coalition hands though it is unclear who among them will be tried. Saddam himself is believed to be at large.

Some critics, however, question the unelected council's authority to create such a tribunal and its reticence to seek international assistance in forming it.

"Setting up a tribunal to try the former leaders of Iraq is so important, and we're certainly glad that the Iraqi Governing Council sees it as important, but it's also important that any trials that take place are fair trials and are conducted by a court that is free from political pressure," Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch, told United Press International.

Under Saddam's rule of Iraq, torture, killing and disappearances were common. The U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority has reported as many as 300,000 Iraqis may be buried in mass graves.

L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator for Iraq, must still approve the tribunal. Many of its details are yet to be determined, but it will be used to try high-level members of Saddam's regime. Some experts in transitional justice say, however the circumstances under which suspected Iraqi human rights violators are tried could undermine the legitimacy of their trials.

"Can you imagine how these trials will play in the Middle East if everybody says these are U.S. run trials?" asked Paul van Zyl of the International Center for Transitional Justice in New York.

Van Zyl said asking the U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council, which does not possess the authority to create a tribunal on its own, risks tying the tribunal too closely to the U.S.-led occupation.

He advocates waiting until a permanent, fully sovereign government, which can create a tribunal on its own, is in place in Iraq. He said any tribunal associated with the coalition might be rejected as an instrument of victor's justice.

"The irony is that high-profile trials of these people by the CPA may run the risk of turning them into heroes and martyrs," he said.

Sermid al-Sarraf, an Iraqi-American lawyer who advised the Governing Council's subcommittee responsible for drafting the tribunal statute, said, however, Iraq cannot afford to wait for a new government.

"Time is of the essence," he said. "If you wait, you give more opportunity for people to take matters into their own hands."

Al-Sarraf warned that many Iraqis harbored a deep desire for revenge. He said some live only a few doors down from people who tortured them or killed their relatives at Saddam's orders. A tribunal must be established quickly to maintain the rule of law and ensure justice wins out over vengeance in Iraq, he said.

Van Zyl said the CPA was pushing the temporary governing council to set up the tribunal not to protect stability, but so the coalition would be able to influence the form of the trials as much as possible. He said an internal CPA document explicitly sets out the investigative and prosecutorial strategy the tribunal is to take -- from who is to be tried to what international staff is to be brought on to help with the trials.

"They get to choose who is prosecuted," Van Zyl said of the CPA. "That means people who are currently in custody, who may be providing them with useful information about WMD or about the current insurgency, they can cut deals with them."

Consideration of factors other than suspects' roles in civil rights abuses -- such as their intelligence value -- could severely undermine the fairness and legitimacy of the tribunal, he said.

For his part, al-Sarraf said he is eager to see the governing council establish the tribunal with coalition help. He was in Baghdad earlier this year working to establish the tribunal, and said most Iraqis he talked to there accepted the governing council's legitimacy and met it with an attitude of "let's see it do the work."

Al-Sarraf said he was aware of some calls for greater international involvement in forming the tribunal. He said, however, some of those critics were silent about Iraqi human rights issues before Saddam's fall.

"I think most Iraqis would have liked to see an international tribunal 10 years ago, but not since the international community has not taken up its responsibility," he said.

Al-Sarraf insisted Iraqi lawyers, Iraqi judges and pre-Saddam Iraqi law were capable of bringing the country's human rights abusers to justice.

Dicker, of Human Rights Watch, expressed skepticism, however. He asked why the work to establish the tribunal had not been open for international input, as most similar efforts across the globe have been.

"This is a very different process than the ones we've seen over the last 10 years or so," he said.

Everything which is done or not done "sparks controversy" as long as there is at least one person who disagrees with it, AND the media decides to shine a spotlight on that person or people and call their disagreement a "controversy".

Whether such a story is valid news reporting, or disingenuous self-serving propagandistic lie-spreading, hinges on who and how many the "Some critics" are in this formulation,

Some critics, however, question the unelected council's authority to ...

Which "critics"? How many is "Some"? Why should we care?

First of all we've got,

"[lukewarm statement voicing vague concerns]", Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch, told United Press International.

Is that a "controversy" yet? UPI phone Human Rights Watch, got this guy on the phone (I'm assuming UPI called him and not the other way around), he made this statement (that doesn't actually protest the move - read it!), and UPI calls that a "controversy"?

Cooked-up "controversy" is more like it.

Second critic:

"Can you imagine how these trials will play in the Middle East if everybody says these are U.S. run trials?" asked Paul van Zyl of the International Center for Transitional Justice in New York.

I don't know, Paul van Zyl. Who's saying that, in the first place? Nobody I know of so far. (Except, perhaps, you, in a backhanded cowardly fashion?)

Do we have a "controversy" now?

Pure flat-out wild-ass speculation here. Does the "controversy" all boil down to Van Zyl's amateur mind-reading of the CPA's motives, which he doesn't like?

So Paul Van Zyl not liking their motives makes it a "controversy"?

Makes sense from a practical standpoint. I guess Van Zyl disagrees with that though. Which, apparently, makes it a "controversy".

For his part, al-Sarraf said he is eager to see the governing council establish the tribunal with coalition help.He was in Baghdad earlier this year working to establish the tribunal, and said most Iraqis he talked to there accepted the governing council's legitimacy and met it with an attitude of "let's see it do the work."

Ok, so we've got two against, one for. Of course, the latter is (1) actually Iraqi, (2) has actually been to Iraq, and (3) reports that views of ordinary Iraqis prove that the concerns of the previous two "critics" are completely and totally unfounded.

There goes the "controversy", you'd think.

Dicker, of Human Rights Watch, expressed skepticism, however.

Uh, they already quoted this guy. Sorry, I ain't counting him twice.

So, folks, that's your "controversy".

"Some critics" turns out to be TWO critics.

And this news story, and headline, turns out to be a total fraud. "Controversy" indeed. Editorializing is more like it. They want to CREATE a controversy where there is none.

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.