| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Saddam Has Legal Options for His Defense |
| 2003-12-30 |
| Sure he does. As Fred said, we’ll try him fair, and then hang him fair. Even Saddam Hussein has legal options. The deposed Iraqi leader could harken back to the trials of Nazi leaders and Japanese commanders after World War II to fight expected charges of genocide and war crimes, claiming he never personally killed anyone or that he had no control over atrocities committed in his name, U.S. defense lawyers and scholars say. The Nazis got executed, most of ’em. Sammie might want to reconsider a Nuremburg style trial. Saddam also might look to the present, and adopt the tactics of deposed Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic. On trial now before a U.N. war crimes tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands, Milosevic has essentially thumbed his nose at the prosecutors and judges and uses the sessions to make windy speeches. After which he’ll be convicted and sent to a French spa. Any trial for Saddam may be a long time off, and it is not clear where or how he will be called to answer for alleged crimes dating back decades. But when the expected trial comes, Saddam can choose from a few basic legal strategies. All of which will be dismissed pretty quickly if he’s tried in an Iraqi court. The first step for Saddam’s defense team will be a challenge to the authority of whatever body puts him on trial. That attack will be easier to make if Americans are involved in organizing or underwriting the trial, but a smart defense lawyer would use the same tactic to challenge even a trial conducted wholly by Iraqis, lawyers say. "Denied, Mr. Clark. Next!" Another strategy would be for Saddam to plead insanity or infirmity to try to head off a trial altogether, although lawyers say that seems unlikely. His teeth seemed to be pretty healthy on that video. Assuming there is a trial, Saddam could claim he committed no crimes, or that his actions were justified to put down insurrection or defend his country. Or, as in the trials arising from World War II, Saddam could try to shift the blame or turn the tables on his accusers. In Saddam’s case, he could claim Western countries including the United States willingly sold him weaponry and chemicals, and turned a blind eye to the consequences. We sold him about 0.4% of what he bought. USSR/Russia sold him about 57%. He doesn’t want to go there. Saddam might head off some charges, or at least make pursuing them uncomfortable, by pointing fingers at U.S. government figures or companies that had dealings with Iraq, said Douglass Cassel, director of the Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern University School of Law. ``His lawyer could say, ’We were the U.S. ally against Iran, and Secretary Rumsfeld himself came here to make friends,’’’ Cassel said, referring to meetings in 1983 and 1984 between then-White House Middle East envoy Donald Rumsfeld and Iraqi officials. ``’We’re going to have to subpoena Rumsfeld.’’’ Go ahead. I’d love to see Rummy gouge his eyeballs out right there. Saddam also could challenge the evidence against him, arguing that the paper trail showing his culpability is weak and witnesses unreliable, lawyers said. He could exploit any forensic lapses in the documentation of mass graves or other evidence of murder. Other than the 300,000 or so skeletal remains, they mean. ``Then, there is everything from denial that these things happened to ’I didn’t know my underlings were performing these atrocities,’’’ said Donna E. Arzt, a Syracuse University law professor who assisted the prosecutor in a special war crimes court in Sierra Leone. Some top Japanese military leaders pleaded ignorance after World War II. Notably, Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita, charged with wartime crimes in the Philippines, testified that he never ordered atrocities and that if crimes occurred he was powerless to stop them. He still was convicted and sentenced to death. Ah, somebody noticed! ``One very reasonable possibility for Saddam is the I-wasn’t-really-in-charge defense,’’ said Paul Rosenzweig, a scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation who has written about past war crimes trials. ``That was rejected on both factual and philosophical levels,’’ in Yamashita’s case, and Saddam would probably have no luck with it either, Rosenzweig said. Still, Saddam has nothing to lose by putting on a vigorous defense. He’s not likely to win his freedom, but he could save his life. Only if Euros try him. If the US or Iraq tries him he’s going to swing from a rope. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #5 I like the idea of hanging him from those crossed swords on the military parade grounds. Can you picture his lifeless body way up there? Let the Iraqis take pot shots at his body. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-12-30 1:09:23 PM |
| #4 In Saddam’s case, he could claim Western countries including the United States willingly sold him weaponry and chemicals, and turned a blind eye to the consequences. Uhhhh, yeah. Civilian-use helicopters appropriated for military use really gives the U.S a black eye? I don't think so. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-12-30 12:13:00 PM |
| #3 Douglass Cassel, director of the Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern University School of Law.. Uh, Dougie? Any prior comments on the lack of human rights shown by Sammy, Uday, Qusay, and their merry band of thugs? Didn't think so....so STFU |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-12-30 11:23:01 AM |
| #2 Hanged. At the gates of Baghdad. And left to rot. |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-12-30 11:15:16 AM |
| #1 I predict that Saddam will be tried in Iraq, by Iraqis, and will be a rather brief and simple affair compared to our own elaborate, fussy rituals. His crimes against the Iraqi people will be enumerated; he will be confronted by surviving victims and relatives of those he killed, and offered a chance to apologize for his wrongdoing; then he will be taken out and shot. Simple, straightforward, effective, and in his particular case, not the least bit unjust. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2003-12-30 6:01:19 AM |