Debate Grows Over Saddam's Trial, Death Penalty (Why doesn't left want Saddam to die?)

Star Telegram ^ | 12/16/03 | Maureen Fan

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Controversy over how to prosecute Saddam Hussein intensified Monday as President Bush said the United States will work with Iraq to develop a way to try him, and members of Iraq's Governing Council insisted that the former dictator will be tried in public by an all-Iraqi war crimes tribunal as early as March.

While some council members want to see Saddam put to death, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan opposes any proceedings that had the death penalty as an option. And Iraq's neighbors clamored for their own proceedings against the captured former dictator.

"He has to be tried by the tribunal we set up a few days ago," said Mowaffak al Rubaie, a British-trained physician who is one of four Governing Council members who met with Saddam for about 30 to 40 minutes early Sunday.

The trial will be public and televised, and Saddam could face the death penalty, Rubaie said.

"They were big crimes he did, from mass graves to killing clerics to gassing the Kurds. There are enough crimes to hang him many thousands of times," said council member Mohsen Abdul Hameed, the secretary general of the Iraqi Islamic Party. "But the court will be fair. We will give him lawyers and it will be public. It will definitely be televised."

Human rights groups have expressed concern that the Iraqis lack the technical ability to prosecute Saddam fairly on their own. Legislation to create the war crimes tribunal was approved last week by the Governing Council only after a provision was inserted allowing for international advisers, yet it was unclear whether council members intended to bring in international experts.

"We will work with the Iraqis to develop a way to try him and that will stand up to international scrutiny," President Bush said in Washington. "The Iraqis need to be involved. They were the ones who were brutalized. They need to be very much involved in the process."

Although the U.S.-backed coalition authority has suspended the death penalty in Iraq, it could be brought back after sovereignty is restored July 1.

Annan expressed the United Nations' opposition to the death penalty.

A senior State Department official said Monday that it was "clearly for the Iraqis to decide" whether the death penalty should be imposed on Saddam.

The official said the United States also reserves the right to prosecute Saddam for crimes committed against Americans.

Two of Iraq's neighbors demanded Monday that Saddam be tried for war crimes against their countries. Their chances of trying him in an international venue are slim, however, given that the U.N. courts in The Hague, the Netherlands, have no jurisdiction.

Fan Reports for the San Jose Mercury News. Knight Ridder Newspapers Correspondent Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson Contributed to This Report.

[Maceman]

I don't understand those who say that Saddam is entitled to a trial.

The point of a trial is to determine whether or not a defendant is guilty of committing particular crimes. If he actually committed those crimes, his defense focuses on whether the defendant was really responsible for acting criminally.

We have a constitutionally mandated trial system in order to ensure fairness and to protect presumably innocent defendants from being railroaded by the overwhelming power of the state.

In Iraq, Saddam WAS the state. Can there really be a presumption of innocence for the totalitarian ruler of a police state? Presumption of innocence is a right of the People. Saddam, by virtue of his office and the means by which he sustained it, is not and never has been a member of “the People" in any meaningful sense.

There is no slippery slope here. It is not as if we threaten the rights of any other citizens or groups by refusing to extend the presumption of innocence to criminal dictators around the world when they come into our custody. Political dictators comprise a unique group – arguably the most exclusive club in the world . They commit their crimes by exercising unique powers under the laws that they alone are able to impose, and it is justice to treat them uniquely in their ultimate legal disposition.

In the west, we have developed a trial system as a means of finding truth. But certainly in Saddam's case the process can commence with the unarguable stipulation that he committed human rights atrocities against the people of Iraq and the rest of the world.

What possible defense could Saddam offer? That he didn't commit these crimes? That he has been framed by Jamaican drug lords? That he was out playing golf while it all happened and so wasn't anywhere near the scene? That he didn't give the orders? That he didn't commit many of these crimes with his own hands, as well as through delegation to subordinates? That somebody else did it? That these crimes are propaganda and never really never happened? That he did not commit even one of the millions of individual counts on the indictment?

There is no legitimate defense against the criminal indictment of Saddam, because his acts are too ubiquitous to fully catalog, and his responsibility is self-evident, well-documented and universally conceded. His own megalomaniacal boasting through state controlled-media and publicly funded monument building over three decades amounts to a full public confession of his own guilt.

So if there can be no defense, why grant Saddam an opportunity to mount one? Why allow him to turn a necessary legal proceeding into a charade and a propaganda coup by granting him a presumption of innocence and a right to have his attorneys cross examine witness. .

Perhaps some will claim that even though Saddam committed his criminal acts, there might be extenuating circumstances that would somehow mitigate his guilt. Therefore, they would argue, it is necessary to have a trial so that such circumstances can be presented in Saddam’s defense..

It is well known that Saddam had a brutal and tragic childhood. Is it really his own fault that he grew up to be murderous, raping, plundering, sadistic and ruthless narcissistic monster? Maybe he was taking too much medication. Maybe it could be argued that he was really working for the greater good of pan-Arab nation, and that there is some level on which his actions may be justified.

Even if such arguments were legitimate, they would still only be relevant to the issue of sentencing. They have no bearing on the question of Saddam’s guilt or innocence.

What Saddam needs, therefore, is not a trial, but a sentencing hearing. He needs to be made to sit in the dock for months, if not years, on end, listening to the endless testimony of those he has ruined. The world needs to hear this testimony and see the documentary evidence, so that those who supported Saddam in Iraq, at the UN and in European state capitals can be confronted with their own duplicity.

Saddam needs to be afforded, at some point in the proceedings, a single opportunity to make a voluntary statement to the court and to the world.

Certainly, there needs to be debate on the actual sentence and who shall impose it -- the only issues that really need to be adjudicated at this point.

But an actual trial? Not if justice is the real objective.

[dead]

Why doesn't left want Saddam to die?

Because he’s guilty.

Liberals only want to kill the totally innocent.

[arthurus]

When do you suppose we will get the first FREE SADDAM demos in Seattle and DC?

[Spok]

(Why doesn't left want Saddam to die?)

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Ingtar]

Because he is not a Republican?

[MediaMole]

Why doesn't left want Saddam to die?

Because they can't return him to power if he is dead.

[Argus]

Human rights groups have expressed concern that the Iraqis lack the technical ability to prosecute Saddam fairly on their own.

Hey HRG's - different strokes for different folks!

Personally, I think Saddam should be cryogenically frozen, and put on permanent display in the Country Bear Jamboree at Disneyworld Tikrit.

[Texagirl4W]

"Why doesn't the left want Saddam to die?"

Because it represents a win/success for President Bush. They can't stand that.

[expatpat]

Why doesn't the left want Saddam to die?

Because he's a fellow-socialist, I expect.

[Vigilanteman]

While some council members want to see Saddam put to death, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan opposes any proceedings that had the death penalty as an option.

There are enough crimes to hang him many thousands of times," said council member Mohsen Abdul Hameed . . .

Look, I see room for compromise. Annan doesn't want the death penalty. Hameed thinks he deserves it a thousand times.

Couldn't we just give him a short drop every day for a thousand times and cut him down after, say, 45 seconds? As long as he keeps providing useful information, we would promise he'd live another day. I figure that after, oh, about a thousand days, we'd have Saddam milked dry and the guy in charge of cutting him down after 45 seconds would have some prankster hide his knife.

Very unfortunate accident, you know. Kofi would be invited to have Hans Blix investigate.

[savedbygrace]

Annan expressed the United Nations' opposition to the death penalty.

The UN forfeited their right to have a say in this a long time ago.

[Types_with_Fist]

Why doesn't left want Saddam to die?

Dead? Saddam is already dead. This guy is just a propped-up fake...so Bush can claim credit for winning this "quagmire," to enhance his standing in the polls and assure re-election...< /sarcasm>. Oh yeah...Bush knew about 911 in advance. Ok...< /sarcasm> really off.

[ladyinred]

Our own media started talking trash about the death penalty the moment he was captured. Seems as though too many on the left view Saddam as something other than the murdering tyrant he is. Wonder why that is, hmmm?

[Calpernia]

You know what really stinks? The time zone difference. This is going to be televised live....and I anticipate many pots of coffee during that time!

[Leroy S. Mort]

My guess is the left thinks Saddam will implicate previous Repub administrations and provide some raw meat testimony that can be trotted out during the 2004 presidential campaign. Once that's over, they'll be as ready to throw him in the log chipper as anyone.

[arthurus]

There needs to be a trial in order for the details of his rule to be made "official" and public and to remove his execution from the realm of pure revenge. Sadam does NOT deserve to be just shot out of hand. He deserves some sort of lingering and painful demise or perhaps a life sentence involving total paralysis and a dark soundless room. That is not likely in that America will be overseeing and our cultural squeams will prevail. So he should have a world publicized trial by the authority that has actual and obvious jurisdiction, namely the new Iraqi government.He should not receive any sort of life sentence there because of the chances of escape or some sort of pardon.

[Little Ray]

They don't want him to die, 'cause they look forward to years of hijackings, kidnappings, hostage seizures, assassinations, bombings, coup attempts, etc., that eventually culminate with Saddam's return him to power. At which point they will hail him as a new Nelson Mandela and crow that the USA has failed again.

It is truly a sad thing that the soldier didn't follow "President Bush sends his regards" up with the grenade. "Boom!" would have been such a good ending.

[CFC__VRWC]

Why doesn't left want Saddam to die?

1. Because they honestly believe that Saddam's removal from power and capture was done for no reason other than George Bush settling a playground score.
2. Because to them, Saddam shouldn't be on trial as a war criminal - George Bush, Tony Blair and Ariel Sharon should be.