Untitled Document
The trial of Saddam Hussein that begins today in Baghdad, under the
auspices of the US-created Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT) and the US-sponsored
Iraqi government, is a legal travesty. No credibility can be given to the prosecution
of the former Iraqi head of state by a puppet court and client administration
that exist only due to the illegal and predatory invasion of Iraq by US imperialism
and the continued presence of more than 150,000 American and other foreign troops.
Hussein and his Baathist regime have many crimes against the Iraqi people to
answer for. However, the proceedings starting today are nothing but a show trial
designed to have the former dictator quickly sentenced to death and executed.
The aim is not justice, but to obscure the complicity of the United States,
Britain and other major powers in many of Hussein’s atrocities.
Today Hussein is being prosecuted only for 19 charges relating to the massacre
of some 150 people in the village of Dujail in 1982. The murders followed a
failed assassination attempt on the Baathist leader by alleged members of the
Shiite fundamentalist Da’awa organisation—the party of the current
Iraqi prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
The Dujail massacre has been carefully chosen, instead of other Baathist crimes
that were encouraged or sanctioned by the major powers. These include the slaughter
of Iraqi Communist Party members in 1979; the murder of thousands of Shiites
in the lead-up to the 1980 US-backed Iraqi invasion of Iran; the use of Western-supplied
chemical weapons against Iranian troops and civilians during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq
war; the pogroms against the Kurdish population in the late 1980s; and the butchery
of tens of thousands of Shiites and Kurds following the 1991 Gulf War.
It is no secret that the prosecution of Hussein has been crafted to prevent
any repetition of the ongoing trial of former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic
in the UN-run International Criminal Tribunal, where he is facing 66 charges
of war crimes and genocide allegedly committed in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo.
Milosevic is a nationalist demagogue who bears much responsibility for the
horrors inflicted on the Balkan peoples in the 1990s. Over the past four years,
however, he has used his trial to document the machinations of the major powers
in fomenting the ethnic conflicts that tore apart the region and to expose the
criminality of the NATO attack on Yugoslavia in 1999. The trial has become,
to put it mildly, an embarrassment for the prosecutors.
Hussein’s defence is certain to challenge the legality of the 2003 US-led
invasion and thus the legitimacy of the court. However, by narrowly framing
the charges, the US is hoping to avoid any questions about its collaboration
with the Baathist regime in the 1980s. Hussein could, for example, relate the
discussions he held with US presidential envoy, and now Secretary of Defence,
Donald Rumsfeld in 1983 and 1984, which led to US assistance to Iraq during
the Iran-Iraq war.
The consequence is a trial that has more in common with a lynching, guided
by the principle that dead men don’t talk. It has been thoroughly prejudiced
by the Iraqi government, which has all but directed the SICT to hand down the
death sentence against Hussein in the shortest possible time.
Iraq’s president Jalal Talabani told national television on September
6 that Hussein was a “war criminal and he deserves to be executed 20 times
a day for his crimes”. Prime minister Jaafari declared on Monday that
the trial was not a “research project”. All the judges had to decide,
he emphasised, was, “has this man committed crimes?” and to do so
quickly.
Article 30(b) of the SICT statute dictates that a death sentence must be carried
out within 30 days of appeals being exhausted.
On October 16, Human Rights Watch drew attention to this article in a lengthy
critique of the Hussein trial. The sentencing stipulation, it noted, “creates
the possibility that a person charged in several cases can be tried, convicted
and executed for one of those cases, before any other cases are subject to public
trial, and as such is likely to deprive victims, witnesses and the Iraqi people
as a whole of the opportunity to conclusively establish which individuals were
legally responsible for some of the worst human rights violations in Iraq’s
history. The execution of convicted individuals while other charges are pending
against them means that there may never be a public accounting of the evidence
for and against them in relation to these events.”
The Washington Post commented on October 18: “The length and complexity
of the Milosevic trial helped convince Iraqi prosecutors that they needed to
concentrate on a few key events rather than attempt to cover the full range
of alleged atrocities during Hussein’s 24-year rule, legal experts and
observers said.”
The paper ignored the fact that the US occupation authority created the precursor
to SICT, wrote its initial statutes and selected the chief investigative judge
and four other judges to preside over the trial. The Bush administration decided
to exclude the UN from any role in the Hussein trial in order to guarantee the
tightest possible control over the proceedings.
The case against Hussein and other Baathists has been prepared from the beginning
by a liaison office made up of lawyers and advisors from the US, Britain and
Australia—all countries whose governments are themselves guilty of war
crimes for the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation. The New York Times noted
on Tuesday that “the liaison office has been the real power behind the
tribunal, advising, and often deciding, on almost every facet of its work, always
behind a shield of anonymity”. The SICT’s activities are funded
by $138 million from Washington.
The stench of illegitimacy that surrounds the Hussein trial has produced a
remarkable state of affairs. In stark contrast to the gloating coverage of Hussein’s
capture 22 months ago, the Bush administration and the US media provided virtually
no commentary as the date of his trial approached. Had the White House wanted
to, it would have gone out of its way to make the event a focus of attention.
The muted reportage reflects the fear in Washington that Hussein’s prosecution
may prove to be another factor in intensifying anti-occupation opposition and
the armed insurgency against US and government military forces.
The American manipulation of the trial can only undermine the Shiite and Kurdish
parties that make up the Iraqi government. Many of their supporters already
regard the promises of Iraqi sovereignty and independence from Washington as
a sham. Among millions of Shia and Kurdish workers and rural poor—who
suffered at the hands of the Baathists and continue to suffer appalling conditions—the
limited character of the charges against Hussein can only add to their anger
and frustration.
The trial will also compound the anger among Sunnis. In the two-and-a-half
years since the invasion of Iraq, and contrary to its expectations, US imperialism
has been unable to enlist the collaboration of any significant section of the
Sunni Arab establishment that underpinned Hussein’s regime, let alone
support from the broader Sunni population.
The voting in last weekend’s referendum on a draft constitution revealed
the extent of the divisions. While Sunnis overwhelmingly voted no, Kurds and
Shiites predominantly voted yes. Amid rising sectarian tensions, many Sunnis
consider that they have been marginalised and have nothing to lose by backing
the insurgency.
Hussein’s lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi has made clear in press statements
that the central thrust of the legal defence will be a rejection of the court’s
legitimacy. He plans to demand that the entire trial be adjourned while a motion
to dismiss the case is prepared.
Amid concerns over the impact of the trial, US officials have been applying
pressure on the Iraqi government not to televise today’s proceedings.
If it is broadcast, there is likely to be a 20-minute delay between filming
and transmission. As the New York Times blandly stated, this “appeared
intended to allow the tribunal to censor any untoward developments in the court—an
outburst from Mr Hussein perhaps, or a security breakdown”.
The Hussein trial is shaping up to be another political debacle for the Bush
administration and the US occupation of Iraq.