Another Misguided Adventure

That Saddam Hussein was and is a tyrant has never been in doubt. That Saddam Hussein deserved to be tried for crimes against humanity has also never been in doubt. But this trial was so transparently flawed, the verdict so certain, that to describe this as "justice" is plainly dishonest. This is about vengeance. Perhaps for this very reason, many world leaders, including representatives of the Pope, have spoken out against the verdict.

The manipulation began with the appointment of the tribunal itself. It is no secret that the current US administration detests international law, as it openly mocks it whenever given the opportunity. The trial of Saddam Hussein presented the US with a dilemma. Under International Law, the US was prohibited from trying Saddam Hussein directly. If the US turned Saddam Hussein over to international tribunals for crimes against humanity, the US would be strengthening the legitimacy of the very institutions that the US was seeking to minimize. In an attempt to avoid the most obvious conflicts, the "Coalitional Provisional Authority" set up a domestic tribunal in Iraq to try Saddam. Under Bremer's "De-Baathification" order, no members of the Baath party could serve on the tribunal, and at least one judge was removed from his appointment after it was discovered that he once held Baath party membership. This order effectively eliminated all Sunnis from the tribunal, and, right or wrong, gives critics of the tribunal a credible argument to make about fundamental fairness. In the legal world, an appearance of fairness is very important for legitimacy.

Paul Bremer's next step was to appoint Salem Chalabi, nephew of Saddam critic Ahmed Chalabi, to head the tribunal. As the Financial Times reports,

US and Iraqi officials had hoped that the trial would help reconcile Iraq’s sectarian blocs, convince the former regime’s partisans that they would never retake power, and win legitimacy for the new order by highlighting the brutality of the old.

It does not take a genius to realize how incredibly short sighted such a move was. Richard Perle's candid admission that 'mistakes were made' applies to the tribunals as well.

As Amnesty International noted, this could have been different.

"This trial should have been a major contribution towards establishing justice and the rule of law in Iraq, and in ensuring truth and accountability for the massive human rights violations perpetrated by Saddam Hussein's rule."

Instead of truth and accountability, this verdict will fuel anger and resentment toward the US.

There once was a time when America was a proponent of International Law. Following World War II, US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was instrumental in forming the Nuremburg Criminal Tribunals to try Germans for crimes against humanity. Justice Jackson warned against vengeance.

“We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our lips as well.”

With the verdict against Saddam Hussein, we may now see how the process leads to calls for vengeance. And if the Saddam verdict is not cause for reflection alone, we should consider the military tribunals we are setting up to pronounce the guilt of those held in Guantanamo and similar US prisons. We are passing a poisoned chalice, and one day, it will be our turn to drink.

r.johnson, de sententia