Well, my point of view will, I suspect, be quite controversial... but that's not entirely unusual
. Brace yourself for a long read, however
.
Saddam Hussein's defence is that the court has no authority, because he's still the president. This may seem fairly silly, really - I mean, come on, the president is the one who has the powers of a president (which is not Saddam), and the court's authority is defined by the fact that it can sentence him. So obviously, his argumetns are flawed. However, like I mentioned in another thread, this is really the best approach he can use - this is a show trial, he's already been pronounced guilty even before it begun, so the best strategy for him is to at least go down with honour... and stall things as long as humanly possible. Unlike those fellas at Guantanamo, Saddam hasn't been cut off from the world outside - he knows what's going on in Iraq, and he probably realises better than any man out there just how unstable the situation in Iraq is. Fact is, America can't stay in Iraq forever - and at this particular moment at least, it appears as though the Iraqi government may not survive for long when America does withdraw. Also, I've recently heard in the news (only from one source, so it's not exactly something I'd consider certifiably true) that the Iraqi government is negotiating with the Baath party... so I wouldn't be surprised if one day they announce that Saddam will be sent into exile as part of some kind of peace deal with his party. All in all, Saddam Hussein has a lot of good reasons to stall - and no reason whatsoever to cooperate with the court, given that no matter what he says and does, he'll still be declared guilty in the end.
But all of the above entirely misses the point. I feel that there's something much more important to point out - from a legal point of view, this trial is a despicable sham - just like all the other war crimes trials to date, as a matter of fact.
Bear in mind, I'm neither defending nor justifying the things Saddam Hussein's government has done. He's done a hell of a lot of harm, and that's the reason why I supported this war from the start. However, we gotta be honest - if it ain't lawful, it ain't justice. And this trial is not lawful.
Think about it this way. Every day, you go to a nearby forest and collect firewood for some reason. You do this for years. Then one day some ecologist comes by, sees the firewood-less forest, and for some reason lobbies the government to outlaw firewood collection. The government agrees. Firewood collection is now against the law... but they don't try you for it. Why? Because you didn't commit a crime - you collected firewood
before it was illegal.
It's the same thing with all these war crimes trials, starting right from the post WWII trials. How can you justify trying someone for "war crimes", when what he did was not a crime at the time when he did it? Heck - we have treaties about war crimes now... but the people who do these things aren't actually signatories to these treaties. As such, they perpetrate genocide and various massacres - but they
never commit any crimes in doing so. Now, you might think that war crimes being so serious, you can't afford to let such people get away with it, no matter what the legalities are. That's understandable, because the things these people did really are vile... but if you let the government violate such rules once, even if it doesn't affect you, you lose any guarantee you had that they won't ever do it
to you. It just ain't worth it - no matter if it's Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Hitler, or even Stalin. The law itself must always be considered more sacred than our duty to repay someone for a given crime.
Note, furthermore, that by Iraqi law - the very same law by which Saddam Hussein is now supposedly being tried - the president is immune to prosecution. Again - you cannot possibly justify such a trial, because you're breaking the most elementary definition of justice... in the name of justice. So it's not justice - it's pure and simple revenge. And yeah, the Iraqi people have a hell of a lot to be vengeful about - but revenge is immoral, no matter what.
Finally, there is one exceedingly important aspect that people invariably either forget about, or completely misunderstand, namely - the effect of such trials on
other dictators. I remember reading more than a few articles suggesting that when you punish one dictator, you discourage other dictators from seizing power. Kinda like the death penalty for murder, right? Wrong - it's the exact opposite. A murderer knows that no matter what he does, he'll never be completely safe. Once he commits murder, justice will always be after him. But a dictator - that's a different story entirely. A dictator, when he seizes power, is not only perpetrating a crime - he's also seizing the tools he can use to prevent justice from catching up. So unlike the death penalty for murder, punishing dictators does not work to prevent others from imitating them (not unless you'd be willing to attack
every country with a dictatorship - and there's far too many for that). It's worse than that, though - by punishing dictators, not only do you not discourage others, but in fact you force them to continue their crimes.
Just imagine, there you are: you're the vile, despicable dictator of some country in the middle of nowhere. Everybody hates you - and with good reason. Still, you're getting old, and you're thinking it might be nice to retire... only, how? If you step down from power and stay in your country, you'll be dead in a week. You can make a deal with your people - give them democracy, and in return they'll promise not to try you. Hey, Pinochet tried that... now he's being tried, because the people he made a deal with turned out to be liars. So, what other options do you have? Well, maybe you can go into exile... this is the point where you look around to find out what happened to other people in your position. And, as of the late 20th century, things are not looking good - if you go abroad, the media will start a circus around you, reminding everybody about what a bastard you are. The new government of your country will demand your extradition - and since nobody likes to give shelter to evil bastards, you
will be extradited. So you're dead.
No thanks, you decide. You're staying in power to the end of your life, even if it means killing another million people just to keep the revolution at bay.
For me, this is the crux of the matter. It's not just that we don't have the legal authority to punish these people. It's not just that we have to violate the very idea of justice in order to punish them. It's all about the people that
we condemn to death in the name of revenge. Right before this war in Iraq begun, for a moment it looked as though there was a chance that Saddam Hussein would go into exile of his own free will. He was negotiating with various nations in this regard, and some of these nations turned to America to find out what President Bush's stance would be on this matter. The response? Saddam Hussein gives aid to terrorists. We won't guarantee his safety, and we'll still be going after him... but we'd appreciate it if he did leave and save us from going to war. Not exactly a reassuring message - so he stayed in power to the bitter end. And that's the real pity - that every time it comes down to removing some dictator from power, we are willing to kill thousands of innocent people (even if we don't kill them directly - if we're responsible for their deaths, then we did in fact kill them) just so that we can remove him from power
and kill him. But if we're willing to kill so many people just to punish this one guy... how exactly are we better than him?
In conclusion - it's really not a pleasant thought that someone out there can give the order to kill millions of people and be secure in the knowledge that he won't be punished. But if not punishing him means saving the lives of further millions - then let's leave his punishment to God.
. I mean, if the US had the ability (and the determination) to remove from power every dictator in the world - then punishing former dictators would serve a purpose. However, the US doesn't have the resources to simultaneously commit themselves to the occupation of two countries, let alone the 20-30 countries worldwide ruled by dictators. It would take the US half a dozen two-term presidents working exclusively towards this goal to make the world dictator-free... and even that improbable vision assumes the US would be willing to go after their own allies, and that no new dictators would appear during this time.
