FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Saddam Must Die

 

The Iraqi high tribunal has just announced the death sentence of Saddam Hussein. This should surprise no one. In fact, no other outcome was ever possible. From the moment he was captured in his underground hideout, Saddam’s fate was sealed.

Saddam Hussein and the others were convicted for crimes that happened almost 25 years ago. 148 members of the pro-Iranian Dawa Party were executed for attempting to assassinate Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. The executions followed a two year investigation, involving the torture and imprisonment of entire families, and judicial findings that 148 people were guilty of sedition for supporting Iran in the war and plotting to kill their own president.

While none of us would condone the mass execution of 148 people, we know little about what actually happened. Anonymous witnesses were brought forth, and in some cases, the witnesses did not even appear, but submitted affidavits instead. These people testified to the terrible experiences they and their loved ones had in prison. But whether they received fair trials, or were summarily executed, no one really knows. The transcript of the 1982 proceedings, and the evidence used to convict the defendants were excluded from the trial of Saddam Hussein. It’s ironic that Saddam will be executed, essentially, for the unfair way in which these people were dealt with, yet his own trial was so unfair that the earlier proceedings and evidence were inadmissible.

Many have commented on the unfairness of Saddam’s trial. Some have remarked that the trial is a political circus, searching for reasons to justify the war and the ongoing occupation. Yet few see the larger issue, which is that the court itself is illegal under international law, setting a terrible precedent that overshadows the need to avenge crimes of the Iran-Iraq war.

Let’s recall what just happened. First, there was a lot of hysteria about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, development of nuclear weapons, and support of al Qaeda. Of course, none of it was true. By 2003, Iraq had been blockaded for thirteen years and couldn’t threaten the United States or anyone else. Nevertheless, the United Nations was maneuvered into putting more and more pressure on Iraq, with weapons inspectors crawling all over the country, frustrated and blamed for their failure to find anything. This culminated in the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which threatened Iraq with “consequences” and “serious consequences” if it did not fully cooperate with the inspections. The equivocal Hans Blix could never give Iraq a clean bill of health, and his reports were read to insinuate that Iraq did indeed have something to hide.

Yet Resolution 1441 contained no enforcement provision. It had been understood that the Security Council would have to pass further resolutions on sanctions if Iraq remained in non-compliance. Even John Negroponte, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., said that Resolution 1441 contained no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity”. Washington’s threats to unilaterally attack Iraq were not well received internationally. Russia, China and France, three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, were opposed to a pre-emptive American attack. On March fifth of 2003, France, Germany, and Russia issued a joint statement vowing to block any U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force. Just two weeks later, America began the shock and awe bombing campaign.

Under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, only the Security Council can authorize military attacks to enforce U.N. resolutions. Otherwise, the use of military force is only permitted in self-defense. The Security Council did not authorize the U.S. war in Iraq. The International Court of Justice has held that preemptive attacks violate customary international law as well as the U.N. Charter. To make matters worse, at the end of the Gulf War in 1991, the United States and Iraq had agreed to a ceasefire, the terms of which were set forth in UN Resolution 687. That ceasefire was still in force when the US attacked Iraq in March of 2003. By any measure, the US attack on Iraq was illegal.

Then the United States invaded and occupied Iraq, set up a new government, and put the old government on trial. Not for weapons of mass destruction. Not for violating the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Not for violating any U.N. Security Council Resolution. In fact, the President of Iraq was held for two and a half years before he was even charged with a crime. To charge him, the occupying power had to set up a special court and create special new laws. The process was so violative of principles of international law that Kofi Annan has asked jurists around the world not to participate in it. Unlike the ad hoc tribunals in Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, the trial of Saddam Hussein has been the justice of a military victor in war. If we look back in history, the last example of that was at Nuremberg, before the United Nations was created. That’s how far the clock has been rolled back.

