We have all been betrayed.
The international justice system that we began to build at the end of the Second World War, with the awe-inspiring dignity of the Nuremberg trials and the high purpose of international conventions and the creation of the United Nations, has been parodied in the trial of Saddam Hussein, who faces imminent execution. The story of Saddam's trial and the hasty decision to carry out this week's hastily affirmed sentence is easily accessible everywhere right now. I was moved by this eloquent protest from Richard Dicker, international justice director of Human Rights Watch, who speaks to the blow that international justice and the human rights of people world-wide have taken from the farce that was Saddam's trial:
For the first time since the postwar Nuremberg trials, almost the entire leadership of a repressive government faced trial for gross human rights violations. It offered the chance to create a historical record of some of the regime's unspeakable rights violations and to begin the process of accounting for the policies and decisions that gave rise to them. Trials conforming to international standards of fairness would have been more likely to ventilate and verify the historical facts, contribute to the public recognition of the experiences of victims, and set a more stable foundation for democratic accountability. Instead, unlike the Nuremberg trials, the proceedings have fallen far short of creating the reference point that could clarify for Iraqis what happened and why.
To hold such a trial in the midst of a war, to suppress most of the history of the undoubtedly evil regime on trial in order to protect and advance the interests of the major power urging on the prosecution, is a pathetic, sordid mockery of the purpose of a trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity. We all have an interest in ensuring that such procedures enhance the understanding and commitment to justice of all the world's peoples. Instead, this trial and conviction will deepen for many the bitter conviction that the West believes in victor's justice and will cheat to get it.
There's worse (of course). There may be some strategic reckoning in the sudden rush to usher Saddam out of this world and to publicize his death as graphically and melodramatically as possible, thereby provoking the outrage of millions.
Writing today as Juan Cole's guest op-ed commentator, Larisa Alexandrovna speculates on Saddam's execution as a gambit in a chess game that the Bush administration are playing -- as usual -- incompetently:
This is what I think may be playing out, my opinion of course. And yes, the strategy is so brazenly obvious, arrogant, and antithetical to everything America is supposed to be and stand for that it will be difficult to digest.What the Bush administration appears to be waiting for, stalling for, while they allegedly mull over the Iraq question, is for the naval carriers and other key assets to fall into position. This will happen in the first week of January. Saddam Hussein is being executed (and I would not be surprised if every major network aired it) to enrage tempers and fuel more violence in Iraq. This violence will justify an immediate need for a troop surge, although I think it will be described as temporary. Remember too that the British press has for the past week done nothing but report that Britain will be attacked by the New Year. Clearly they are preparing themselves for a contingency, and that contingency is the massive violence that will erupt across the Muslim world as they watch (and I really believe it will be televised) Saddam’s hanging just before the New Year.
Why is the rush to execute Saddam Hussein not account for Hajj? Or does it?
The carriers will be in position. I imaging there will be an event of some sort in Iraq, or the violence will spill into friendly (our friends) territory. It will be dramatic, even more so than the immediate violence.
The attacks will be blamed on Iran, with the help of the Saudis and Pakistan. Iran will be blamed for something that happens in Iran. The naval carriers, again, will be in position. The sanctions, as watered down as they are, have given the administration the blank check they needed from the world (and they still have their blank check from Congress) to order aerial strikes. The surge troops will be in position, and I estimate that ground support will begin around late February, early March.
Saddam’s execution and the violence will also be a convenient cover while the administration moves pieces into position.
There's more. I don't know what to think about it all. But it's possible.
I don't know what to do but weep at this point. Beats the hell out of putting my faith in the Western media, the Democrats in Congress, or the Labour Party backbenchers to find the courage of their convictions at this late point and stop things if they do head in this direction.
I'd take evil but competent imperialism at this point. At least I wouldn't fear for my life. Damn, somebody give Niall Ferguson some real power.
Yow... that's a pretty stunning assertion; but then, I've been expecting them to attack Iran for the last year. I guess I've started thinking that maybe it wouldn't happen. It would lead to too many unpredictable scenarios, few of which actually look promising for the United States.
I was going to suggest that the reason the US doesn't allow for a proper trial in the Hague is that they don't support/recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court; they're still afraid that it will be used against them... you know, like when soldiers commit war crimes.
It's difficult to understand the type of mind George Bush goes through life with.
In truth, I believe Saddam probably belongs in a cage for the rest of his life. And, THAT would have some impact. The fearsome, brutal Saddam... in a cage.
As a corpse he will instantly become somebody's martyr.
As things continue to degenerate in Iraq, the more Hussein's history will become acceptable.
Mr. Pena, on CTV Newsnet right now, is telling people to move on and that Hussein is history. Get over the fact a man was tried, convicted and executed in a sham trial masterminded by a foreign occupier? Say what you will but the fact that Hussein's trial dealt with the Dujail massacre shows just who was calling the shots.
Dujail was selected because there was no American complicity in it, unlike *all* his other crimes.
Apparently the deed has been done:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6218485.stm
It wasn't televised. They wouldn't even say where the execution happened.
The mistake Larisa made was to imagine that this was part of some grand strategy. There is no grand strategy. Just a boy king flailing about, imagining himself as a great historical figure.
