Sunday, October 23, 2005
Justice in Baghdad
Once again, Anne Applebaum writes an important op-ed piece, this time on Justice in Baghdad, on the Iraqi trial of Saddam Hussein. I must say, I've been astonished and disgusted that human rights groups like Human Rights Watch have seemed to be more concerned with Saddam's rights as a defendant than they are in the necessity to hold these trials and expose what he did to the people of Iraq. They seem more worried about the possibility that Saddam might be executed at the end of these trials than they are in bringing out the truth of the atrocities he committed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"I must say, I've been astonished and disgusted that human rights groups like Human Rights Watch have seemed to be more concerned with Saddam's rights as a defendant than they are in the necessity to hold these trials and expose what he did to the people of Iraq. They seem more worried about the possibility that Saddam might be executed at the end of these trials than they are in bringing out the truth of the atrocities he committed."
ReplyDeleteWell, yes, we don't have political trials. We don't believe in show trials, do we?
Trials, in our system of justice, are about the guilt of the accused.
Nothing more, nothing less.
They are not-- and I can't stress how dangers it would be to flip to a policy of supporting otherwise -- trials intended for political purposes.
Truth Commissions and similar entities are not trials, and vice versa. Different purposes entirely. And G-d forbid we ever start using trials as political demonstrations, or make their primary goal making political points, rather than ruling properly on the guilt or innocence of the accused, and sentencing solely on that basis, not on the basis of any political point. Shades of Lenin.
And to be clear: I'm absolutely all for publicizing Saddam's evil crimes.
But that's absolutely not what his trial should be about -- publicity. What a horrific start we'd bring to the new Iraqi justice system if the lesson we taught were that the primary purpose of trials was to make political points. To publicize Saddam's crimes, have a Truth Commission, or Investigating Commission, or such. It's not as if there's no precedent, or some sort of impossibility to doing such.
So the trial isn't supposed to detail what he's accused of? I don't understand, Gary. How can this trial fail to be political? It's outlining the crimes he's accused of and trying to show how the responsibility lies with him, isn't?
ReplyDelete"So the trial isn't supposed to detail what he's accused of?"
ReplyDeleteOf course it should, but the point of the trial is to convict him, not to Send Messages, or provide propaganda. Or, at least, that's the usual Western view of what a trial should be.
"How can this trial fail to be political?"
As best they can. Certainly I can't agree that anyone should be cheering it being made more political, rather than less. Again, the purpose should not be to provide anti-Saddam propaganda, even if Anne Applebaum, who of all people should know, and for whom I have the greatest respect, disagree.
As I said: getting the facts out to the world and to Iraq is not what we hold trials for; that's what should be done by a Truth Commission. But I'm just repeating myself now.
Hmm, I guess I just don't agree with you. I was under the impression that the Nuremberg Trials did get out a fair amount of information about Nazi atrocities and war crimes. The Eichmann trial certainly did. I agree that trials should be about the guilt or innocence of the accused, but information about the alleged crimes and the connection of the accused to them are an integral part of the trial.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete