Saddam Hussein's Execution II

The thesis of the previous essay was that there is much more to American power in the world than military force, that we have become enamored of this military force of late, and that such exclusive focus on our military force will, similarly to the situation of the family abuser, eventuate in long-term trauma for the abuser as well as the abused. In this essay, I want to speak of the "justice" received by Saddam Hussein and to ruminate about the American future in Iraq. That I need a second essay to do this is somewhat tragic because there are so many other things, and good things at that, happening in this country that really deserve note. Perhaps, then, this will be my pledge: I will cease writing about Iraq after this essay in order to focus on more life-affirming things happening all around me.

A Word on Saddam's Trial

Any doubt that Saddam's execution was exactly what President Bush wanted can be dispelled by reading his words spoken directly after the capture of Saddam three years ago. He said repeatedly that Saddam should pay the "ultimate" penalty. This was a not-so-subtle reference to being executed. Because the trial took place through institutions set up by us (or is it US), the occupying force, and since Saddam was held during trial in Camp Cropper near the Baghdad Airport by the Americans, Iraqi supporters of Saddam or many Iraqi nationalists might be forgiven for thinking that the US was the motive force behind the execution of their leader. Was the trial mere window-dressing, however?

The most detailed treatment of Saddam's trial I have read is the 97-page report compiled by Human Rights Watch, which had observers at the trial and which interviewed as many of the people connected with the trial as it could. When their report came out a few weeks ago conservatives were quick to pounce on it because, as is well-known, Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty. But after you get beyond the rhetoric, which is principally what public discourse consists of, and actually read the report, you learn that the report actually documents significant administrative, procedural and substantive deficiencies in the trial of Saddam. Some of these lacks happened simply because the administrative and legal infrastructure of post-invasion Iraq is still so tentative that the kinds of protections afforded to defendants in the United States or in International Courts simply were not available. But, on the other hand, Saddam was being tried under international criminal law, and the mere trial on those grounds implies a commitment to international process that was not observed.

Let me be quick to add that if full process were complied with, the verdict might have been the same. Indeed, it probably would have been the same. But that is never an excuse for cutting back on the protections afforded by impartial justice. For example, even if we have a pretty good idea that a serial murderer will receive the death penalty in the United States, we still make sure he has a trial, with duly selected jury members, with properly compensated defense counsel, with rights of appeal on the basis of a trial transcript preserved and certified, etc. Indeed, one of the things driving current death penalty debate in the US is not simply DNA evidence, but whether representation by less-than-fully competent counsel is a violation of defendant's constitutional rights.

Three Issues from the Trial of Saddam

Let me point to three issues that Human Rights Watch indicated that severely compromised the trial of Saddam Hussein. First, was the murder of several defense counsel, which resulted from the fact that the court was not able to assure their safety. I recall reading about these things as they occurred, but the report goes into them in more detail. What quality defense counsel will represent someone if you knew that you or your family might summarily be killed because of this? Second was the reality of no trial transcript. As the Human Rights Watch observers report, even though there were trial reporters, the reporters often didn't type anything and frequently only summarized the general flow of the testimony. Thus, there really wasn't a usable trial transcript for appeal or even to see what had taken place. Third, was a substantive concern. Since Saddam would be tried under international criminal law, experts on this subject would need not only to be retained but evidence of this activity had to be collected and presented in accordance with the difficult proof standards of criminal law. As the report says, if investigation of Saddam's actions in 1982, for which he was on trial, were properly done, the world would have benefited--because we all would have seen the precise nature of the workings of Saddam's security apparatus. We would know who did what and when, which orders were given by whom, what kinds of torture, killing or imprisonment was allowed, which 'legal' people were involved with decisions, etc. Investigation of crimes against humanity, for which he was convicted, is a slow and often torturous process. But one of the virtues of the process is that it lays open, for all to see, exactly what happened.

This did not occur for Saddam's trial. the 600-page dossier prepared by the investigative judge (they have an inquisitorial system) only had the vaguest references to the kinds of organization that pulled off the 1982 killings. Thus, the world will be deprived of the knowledge of the workings of one of the masters of cruelty of the 20th century. Perhaps you might say that this is a good thing; but many people who lost relatives or loved ones in Saddam's rages would like to know how it happened. That will probably never come to light now.

Conclusion--The Future

I have had a recurring (waking) nightmare of late. It is that Saddam Hussein would be executed, that his execution would trigger extreme Sunni rage against the United States, that the United States, because of its domestic political needs, would be debating and approving a troop increase just at the time when the Sunni rage was peaking, that we would send 50,000 more fresh-faced recruits into the middle of harm's way (Baghdad and vicinity) and that the American military would begin to experience double digit deaths per day in the near future. The first one or two parts of this nightmare have already taken place. Now we will see if we are on the inexorable course to the others. Maybe, in the last analysis, the reason that President Bush has been silent in the wake of a deteriorating Iraq is that he has painted himself into a very small corner. Sometimes vaunting your own power has a tendency to do that.

2312