The Hussein Verdict: Justice Or Show Trial?
You can guess where I stand. Interesting dichotomy at the NY Times, where Gail Collins, predictably, is unhappy:
Saddam Hussein’s horrendous crimes deserve exemplary punishment. During his own dictatorship, that would have meant a gruesome death, after a staged trial or no trial.
In an Iraq fully liberated from his evil thrall, it might have been something very different — an exemplary exercise in the rule of law, aimed at holding Mr. Hussein fully accountable, but also at healing and educating a nation he so ruthlessly divided.
Regrettably, yesterday’s sentence to death by hanging in a case involving the execution of 148 Shiites in the 1980s fell somewhere short of that goal. Mr. Hussein got a fairer trial than he ever would have allowed in his courts. But Iraq got neither the full justice nor the full fairness it deserved. President Bush overreached in calling the trial “a milestone in the Iraqi people’s efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law.”
…but her own paper’s reporting undermines her thesis:
The yearlong trial that ended yesterday with a sentence of death by hanging for Saddam Hussein had serious legal flaws that left doubts about whether he was allowed to present a full defense, international legal experts said.
Lawyers and human rights advocates broadly agreed that the Iraqi tribunal’s proceedings frequently fell short of international standards for war crimes cases. But even critics of the trial said the five Iraqi judges who heard the case had made a reasonable effort to conduct a fair trial in the face of sustained pressure from Iraqi political leaders for a swift death sentence. American lawyers pointed to substantial evidence offered by the prosecution implicating Mr. Hussein in the crimes against humanity with which he had been charged.
“Did this meet the standards of international justice?” asked Jonathan Drimmer, who teaches war crimes law at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington. “The answer is no. But to look at the ultimate verdict, it certainly is consistent with the evidence presented.”
Miranda Sissons, a senior associate at the International Center for Transitional Justice, a group that has severely criticized some of the trial proceedings, said, “This was not a sham trial,” and added, “The judges are doing their best to try this case to an entirely new standard for Iraq.”
That’s more than good enough for me…
Justice or Show Trial?
Well, both.
Doubtless you will be a happy man on January 1 when Gail Collins relinquishes her job to someone else.
However, I’m confused (or, as I’ve learned to tell my wife: I’m conflicted — somehow being conflicted sounds better to the other gender than being confused): there doesn’t seem to be a lot of daylight between the editorial and the new story. Both admit that the process was less than perfect, but the result was what it should be. Am I missing something?
The difference is in the conclusion drawn with the same data. Collins:
…vs. the reporting:
One suspects that, even with the flaws, Collins agrees with the professor that justice was ultimately served. However, she can’t quite bring herself to say anything that might give credit to the evil Bush regime…
But peter, you say Collins is relinquishing the job? Oh, happy day, indeed! Do you know that for a fact or are you just teasing?…
Gail Collins will relinquish her position on 1/1/07 —
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003252624
In googling Gail Collins, I learned that the ex-wife of Felix Pappalardi (of Mountain fame) was also name Gail Collins — apparently she shot him to death when she found out he was having an affair with a 27 year old — must be a different Gail Collins. Or so one would hope.
But you left out the bad news…she’s returning as a columnist, and handing over the reins to one of her flunkies. D’oh!…
When it comes to high profile crimes against humanity trials — Saddam, Rwanda, Millosevic, Eichmann, Nuremberg — there is no possible way that the jury can be unbiased, whether its a jury comprised of the former victims, as with Saddam and Eichmann, or an international tribunal. After all, if an international body is trying a leader, then an international bodt has most likely approved military action to remove the leader (almost as rigorous as, if not more than, a trial). Thus, everyone involved in the trial probably already has their mind made up.
But if a “fair” trial is impossible because everyone has witnessed the evidence directly, then there doesn’t really need to be a trial at all, much less a “fair” one.
“…ex-wife of Felix Pappalardi (of Mountain fame)…”
Huh – I thought he was the lead singer of The Young Rascals (later named The Rascals). Must’ve gotten him confused with someone else.
Aaron, spot on
You’re confusing Felix Cavallieri (of Rascals fame) with Felix Pappalardi (of Mountain fame) –
On a similar note: my wife works for a guy whose cellphone number is 867-5309 — apparently he gets calls in the middle of the night from drunks calling his number –