The trial of Saddam Hussein and seven co-defendants that began three months ago has been notable for disruptions, with repeated histrionics from Saddam and his fellow accused, the failure of witnesses to appear, the still unsolved murders of two defense lawyers and the resignation this month of chief judge, Rizgar Mohammed Amin.
Some observers now say that it was a mistake to try the Baathist leaders in Iraq. Among them are some international human rights groups, many of whom have spent the past few decades collecting material on the abuses of Saddam’s regime in hopes of an eventual trial. They prefer the proven credibility of an international tribunal such as the one now trying former Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic. But most Iraqis do not agree. They believe it is essential that Saddam’s regime be tried in Iraq by the Iraqi people. What they seek is not revenge. They want their former dictator to explain his conduct to the people he once enslaved and to seek justice from them. The problems that have so far confronted this trial are a direct reflection of the troubles into which the country has been plunged by the unplanned US intervention and the lack of planning for a postwar Iraq. Rather than focus on the shortcomings of the process, it is surely more appropriate to applaud the Iraqis for making it work as well as it has so far.
Now, however, the time has come to focus on what it really important in this trial — the evidence. The new chief judge, Rauf Abdul Rahman, has made it clear that he will no longer tolerate the shenanigans of Saddam and his fellow accused. When the defense team walked out after one of their numbers was excluded for disrespect to the court, Abdul Rahman appointed replacements for the entire group. When Saddam’s half brother Barzan Al-Tikriti was similarly removed and Saddam demanded that he also be allowed to leave the court, Abdul Rahman agreed but announced his intention to continue the trial with or without the presence of the accused.
This disciplined approach is right and proper. The former chief judge had made Herculean efforts to be fair to all parties but his efforts were abused in the most outlandish manner. Much of the evidence that is being presented has never been heard before. Defense lawyers ought to be challenging and testing the evidence as much as they can, but there can be no question, no challenge whatsoever as to the validity of the trial itself.
There is no one in Iraq who lacks an opinion of Saddam and his Baathist regime. This trial, however, is not about opinions. It is about facts. Anything that gets in the way of establishing the truth, that seeks to muddle or disrupt the process must be stopped. Whatever their prejudices, Iraqis need to stand back and consider the evidence as it unfolds. Whether they benefited or suffered under Saddam’s dictatorship, they should be taking as dispassionate a view as possible of everything that is revealed by witnesses. Iraq’s future as a country, unified under the rule of law, depends on the justice of this trial.
