Saddam's Next Move (x 20)

Saddam Hussein has confessed to ordering executions and should be hanged "20 times," Jalal Talabani, Iraq's president, has said.

In an interview on Iraqi television on Tuesday night, Mr Talabani said that investigator who had questioned the former Iraqi president had extracted "important signed confessions" from Mr Hussein.

The former leader had confessed to ordering the "Anfal" - a campaign against Kurdish villages between 1987 and 1989 in which up to 180,000 people were reported to have been killed - Mr Talabani told Iraqia state television.

He added: "Saddam deserves a death sentence 20 times a day because he tried to assassinate me 20 times," said Mr Talabani, recalling his days as a Kurdish rebel leader.

Whole Financial Times account here. Isn't this around the time Saddam pulls a page from the Colin Ferguson playbook and insists on acting as his own attorney?

Comments

[fyodor]

But Richard Nixon once said, "If the president does it, then it is legal." 😉

[cdunlea]

"Saddam deserves a death sentence 20 times a day because he tried to assassinate me 20 times," said Mr Talabani, recalling his days as a Kurdish rebel leader.

Not that Saddam's up on my ACLU defense list (not many paranoid-delusional genocidal dictators are), but isn't the trial going to degenerate into a sham with guys like this one as judge, jury and exectioner?

[thoreau]

Given Saddam's interior decorating sensibilites, they should use a gold plated rope to hang him.

[thoreau]

cdunlea's comment is why I'm canceling my subscription!!!!

*chuckle*

(just kidding)

[cdunlea]

Yuk yuk, thoreau. Seriously, though, why bother with the expense of a show trial? Why not just throw him to the wolves (literally)? They'll be more humane.

[rafuzo]

Not that Saddam's up on my ACLU defense list (not many paranoid-delusional genocidal dictators are), but isn't the trial going to degenerate into a sham with guys like this one as judge, jury and exectioner?

As I understand the story, Talabani said Hussein confessed this to a judge (though whether it's the judge in charge of the case is not clear to me), and Talabani said even if a death warrant is issued, he won't sign it (which make the "he should swing for what he did" comments all the more inscrutable).

We've heard a lot about people getting or not getting fair trials in the war on terror - I'm interested to hear what people think constitutes a fair trial, and what evidence can be presented to the public to establish it as such.

[TallDave]

Saddam today told the press he needs to be released so he can look for "the real killers."

[Mr. Nice Guy]

t:

That was harsh. You don't know the man.

So does "20 times" apply to weekends and holidays? Or should they cut it down to "10 times" on those days?

I say they should kill Saddam an average of 100 times a week. Saturday is a make-up day and the executioner should get Sundays off.

[TallDave]

cdunlee,

I don't think it is a show trial. It's a real trial; the outcome is only known because of the overwhelming evidence. A show trial implies his guilt or innocence is irrelevant to the verdict.

It's hugely important in a symbolic sense for Iraq as they move toward rule of law for Saddam to be tried in a court.

[Peter K.]

I'd hold a grudge too if someone tried to assassinate me 20 times. Especially if they also tried to murder my comrades, friends and extended family too.

I'd be pissed too if people insisted Saddam wasn't *that* bad of dictator as far as maximum leaders go.

[independent worm]

cdunlea, I'm with ya. There is zero chance this trial ends up being anything but a farce. I won't shed any tears for Saddam, but this one is a done deal.

It will have as much semblance to a real trial as Iraq's government has to a real democracy.

[Dave W.]

I don't think it is a show trial. It's a real trial; the outcome is only known because of the overwhelming evidence. A show trial implies his guilt or innocence is irrelevant to the verdict.

I am not sure the evidence of guilt is overwhelming. What "law" is Hussein being tried under: Iraqi law of the late 1980s, ex post facto laws or "international laws." (Keep in mind that ex post facto laws are a bad thing to the American way of thinking. "International law" verdicts also come with their own jurisprudential and juridical difficulties.)

Let's say for sake of argument that Iraq had an applicable law on its books in the late 1980s (and why would they? Hussein had control over those laws, but let's say he forgot to have his attorney general sanitize the lawbooks). OK. Does he get any estoppel or statute of limitations based defense? Did the US and other nations condemn his conduct? Did they support him despite his policy? Does this mean anything?

I don't know the answers here. However, I will say that if the trial is more than a show trial then Hussein will be allowed to pursue these lines of defense, preferably publicly. He hopefully does not have ultimately legit defenses in the end, but I would rather see this established through the public, explicit deliberation of a bona fide court. That would be a real trial in this context.

