The Crimes and Punishment of Saddam Hussein; Was Justice Served?

Ottawa Citizen Special
Wednesday, January 03, 2007

There are few people who would deny that Saddam Hussein was a monster. The evidence was his many acts of mass murder, crimes against humanity and genocide.
Yet, as someone who has immersed himself in the global struggle for and study of international human rights and humanitarian law, I was deeply troubled and conflicted by the trial and speedy execution of the former Butcher of Baghdad.
The question for those who deeply care about the future not only of Iraq, but the development of international humanitarian and human rights law, is this: Was justice served for all communities that were victims of his brutal regime, and did it serve the cause of truth and reconciliation in this troubled land that was once the cradle of human civilization?
Saddam Hussein was tried and convicted, and executed last week, for a revenge attack against the entire population of a small Shiite village, Dujail, where local residents mounted an assassination attempt on Saddam's motorcade in 1982. In the days that followed, hundreds of villagers were detained and severely tortured.
Of the detainees, about 100 men were referred to the Revolutionary Court and given death sentences by the chief justice of the court (who apparently has shared the same fate as Saddam) and executed. About 48 others who had been sentenced had already died under torture.
The Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal tried eight other defendants along with Saddam in the Dujail trial. The leading international human rights organizations in the world, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have severely criticized the trial process as failing to satisfy international fair-trial standards. There was increasing evidence that political interference undermined the impartiality and independence of the tribunal.
The first presiding judge resigned and the appointment of another one was blocked by the government. Three defence lawyers were assassinated during the trial, and Saddam was denied access to his legal counsel during the first year after his arrest. For those who did survive, their complaints about the process were mostly dismissed by the tribunal.
Even more questionable was the appeal process. The appeals chamber announced its confirmation of the sentences on Dec. 26, just three weeks after the written opinion was handed down by the trial chamber. It ordered that the executions had to be carried out within 30 days of ratification by the president of Iraq or his delegate. The appeals chamber had given the defence 11 days to study the written opinion of the trial chamber. The government decided to execute Saddam just days after the confirmation of the sentences and minutes before the start of Eid al-Adha, one of the most important days in the Islamic calendar.
A fundamental test of a society and its commitment to democratic order and human rights is how it treats its worst offenders even if they are monsters in the eyes of most citizens. This is especially true for Iraq, which is a society daily tortured by sectarian hatred, violence and mass killings.
Some European countries, the Vatican and leading human rights organizations have also voiced their opposition to the death penalty -- even for monsters such as Saddam -- because it violates the right to life, and constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, especially if it comes after an unfair trial. The Canadian government seems to have remained silent.
One could also argue that perhaps the most convincing argument against the death penalty should be found in societies like Iraq where life has been so cheapened. It is fatal for a government desperately clinging to its democratic legitimacy to cheapen it further with hasty executions that could help stir sectarian bloodlust. The situation was drastically worsened by the taunting of the dictator by his executioners moments before his hanging.
If this is not bad enough, the trial, conviction and execution may even have hindered what slim chances there are of truth and reconciliation among Iraq's warring factions.
At the time of his execution, Saddam and some of his most cruel henchmen were also to stand trial before the same tribunal, together with six others, on the most serious international crime of genocide arising from what was called the Anfal campaign in 1988 against the Kurdish minority.
In this campaign of horrors, it is alleged that more than 180,000 Kurds were massacred and others were subject to torture, killings, mass deportations and other gross human rights abuses.
While it is expected that this trial will continue against the other accused, the execution of the person charged with command responsibility for this most serious of international crimes is a setback for the cause of truth and reconciliation not only for the Kurdish minority, but also for Sunni and Shiite communities. It denies them the opportunity to fully understand the extent of evil that can flow from power unrestrained by law and human rights.
There is now a growing fear that instead of the hope that the trial of one of modern history's worst dictators being a beacon for the promotion of international criminal justice, it may instead have put the future of Iraq's justice system in doubt and worse become a catalyst for more sectarian violence.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2007