'A flawed process' (Saddam's trial)

[IndianaGreen]

'A flawed process'

Four respected lawyers give their views on the outcome of the Saddam trial

Sunday November 5, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

Ken Hurwitz, an international lawyer with the US-based Human Rights First:

"I think it is difficult to see there has been a fair trial when we have defence lawers and judges threatened and murdered and behind the scenes it is apparent that this is a product of the Green Zone, the US occupation forces. It may be there was a fair trial but it is very difficult to see one way or the other because of the armed conflict and lack of security and overwhelming control of a foreign power. It is unfortunate that the decision was made to go ahead recklessly with the trial under the circumstances that prevailed. It has been widely reported that access to lawyers was made extremely difficult and an overwhelming number of documents were given to the defence at the last minute for review, making it almost impossible. The appearance of justice is undermined, even if justice is being done. In an international trial of this importance, the appearance of justice is as important as the reality."

Philippe Sands QC, professor of law at University College London and a barrister at Matrix Chambers:

"It was right that Saddam Hussein should be prosecuted for international crimes. But if not done properly there were bound to be questions about the legitimacy of the process. It was a mistake to proceed then with an exclusively Iraqi tribunal rather than an internationalised effort. So was the decision not to prosecute for some of his actions, including the use of chemical weapons against Iran and the invasion of Kuwait. Missed opportunities, a much diminished legitimacy."

<snip>

Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa director, who has been following the case:

"Our main concern is that quite clearly the impartiality of the court was jeopardised by political interference, with the first judge resigning complaining he was coming under political pressure. A second judge was appointed but never sat. I do not think this was the context of impartiality and we have had political pressure throughout. The government was looking for a verdict and death penalty. That background music does not help produce an impartial verdict.

"Three defence lawyers were killed. There was a lack of security protection for witnesses. This interfered with the ability of the prosecution and defence to do the job fully. There were problems with pre-trial. Saddam Hussein was held for the best part of a year before being given access to legal counsel. That is a breach that may have fed through to the trial. This should have been an important point for accountability, rule of law, setting a precedent for the future. But it has been a flawed process."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1940100,00.html

[Dhalgren]

1. Sham trial, judicial fraud. The American Dictatorship has no

standing beyond brute force, and their Iraqi puppets haven't even that. Justice has not been served, but who believed it would have been?

[IndianaGreen]

2. Saddam knows how much WMD help he got from Reagan Administration

The reason the US wanted a kangaroo court for Saddam rather than a trial at The Hague was that the truth of American complicity in Saddam's crimes would have seen the light of day. We don't want our fellow citizens to be awaken from their self-imposed stupor with stories about US giving Saddam WMD technology to use against Iran and the troublesome Kurds.

[gulliver]

3. Bush/GOP even screwed up the deserved hanging of a tyrant.

Iran is thrilled. The Sadr militias are ecstatic.

No one in the ME will believe the process was anything more than a slow-motion assassination by the U.S.

Everything the Bush Republicans touch turns to shit. Even Saddam Hussein's guilty verdict and execution are poised to backfire, to comfort our enemies, to fuel anti-Americanism.