[thoreau]

Dave W.-

So, your basic take is that the purpose of the trial is to establish some basis in the rule of law for the verdict and punishment that we all know to be inevitable. That's fair.

I'm no legal scholar. I don't know what the best legal justification would be, given that he got to write the laws at the time. "Crimes against humanity" seems like a good start. But the important point is that the courts establish some precedent other than "Because people with guns removed you from power, that's why we get to sentence you!"

And yes, I know, if people with guns hadn't removed him from power then the trial couldn't happen. But foreign soldiers riding in tanks distributing rations is no basis for a system of government. Supreme judicial power derives from the rule of law, not some farcical justice of the victors. If the judges go around, declaring that they have the power to do whatever they want because some guy with a gun empowered them, why, somebody else would just have a coup!

OK, enough of the satire. I think the important thing about this trial is that it be done by the books to set a precedent. That precedent alone won't make or break the future of Iraq (the fate of a nation hangs on many different factors), but it will be important nonetheless.

[Dave W.]

OK, enough of the satire. I think the important thing about this trial is that it be done by the books to set a precedent. That precedent alone won't make or break the future of Iraq (the fate of a nation hangs on many different factors), but it will be important nonetheless.

Thanks, T. This is the kind of thing I meant when I alluded to jurisdictional and juridical difficulties of "international law." How can we set up a standard when Hussein gets punished, but other bad dictators don't feel compelled to hold on to power at all costs? Can such a selective "international law" be considered fair to Hussein? How would a ruler (even a US president!) know when she is breaking this ex post facto-based "international law?" Does that matter? Plenty to have a vigorous trial about.

[bigbigslacker]

Somehow I doubt former Iraqi law had a clause that outlawed rape, murder, and genocide, "except for Saddam Hussein". That may have been the reality, but it seems unlikely it was written into law.

[Dave W.]

Somehow I doubt former Iraqi law had a clause that outlawed rape, murder, and genocide, "except for Saddam Hussein". That may have been the reality, but it seems unlikely it was written into law.

Well, I don't know very much about how Iraqi law was written in the 1980s. But, for the sake or argument, let's say Saddam (or some other dictator) did draw up a law that said "no murder, except as authorized by me." What then?

I don't know the answer, but I am very interested to know what the answer. If Saddam didn't think to play my gambit here, belive you-me, the next one will.

[peachy]

I suppose the Nuremburg trials could be considered sufficient precedent, though presumably with charges of crimes against humanity only rather than war crimes (or launching a war of aggression, though I believe the Kuwaitis requested a chance to try him on similar grounds some time ago.) The problem, of course, is that the Nuremburg trials themselves were based on ex post facto law (the war of agression and criminal organisation charges in particular) - the punishments were richly merited in most cases, and far too lenient in many, but the process itself was of marginal legality.

My suspicion, however, is that he'll be tried on straightforward criminal charges from the existing Iraqi code - murder, presumably. I can't see the defence being given a chance in court... mostly because the obvious lines of defence would be so embarrassing to the US. (And as an aside, Talibani can suck it - you don't get points for taking a principled stand against capital punishment if you just hand the death warrants to your deputy to sign.)

[Dave W.]

I can't see the defence being given a chance in court... mostly because the obvious lines of defence would be so embarrassing to the US.

This sounds like a bad thing. Is it?

[independent worm]

Well they can't, or shouldn't, be putting anybody on trial until they have a constitution.

Any charge or conviction under whatever existing laws they have now will have to be harmonized with the constitution they end up with. That harmonization may prove problematic.

This trial, in many ways, could operate to establish a great deal of respect for the new government and the new system. But if they make this about vengeance and not about the rule of law, they won't have gained very much. Saddam is already out of power and he's never coming back. So ultimately this trial is really not about him at all.

What may well be at stake is the citizens' willingness to assent to the authority of the new system. If Saddam is convicted, but protection of his rights as a defendant are given short shrift, the citizens of Iraq will have no new era to behold.

[peachy]

It depends, I suppose, on how much culpability one thinks the US - and various others - had for Hussein's extended stay in power. At the very least, it would be awfully inconvenient for the Administration to have the famous "grinning Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand" picture plastered all over the global media for months. Some of the most notorious actions of the regime (the gas attack on Halabja, the invasion of Kuwait) would be very delicate territory for the prosecution, due to the involvement of outside powers - indeed, the whole Iran-Iraq war and its immediate aftermath is probably better avoided.