The American prosecutors argue, of course, that America is not putting Saddam Hussein on trial – the Iraqi people are doing so themselves. They do so, however, under the thumb of the American military, which controls every aspect of the trial, including what is broadcast on TV. Michael Sharf, a law professor at Case Western University involved in training the Iraqi judges, last month referred to a “three hundred or so page judgment” of the court which is supposed to sort out all the legal problems when it’s released. There’s little doubt that the judgment is still being translated into Arabic.

In fact, the legitimacy of the government of Iraq is itself questionable, because the elections were rigged by the US. America determined which candidates were permitted on the ballot, and funded the campaigns of its favorites. Saddam Hussein, of course, was disqualified from running. Nouri al-Maliki, an old member of the Dawa Party of Iran, won the election and is now Prime Minister of Iraq. Victor’s justice, all around.

PAUL WOLF is an attorney in Washington DC who has worked on the defense of Saddam Hussein. Documents from the case can be found at www.international-lawyers.org and at http://www.law.case.edu/saddamtrial.

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
May 25, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Melvin Goodman
A Major Win for Trump’s War Cabinet
Andrew Levine
Could Anything Cause the GOP to Dump Trump?
Pete Tucker
Is the Washington Post Soft on Amazon?
Conn Hallinan
Iran: Sanctions & War
Jeffrey St. Clair
Out of Space: John McCain, Telescopes and the Desecration of Mount Graham
John Laforge
Senate Puts CIA Back on Torture Track
David Rosen
Santa Fe High School Shooting: an Incel Killing?
Gary Leupp
Pompeo’s Iran Speech and the 21 Demands
Jonathan Power
Bang, Bang to Trump
Robert Fisk
You Can’t Commit Genocide Without the Help of Local People
Brian Cloughley
Washington’s Provocations in the South China Sea
Louis Proyect
Requiem for a Mountain Lion
Robert Fantina
The U.S. and Israel: a Match Made in Hell
Kevin Martin
The Libya Model: It’s Not Always All About Trump
Susie Day
Trump, the NYPD and the People We Call “Animals”
Pepe Escobar
How Iran Will Respond to Trump
Sarah Anderson
When CEO’s Earn 5,000 Times as Much as a Company’s Workers
Ralph Nader
Audit the Outlaw Military Budget Draining America’s Necessities
Chris Wright
The Significance of Karl Marx
David Schultz
Indict or Not: the Choice Mueller May Have to Make and Which is Worse for Trump
George Payne
The NFL Moves to Silence Voices of Dissent
Razan Azzarkani
America’s Treatment of Palestinians Has Grown Horrendously Cruel
Katalina Khoury
The Need to Evaluate the Human Constructs Enabling Palestinian Genocide
George Ochenski
Tillerson, the Truth and Ryan Zinke’s Interior Department
Jill Richardson
Our Immigration Debate Needs a Lot More Humanity
Martha Rosenberg
Once Again a Slaughterhouse Raid Turns Up Abuses
Judith Deutsch
Pension Systems and the Deadly Hand of the Market
Shamus Cooke
Oregon’s Poor People’s Campaign and DSA Partner Against State Democrats
Thomas Barker
Only a Mass Struggle From Below Can End the Bloodshed in Palestine
Binoy Kampmark
Australia’s China Syndrome
Missy Comley Beattie
Say “I Love You”
Ron Jacobs
A Photographic Revenge
Saurav Sarkar
War and Moral Injury
Clark T. Scott
The Shell Game and “The Bank Dick”
Seth Sandronsky
The State of Worker Safety in America
Thomas Knapp
Making Gridlock Great Again
Manuel E. Yepe
The US Will Have to Ask for Forgiveness
Laura Finley
Stop Blaming Women and Girls for Men’s Violence Against Them
Rob Okun
Raising Boys to Love and Care, Not to Kill
Christopher Brauchli
What Conflicts of Interest?
Winslow Myers
Real Security
George Wuerthner
Happy Talk About Weeds
Abel Cohen
Give the People What They Want: Shame
David Yearsley
King Arthur in Berlin
Douglas Valentine
Memorial Day
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail