Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors - and miss.”     Robert A. Heinlein,    Time Enough For Love

December 26, 2006

Saddam Death Sentence Upheld

by Kevin

Today, Saddam Hussein’s death sentence has been upheld and he will be executed in 30 days. It’s important to take a look at how he was sentenced and how his trial was conducted. Human Rights Watch released a disturbing report in November that detailed possible fundamental flaws in Saddam’s trial.

Some of the flaws identified were in the areas of court documentation, security for defense lawyers, weaknesses in defense representation, concerns about the presumption of innocence and the impartiality of the trial itself, problems with the defense’s ability to prepare for trial, the inability of the defense to question witnesses, and finally the disruptions of the defense counsel especially the international lawyers like Ramsey Clark who’s sole strategy was to disrupt the trial, among other flaws. Suffice to say, the Iraqi High Tribunal was nothing more than a kangaroo court. Saddam’s trial was unfair and he deserves a new trial at the very least.

This farcial trial and the execution will hurt American credibility in the world even more than its already hurt because this will tell the world we are not serious about civil liberties. It will tell the world that we are willing to have a kangaroo court conduct a farcical trial in order to give “legitmacy” to basically murdering Saddam. If the United States and the Iraqi government is serious about freedom and justice in Iraq, they admit the originial trial was a farce, rewrite the laws authorizing the Iraqi High Tribunal to better protect defendants’ rights and maintain order in the trial, protect witnesses’ security, bring in international experts to monitor the retrial, and retry Saddam for his crimes this time following accepted international rules of jurisprudence.

Finally, to all those soon to be commenters and bloggers who will accuse me of implying that Saddam is innocent or somehow a nice guy, I’m not saying that at all. I’m simply making the arguement that we do not suspend the rules for fair trials just because the defendant ran a state that was in the business of mass murder. It does everyone involved from the American soldiers who will be the targets of the rage that will result from the execution, to the victims of Saddam’s government who will be dishonored by the farcical trial, to the Iraqi and American governments who will bear the international criticism, rightly in this case, for the proceedings, to the Iraqi people who will face an even more dangerous security situation, if that’s possible, to finally the American people who will be an even more tempting target to Islamic terrorists seeking revenge for Saddam’s death; more harm than good to have the kangaroo court than a fair trial.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/12/26/saddam-death-sentence-upheld/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

3 Comments

  1. As a soldier currently in Iraq, I have not had the oppotunity to watch any of Saddam’s trial. I do, however, appreciate the last paragraph in the article. If, in fact, the trial was conducted the way that the Humanitarian groups are saying it was conducted, then give the man another, fair trial. However, I believe that the only way that a completely fair trial could be conducted is to have an international trial. Otherwise, no matter what rules are upheld, the persons involved in the trial will still be individuals who were affected by Saddam’s rule in one fashion or another and will have prejudicies. Yes, his own people should be the ones to judge him, but maybe we should expand on that to include all persons who are Arab and Islamic from this region. It is not a complete solution, but it is a suggestion. Unfortunately, if the Iraqis backdown from the decision that has already been made, then they lose face and honor, something that is completely unacceptable to the Arab nations.

    Comment by tonya — December 26, 2006 @ 11:32 pm
  2. How much of he disruption was caused by Saddam and his defense team themselves? I haven’t followed this trial too closely, but how much of this was Saddam and his team dliberately trying to make the trial illegitimate?

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — December 28, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
  3. Actually, quite a lot of it. Most of the in court disruptions were by the defendants themselves. In addition, Saddam’s foreign lawyers spent more time giving political speeches in the cross examination than actually questioning the witnesses. But there were fundamental flaws in the set up and execution (pardon the pun) of the trial itself, which in an American courtroom, would be grounds for a new trial.

    Comment by Kevin — December 28, 2006 @ 1:14 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML