His Day in Court

Saddam will be brought to justice, but what kind of justice?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


President Bush wants the Iraqi people to know that the fate of Saddam Hussein is in their hands. Bush might think Saddam’s crimes merit execution, but, not being an Iraqi citizen, he says, it’s not for him to say.

“I think he ought to receive the ultimate penalty … for what he has done to his people…. I mean, he is a torturer, a murderer, they had rape rooms. This is a disgusting tyrant who deserves justice, the ultimate justice. But that will be decided not by the president of the United States but by the citizens of Iraq in one form or another.”

Both the United States and Britain have given verbal support to Hussein’s being tried in some kind of Iraqi tribunal. Here’s what Bush had to say:

“We will work with the Iraqis to develop a way to try him in a way that will stand international scrutiny, I guess is the best way to put it…. We want it to be fair, and of course we want the world to say, you know, `He got a fair trial.’ Because whatever justice is meted out needs to stand international scrutiny.”

While the American president supports the tribunal, he hasn’t committed himself on the Iraqi Governing Council’s plan to try Hussein for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Last week the council adopted procedures on how to try and punish high-level Baathist figures, retaining the right to impose capital punishment, a penalty long used in Iraq. The president of the IGC, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, told the press that Hussein would be tried by the new Iraqi tribunal. “[I]f it is proven that he is guilty, he could be condemned to death.”

While President Bush, a great proponent of the death pentalty, withheld comment on this plan, others openly disapproved. Thus Kofi Annan: “We [the United Nations] are not going to now turn around and support the death penalty.”

The capture of Hussein was undoubtedly a relief to the world; his prosecution is more problematic. The IGC wants to try him at home, some advocates of international law advocate an Iraqi/international court, while others say the trail should be held outside of Iraq. Many legal experts argue that since Hussein could be found guilty of genocide against sectors of the Iraqi people, his trial should be held in Iraq. But given the importance of the case, concerns arise about the ability of Iraq’s fledgling justice system to handle the task. If capital punishment remains an option, though, many international judges from countries opposed to the death penalty may refuse to participate.

Salem Chalabi, nephew of Ahmed and one of the architects of the Iraqi tribunal, explains that for the sake of expediency Hussein will probably be charged with only a dozen of the numberless crimes he’s responsible for. These include the gassing of the Kurds in 1988, the execution of prominent Shiite Muslim clerics and murder of an untold number of Shiite Muslims in their uprising following the 1991 Gulf War.

As Philippe Sands, a professor of international law at University College London, writes in the Guardian, the most important thing is that Iraqis and others in the Middle East and Islamic world see the trial as legitimate. This will require Iraqi, and perhaps other Middle Eastern judges to play a leading role.

Some experts hail the Nazi trials at Nurenberg as a model, while others remind us the questions of illegitimacy have arisen because the trial was held under the allied occupation.

It’s unclear what kind of trial will occur under the new Iraqi government to be elected next June, let alone under U.S. occupation. Washington will surely try to get the most out of the trial, but as Barry Lando writes, in Salon, the administration’s moment of glory could not go as planned. A full trial, one not impeded by occupying forces, could expose more than Hussein’s crimes.

“Instead, prominent Americans could find themselves playing a role in what may be a very long, drawn-out and embarrassing trial. Imagine, for instance, seeing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton, and a parade of CIA directors and secretaries of state called as witnesses — for the defense. Not to mention a clutch of headmen from other Western and Middle Eastern countries. This may be exactly what Saddam now craves: the chance to publicly implicate other leaders and countries in his own brutal past. It won’t be difficult.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate