| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Iraqi Judges Get Trained for War Crimes |
| 2004-01-05 |
| Judge Qasem Ayash, one of 100 Iraqi jurists fresh out of a crash course in international law, says it was a waste of time. "I have been a judge for 32 years and they are teaching me the ABCs of law? I ought to be teaching them," the head of the Appellate Court says with contempt after attending the two-week course organized by the U.S. Defense Strategy for International Studies. Has he ever tried a war criminal? No. Would he sit on a tribunal trying Saddam Hussein and others? No again. Ayash notes that several judges thought to be working with the Americans have been murdered. The fear among jurists is that Saddam’s supporters would kill them just for sitting in judgment on the ousted dictator. Surly and a coward — just what you want in a judge. This is exactly what worries human rights groups and international jurists. They fear that the Iraqi judiciary, after four decades under the thumb of the Baath regime, has neither the experience nor the expertise to conduct a complex trial for crimes against humanity. They say only a U.N.-led tribunal has international legitimacy and can guarantee fair trials. Just like for Slobo. Carla del Ponte has almost single-handedly rehabilitated Slobo for the Serbians. Ayash, 62, doesn’t see the problem. "They will bring the accused; they will bring his file. The judge reads it carefully and decides whether he ought to be charged or not," he said. "There’s nothing to it. It’s like trying any other criminal case." Try him fair and hang him fair! It’s not that simple, say those with experience of war crimes trials. Typically, they say, trials before Iraqi criminal courts lasted a few days - sometimes just a morning, or even an hour. And courts often handled 20 to 30 cases a day. "It just shows you the summary nature of the trials which took place and that’s the norm and that’s not being questioned by the judges," said Hania Mufti, of the New York-based Human Rights Watch. "Therefore, what kind of standards are they thinking of using in terms of these hugely complex cases?" What exactly about Saddam’s case is complex? Iraqi judges and lawyers, as well as U.S. officials here, insist Iraqis can handle it because they’re recovering a long tradition of independence and impartiality - sometimes even under Saddam’s repressive rule. And if they need any outside help, they say, they’ll ask for it. So simplise! Three days before Saddam was captured by U.S. forces on Dec. 13, the Iraqi Governing Council announced the creation of a war crimes tribunal to try former members of Saddam’s Baath regime on cases stemming from mass executions of Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s, as well as the suppression of uprisings by Kurds and Shiite Muslims after the 1991 Gulf War. The Iraqi statute, drafted by Iraqi and American lawyers, emulates the International Criminal Court and provides for foreign judges to join the bench if the Governing Council so wishes. Iraqi officials say they’re determined to be in charge and to seek outside help in areas where they lack expertise, such as in pre-trial investigations and forensic data. "The presence of But, but, but, don’t they know that they need the UN’s blessing? Salem Chalabi said that under tribunal rules, prosecutors and judges together will conduct the cases and prosecutors will oversee the judges during the investigation phase. Much of the investigative work will be handled by international legal experts, Chalabi said, and international monitors will make sure appropriate decisions are made and cases aren’t rushed. Just keep Carla del Ponte as far away as possible. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #4 They say only a U.N.-led tribunal has international legitimacy and can guarantee fair trials. Uh huh. Well, here's Mark Steyn's take on this: "Up to the moment Saddam popped out of the spider-hole, the international jet set's line was that deplorable as Saddam's rule might be -- gassing Kurds, feeding folks feet-first into industrial shredders, etc. -- it was strictly an internal matter for the Iraqi people. The minute the old boy was in U.S. custody, the international jet set's revised position was that gassing Kurds, feeding folks into industrial shredders and so forth were crimes against the whole world and certainly not a matter for the Iraqi people. Instead, we need a (drumroll, please) United Nations-mandated international tribunal." |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-1-5 10:21:39 AM |
| #3 Clearly, International Law is not about punishment and revenge, but rehabilitation. They have done such a great job with Milosovic that he can return to his natural capacity as a Serbian political leader. I am looking forward to to Saddam being rehabilitated to his rightful position a benevolent leader of the Iraqi peoples. They will need occasional discipline for their own good. And I am encouraged by Howard Duck's suggestions to send Osama to the ICC (whether he is alive or not). The Arab culture needs a properly rehabilitated hero. |
| Posted by: john 2004-1-5 9:24:17 AM |
| #2 What exactly about Saddam’s case is complex? The steps necessary to keep evidence of UN and French complicity in his crimes. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-1-5 7:52:50 AM |
| #1 An Iraqi criminal,tried in an Iraqi court no problem for me. Why is it any conceren of the U.N.? Considering that there are probably truck loads of evidence,a trial is likley just to keep everything legit. |
| Posted by: raptor 2004-1-5 7:48:35 AM |