Saddam gets death sentence in show-trial…

Posted by Joshua Holland at 3:14 AM on November 3, 2006.

As expected, a court in Baghdad's heavily defended Green Zone handed Saddam Hussein a death sentence today. Former judge Awad Hamed al-Bander and Saddam's half-brother, Barzan Al Tikriti, also got the death penalty. Former vice president Taha Yassin Ramadan was sentenced to life in prison and three others got 15 years. One defendant was acquitted. The death sentences will automatically be appealed.

Baghdad has been locked-down in anticipation of a surge of violence following the verdict. Leave for Iraqi police and army units has been cancelled, and the city is on edge. Curfews have also been in effect in Diyala, where open sectarian warfare broke out not long ago, and in Saddam’s home region of Salaheddin.

Despite the extraordinarily suspicious timing of the verdict, I doubt that it will give the Republicans much of a boost at the polls on Tuesday. The outcome has long been a foregone conclusion and people's opinions about the war have been pretty much set for months.

And if there is a new wave of violence, the rushed decision could very well backfire; instead of two news cycles with the Fox News ticker reading "Justice for Saddam," the last 48 hours of the campaign could be dominated by stories of the unfolding chaos. (I'm not hoping that'll happen -- it'd be the kind of despicably cynical anything-for-domestic-political-gain attitude that's been the guiding principle of so many decisions in Iraq and that's added so much to the mess -- but it's a real possibility.)

A few points about the trial. As I've written before, the proceedings were expected to last months longer. The verdict was first pushed up to October 16, and then pushed back to today, ostensibly to give the judges more time to review the evidence.

This week, we learned from an article in the Washington Post that at least part of the reason the trial took less time than anticipated was that the presiding judge cut short the evidentiary phase before all the defense witnesses could be heard:

As the defense was laying out its own evidence near the end of the trial, the new chief judge, Raouf Rasheed Abdel-Rahman, shut down testimony with some defense witnesses still waiting to take the stand. "We are done with witnesses. . . . If those 26 were not able to make the case, then 100 will not," Abdel-Rahman declared.

If all those prosecution witnesses weren't enough to achieve the desired outcome, what good would a bunch of defense witnesses be?

That decision was, of course, made by a "new chief judge" after his predecessor had been dismissed by the Shiite-controlled government and the court's U.S. "advisors" because he was perceived as too lenient. That was the second judge; the first had resigned because of the constant political pressure.

Coming so late to the trial, I presume Abdel-Rahman thoroughly reviewed all of the transcripts of the proceedings before rendering the verdict. Oh, wait … there isn't a complete transcript.

The WaPo story quoted Michael P. Scharf, a professor of international law at Case Western Reserve University who advised Iraqi officials during the trial. Apparently, he's no slouch, but this statement tells you everything you need to know about the attitudes that guided the proceedings: "all the arguments about a fair trial," he said, "are pretty much moot if the evidence is not in question."

And he says the evidence "isn't in question" despite the fact that all of the defense witnesses weren't given an opportunity to testify. What a sad joke.

In early 2004, before he got the job advising the court, that same Michael Scharf wrote this:

… the proposed Iraqi Special Tribunal is in fact not international enough to successfully accomplish the goals that have been set for it. As currently structured, the Iraqi Special Tribunal risks being seen by both Iraqis and outsiders as a puppet of the Occupying Power, and as a tool for vengeance by Saddam Hussein's enemies, rather than as the cornerstone of a new judicial system committed to the rule of law.

He was right the first time.

As I've said before, the tragedy here has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein as an individual -- it's all about the fact that there was an opportunity to establish a serious legal precedent with these trials (this was one of two for Hussein), but political rather than judicial considerations appear to have driven the process from the outset.

That shouldn't come as a surprise coming from an administration headed by a president who authored this brilliant exchange:

REPORTER: Sir, Chancellor Schroeder says international law must apply in this case. What's you're understanding of the law?

THE PRESIDENT [smirking]: International law? I better call my lawyer … If these countries want to participate in helping the world become more secure by enabling Iraq to emerge as a free and peaceful country, one way to contribute is through debt restructuring… But I don't know what you're talking about, about international law. I've got to consult my lawyer.

Michael Scharf, perhaps trying to put some lipstick on this pig, told the WaPo why legal precedents matter:

In addition, Hussein's trial may also set an unintended but potentially crucial legal precedent for the Bush administration, Scharf said. By cracking down on Dujail in response to one assassination attempt and in a bid to discourage others, Hussein was dealing with a continuing threat, like President Bush after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Scharf said.

"The biggest question of our time, that we're living through right now, is where do you draw the line on war in terror? This is the first trial in modern time to address that issue," Scharf said by telephone from the United States.

"It's a question the United States is facing right now in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay," Scharf said. The findings "are going to be just as applicable to the United States as to Saddam Hussein."

That's not true, professor. Because while the administration and its many mouthpieces will tout the verdict as a shining example of modern jurisprudence this week, if it ever comes back to bite them on the ass they'll just turn right around and say that it has zero value as a precedent because it was decided in a kangaroo court that didn't meet even the most rudimentary standards of fairness and judicial independence.

Tagged as: iraq, hussein, election06

Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.