A Fair Trial - Before He's Convicted

There is a growing buzz over the trial of Saddam Hussein - particularly where it should be held, and how to ensure that it is fair. But let's be blunt - the record is patent, and no matter how fair the trial Hussein is not going to be acquitted.

If Hussein were from this country, I would want to try him here under this nation's laws - or, if necessary, under the laws that existed prior to his rule (and the associated imposition by his regime of self-serving laws). If no relevant body of law could be found, due to my nation's unfortunate history, I would suggest adopting the rules of a prior international war crimes court or tribumal and applying international humanitarian law. And if somebody from another country were to suggest that he couldn't get a fair trial here, I would likely see that as condescension.

Still, I would understand the calls for a public international trial, held in a neutral setting before an independent judge (or panel of judges), where Hussein would be able to present in full his theory of the case. But, human nature being what it is, the advocates of such a trial would be well-served to avoid suggesting that my nation would be unfair, or had prejudged the case, if they wanted to actually convince me to turn Hussein over to such a court. And I would want some degree of assurance that the "trial" wouldn't end up looking like a theater of the absurd following years of delay, like that of Milosevic.

As an outsider, for many reasons, the idea of holding Hussein's trial before a neutral international tribunal "makes sense". But if the reasons presented for such a trial condescend to the Iraqi people, I expect there to be fierce Iraqi opposition to turning Hussein over to an outside court.

Thus, to no small degree, international efforts should be focused on ensuring that Hussein's trial is fair, no matter where it is held and no matter who presides over it. It would be best if this were not a redux of the trial of Ceausescu.

Comments