Saddam may have had to die just to have revenge
MIDWEEK
By BUNN NAGARA
BEFORE the United States and Iraq could recover from the flaws in Saddam Hussein’s trial, the swift execution erased any remaining credibility the occupation could hope to claim.
Critics preferred the World Court at the Hague for a fairer trial, as Saddam’s transgressions were also international. But it was argued that the former dictator had to be tried by Iraqis to ensure a new democratic Iraq, even when legal infrastructure and expertise were lacking. An international trial might also have exposed the key US and British roles in Saddam’s atrocities.
So the Iraqi Special Tribunal was set up by the occupying power during a war. Despite official claims of adopting international standards, more irregularities followed. The first presiding judge quit over government interference, while the government removed another thus proving the point. Other flaws included anonymous witnesses and judges, lax standards of evidence, a defence team ill-served by court officials, and arbitrary proceedings.
Behind it all, Washington as chief occupier had initiated, directed (through training) and funded the tribunal. Some have been reluctant to call it a kangaroo court, but “Saddam Hussein versus his former enemies,” under a cloak of formal legality alternating between soap opera and TV reality show, had more than a whiff of the marsupial about it.
Although former interim premier Iyad Allawi said the execution was for the court to decide, his successor Nouri al-Maliki hastily signed Saddam’s death warrant when that should have been done by the president. Then the ruse was that Saddam would hang in late January, to confuse protesters. He was hanged within four days of a failed appeal – after charges of the Dujail massacre, but before the on-going Anfal trial had convicted him.
Then things got worse. The hanging showed more Shi'ite partisanship against Sunni Saddam, as his executioners taunted him. Western media condemned it as sectarianism run rampant, as Baghdad has since become Shi’ite-dominated. But there is a more likely and disturbing prospect: insurgents had infiltrated prison authorities, besides the police and army.
The Iraqi people have feasted on more than a year of outlandish arguments in the guise of a trial, and then a high-profile killing by the victors of a war during an illegal occupation. Thus a rare opportunity was lost for nurturing a credible legal culture while unearthing the full extent and nature of Saddam’s crimes.
Not only has the tribunal failed to establish Saddam’s guilt in the anti-Kurd Anfal campaign before he was executed, he had not even been charged for the notorious 1988 massacre at Halabja. Kurdish jubilation at Saddam’s death could therefore only be vengeful sentiment rather than a celebration of the judicial process.
Now that Saddam is dead, hopes for developing justice in Iraq is lost while pressure for more sectarian violence has escalated. Internecine strife between Sunnis and Shi’ites can only deteriorate, given how perceptions continue to feed the feud.
In fast-moving Iraq, Saddam had been removed from power a long time ago. At trial he defended his status as Iraqi president, given the illegitimate invasion and his subsequent displacement. At his execution, he appeared calm and dignified. All of these images may endure longer than anything from Anfal, Dujail or Halabja.
When the executioners created another controversy, it brought the once “yesterday’s man” into the present and future. As a result Saddam Hussein might not even need to be a Gamal Nasser II or another Saladin, which he had tried in vain to be, to have a greater influence in death than he might have had from a prison cell.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=...3021&sec=nation