From what I've gathered, the intention is to try him for a relative handful of murders at one particular location (reprisals for an assassination attempt?) and so close off the possibility of the defense dragging in the US, Kuwait, France, Saudi Arabia etc as character witnesses. After all, the prosecution only needs one conviction on a capital charge... and Hussein is guilty as hell. (This might be described as the "Capone strategy" on a huge scale - though used for a different reason.)

I personally wish that US policy would get a working over in court - the last four serious tussles we've had (both Iraqs, Afghanistan, Panama) were all against former clients gone bad... or rather, clients who were always bad, but then turned against us. The American dependence on Third World thugs is not necessarily a poor policy, though it entails a lot of "cleanup", but it is wildly incompatible with our oft-stated commitment to spreading democracy and human rights, etc - a discrepancy which is generally noted abroad, and does our affairs considerable harm.

[Seamus]

"Well they can't, or shouldn't, be putting anybody on trial until they have a constitution."

I'm pretty sure the courts in Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, etc. continued to hold criminal trials in 1776, even before they got around to writing constitutions.

[Dogzilla]

Since when is "Ordering Executions" a crime for a Chief Exectutive? It's got to be in the job description.

[independent worm]

Seamus, I don't think you got my point. This is the most important trial of a new government. It is a very public trial with a great many ramifications that go beyond the ordinary innocence/guilt of the ordinary defendant. They should wait until they've established what kind of system they're even going to have.

If they don't, they could end up holding the Hussein trial using constitutional procedures and protections that they later end up rejecting under their constitution. That would create an immediate disconnect and send a bad message to the people of Iraq.

[DB]

Since when is "Ordering Executions" a crime for a Chief Exectutive? It's got to be in the job description

Ah, but are we under any moral or legal obligation to recognize Hussein's claim to the office of chief executive? He wasn't elected; he seized power by force, through extralegal means.

Which also pretty much invalidates any laws he may have passed to protect himself and his cronies.

[cdunlea]

I'm pretty sure the courts in Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, etc. continued to hold criminal trials in 1776, even before they got around to writing constitutions.

Mass had a constitution in 1776. It wasn't the same as now, but there was one. Called the Body of Liberties, it was drafted in 1641, revised in 1691 and replaced in 1780 with the final State Constitution.

[DB]

the last four serious tussles we've had (both Iraqs, Afghanistan, Panama) were all against former clients gone bad

Iraq was a Soviet client, not an American one. That's why, when we fought them in the first Gulf war, we found ourselves going up against a bunch of Soviet equipment.

[Kahn]

I'm interested to hear what people think constitutes a fair trial, and what evidence can be presented to the public to establish it as such.

That's a really good question.

The only basis for condemning Saddam is Natural Law, and I mean that in the philosophical sense. It isn't a concept that's even fully agreed on, let alone precise. It's just the general idea that there are certain things "civilized" people shouldn't do -- and, that people "should be civilized".

From there, you get to make it up as you go along. Just like everybody else in history has had to.

I thought it was a mistake to let Saddam get a big public trial. It's got to throw gasoline on the fire of his Sunni supporters who are still fighting.

But if, in the process of "making it up as they go along" with Saddam, the Iraqis establish a clearer sense of how they want to live, well, that's a good thing for them.

[Dave W.]

It depends, I suppose, on how much culpability one thinks the US - and various others - had for Hussein's extended stay in power. At the very least, it would be awfully inconvenient for the Administration to have the famous "grinning Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand" picture plastered all over the global media for months. Some of the most notorious actions of the regime (the gas attack on Halabja, the invasion of Kuwait) would be very delicate territory for the prosecution, due to the involvement of outside powers - indeed, the whole Iran-Iraq war and its immediate aftermath is probably better avoided.

1. I don't think a mere picture of the handshake would establish much of a defense under any circumstances. Handshakes happen. Now, if there was more to it than that . . .

2. These concerns don't seem like they should be relevant to Iraqis trying to give Hussein a fair Iraqi trial in Iraq. Do you think a fair trial (in a foreign country) would deny the defendant defenses to save the US gov't from embarrassment? Wouldn't that be unfair?

3. What do you think should be more important from the US perspective:

a. fair trial for Hussein
or
b. save US from embarrassment?

4. It might shock poster db if she found out the true extent of US weapons that Hussein had. Should the Iraqis be trying to save db from this potential shock (assume she votes in the US)?