The precedent of Saddam Hussein

Monday November 13, 2006
Bangkok Post Editorial

There were many reactions immediately after the judge announced the guilty verdict against Saddam Hussein, and sentenced him to death by hanging. Iraqis generally celebrated, indoors because of a curfew, and those who might have opposed the trial or felt sorry for the old dictator, they kept pretty quiet about it. Iran was openly jubilant at both the verdict and death sentence. Leaders of countries involved in the invasion that overthrew Saddam said the successful end of the trial was a justification for the war. Opponents of the death penalty argued strongly against the sentence.

There is, however, an important effect of the trial of Saddam Hussein that should unite justice loving people worldwide. Saddam is the first dictator to face a credible trial instigated, run and concluded by his own country. This occurred despite the obvious danger of revenge over justice, and the possibility that farce would triumph over gravity. In the midst of a war, at a time when institutions were barely getting back on their feet after a generation of dictatorship and arbitrary violence, Iraq conducted a solid, legitimate trial of its old and detested master.

There are no shortage of critics of several of the trial procedures. But the criticism is essentially nit-picking, and no convincing expert has claimed major errors. Perhaps the greatest proof that the trial was a legal success is that the leading anti-government groups in the Iraq insurgency officially agreed the Saddam court and verdict are legitimate and binding. Foreign terrorist groups involved in the war have made no criticism, and apart from the Ba'ath Party of Syria, Iraq's neighbours have praised or accepted the court.

The argument over the death penalty will no doubt increase, particularly from Europe. Some of the arguments are serious, but one in particular deserves to be debunked. The idea that Saddam Hussein will become a martyr if he is executed is not a serious claim. Saddam will always be a hero to a tiny minority in his country and the region, but he is widely reviled inside Iraq, as already demonstrated, and his death will not boost his standing.

Since Saddam was imprisoned, charged, tried and sentenced by Iraq, it seems proper that the same process should decide his fate. Indeed, it is pretentious at this point to suggest the Iraqi court and public, having conducted and suffered the Saddam trial so well, are somehow unqualified to take the last decision.

If Saddam is executed, many will undoubtedly celebrate and claim revenge. But it will be a solemn act, in keeping with the entire process against the dictator who caused so much suffering and, as we now know, the brutal murders of 148 innocent people in an act of appalling revenge.

The trial of Iraq, one can say, was superior to the European trial of Slobodan Milosevic by the international court. That stultifying demonstration of an ex-dictator tying up an entire legal system could only serve as an advertisement against international trials. Instead, Saddam's trial is a strong argument for the much-doubted attempt to bring surviving Khmer Rouge to justice in Cambodia.

Unfortunately, trials of Pol Pot's supporters seem unlikely even to begin, let alone to proceed informatively and conclude with legally sustainable verdicts. For that, blame the international forces and alleged experts who have continually explained that Cambodia is incapable of conducting trials concerning war crimes and crimes against humanity. One hopes, strongly, that the former Khmer Rouge will soon appear to hear the charges against them.

The sad truth is that the hodge-podge of mixed judges and blended legal rules have created a sad situation for Cambodia. The wartime Khmer Rouge authorities are more likely to die of old age than any legal proscription. The trial of Saddam Hussein in Iraq proves that justice can be found anywhere serious and dedicated people apply and value legal principles. It is never easy to make a dictator pay for his crimes. Iraq and its judges deserve full credit for an achievement that could help to spread such an ideal.