In my opinion, the U.S. and Isreal better hurry up and bomb Iran right back to the bloody stone age. If they wait for Iran to build their first atomic bomb, we all know that it will be fired at the jews because Iran will not acknoledge the right of Isreal to exist!!
If they wait for Iran to build their first atomic bomb, we all know that it will be fired at the jews
We all know nothing of the kind. Even if the Iranians wanted to take that course of action, they would have to ignore the worst kept secret in international affairs: Israel already has a nuclear arsenal that Iran can only dream of, an arsenal that could wipe Iran off the map ten times over.
So I'm afraid I don't think your opinion is worth all that much.
I agree totally with the "Rounder" as far as Iran is concerned.
A govenment was elected in Iraq even though many people risked their lives to vote (56% of eligible Iraqies voted). It was this democratically elected goventment which put Saddam on trial for crimes against his own people.The execution today was ordered by their legal system.Now lets move forward.
"Let's"? As in, "let us"?
Who is "us," cullen? And towards what are "we" supposed to move?
You also have a sadly debased notion of democracy if you think that justice is delivered by referendum. The justice systems of democracies respond to the full set of necessary and sufficient structures and principles of, y'know, democracy. Saddam's trial came nowhere near to meeting those.
I agree with Galloping Beaver's statement above. Life in prison for him, not martyrdom. It's done now though.
If Saddam was left alive he'd be able to talk about his history with the USA. Even if he couldn't talk about it, maybe more people would talk about it over the years if he were left alive, and that's not what the USA wants.
Saddam's fate was sealed last year when Bush publicly stated that he should be executed, but that it was up to the Iraqi's to decide. Ya, like anyone with any power over there was not going to kill Saddam just to get him out of the way, and then you get to be on the good side of the new Butcher of Baghdad, G.W.Bush as a bonus. Meat the new boss, same as the old boss.
(I know I used meat instead of meet, it's a pun on the whole butcher thing.)
Juan Cole summarizes the Top Ten Ways the U.S. Enabled Saddam Hussein for those who need convincing that Saddam's show trial was a major cover-up of American-elite complicity in his crimes, or for those who just need a handy reference.
Here is what peace, order and good government actually look like in the new Iraq: http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
The Iraqi Government made a mistake in convicting Saddam of crimes against humanity. Murder, malfeasance in office etc. would have been quite adequate, and would not have encouraged suspicions that others (such as certain members of the Bush Administration) should be invited to step up to the gallows on the broader charge.
There are other trials going on skdadl, and a dead Hussein cannot give evidence at them.
For those still around from the Reagan administration, and specifically for Donald Rumsfeld, this is a good thing.
The history of American involvement with Iraq is now a lot safer than it was a couple of days ago.
What stunningly self-centred views so many people have.
"It offered the chance to create a historical record of some of the regime's unspeakable rights violations and to begin the process of accounting for the policies and decisions that gave rise to them...the proceedings have fallen far short of creating the reference point that could clarify for Iraqis what happened and why."
Maybe the Iraqis don't feel they need to provide a reference point for themselves, let alone the rest of the world. HRW can still go ahead with a project to do so, if it wishes.
Maybe the Iraqis don't feel they need to provide a reference point for themselves,
What does that mean, actually? Why would you raise the question of what "the Iraqis" (implicitly, all of them) "feel" if you didn't have some notions about what they "feel"? And if you do, why don't you state them?
What it means is that a lot of people around the world seem to have some big ideas about the way Hussein's trial should have been managed to serve ends they deem important, while, rightly, all that matters is what the Iraqis who suffered under his thumb wanted. I don't presume to know what Iraqis wanted: whether they wished to prolong the experience and relive every deed possibly recountable at one extreme, or whether they would have been satisfied to deal with Hussein as the Italians dealt with Mussolini and then move on with their lives at the other.
"The Iraqis," "the Italians" -- I still don't get it. A few Italians killed Mussolini, as a self-appointed few Romanians executed Ceauşescu. One has no doubt that other Italians and other Romanians would have preferred to have both men fully debriefed for a multitude of reasons. Many nationals of other countries would have wanted to hear the whole story from Mussolini and arguably had as much of a right to it as did "the Italians."
But dead dictators don't talk, a factor never to be omitted in these calculations.
And "move on with their lives"? Sheesh. Fall back on grotesquely inadequate clichés much?
>One has no doubt that other Italians and other Romanians would have preferred to have both men fully debriefed for a multitude of reasons.
One doubts it entirely, unless one knows the minds of others. I for one am not interested in hearing the details of the N'th crime if the first crime was bad enough.
Ah. Not interested in history. Oh, well. Some people aren't, I guess.
I'm very interested in history. If Hussein wasn't already able to cut a deal for his life any time during the past few, oh, years, in exchange for testimony, why would you suppose he needed or would have wanted to participate any further? If he was the only source of information, he could take it to his grave out of spite knowing he wasn't going to be able to save his neck; if he wasn't the only source of information and wasn't co-operative, it doesn't matter that he was executed. Historians will do just fine without endless transcripts of questions being asked of Hussein and not answered. Or would you have proposed information be tortured out of him?