
(Pool photo by David Furst)
I should immediately reveal my bias: I am vehemently anti-death penalty, even with respect to acknowledged bad, bad, bad guys like Saddam Hussein. You see, I am not aware of any footnote providing an exception to the Sixth Commandment ("Thou shall not murder").
When Mr. Hussein was captured, our country's Jackass in Chief (ever the diplomat) said: “Good riddance, the world is better off without you.” Now, his wish has officially been granted. The New York Times, in a rare ALL CAPS front page title, announces, "HUSSEIN IS EXECUTED." Of course, the JIC has this to say:
He said that the former Iraqi dictator “was executed after receiving a fair trial — the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime.”Consistent with his shirking of service in the Vietnam War, our Jackass in Chief did not even bother to stay awake for the execution of one of the two men he claimed posed the most serious threat to American safety. No, he went to bed before the execution took place, according to another story in the Times. I understand that a decision was made for him not to crow about it, and that makes sense in a "too little, too late," kind of way, but couldn't he have stayed awake?
And I know it will surprise you, but many groups and individuals, including Human Rights Watch, disagree with the JIC about the "fairness" of Hussein's trial. Human Rights Watch lists some of the following concerns about that trial:
• No requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.I might add to that that the guy was convicted after a trial in which at least three of his defense lawyers were KILLED. Yes, killed. I realize that in the U.S., there are many who believe a person can receive a fair trial while his lawyer sleeps, but surely one cannot receive a fair trial while his lawyers "sleep with the fishes."
• Inadequate protections for the accused to mount a defense on conditions equal to those enjoyed by the prosecution.
• Disputes among Iraqi political factions over control of the court, jeopardizing its appearance of impartiality.
• A draconian requirement that prohibits commutation of death sentences by any Iraqi official, including the president, and compels execution of the defendant within 30 days of a final judgment.
Also in the Times article is this:
Iraqi and American officials kept outsiders, including his legal team, from contacting him all day, according to Najib al-Nauimi, one of Mr. Hussein’s lawyers, who was in Qatar.Does that sound fair--to keep a convicted defendant's lawyers away from him at the eleventh hour before his execution?
A Washington Post story outlined these other deficiencies in Hussein's trial:
There was failure to disclose key evidence to Hussein's attorneys, as well as violations of the basic rights of the defendants to confront witnesses, rights activists said. The first presiding judge resigned. Iraqi politicians routinely denounced the tribunal as weak. Three defense attorneys and a witness were assassinated. Outbursts by the second chief judge, Raouf Rasheed Abdel-Rahman, undermined his impartiality, the activists said.So how surprising, really, is this tidbit from the Times article:
“He just gave up,” said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq’s national security adviser. “We were astonished. It was strange. He just gave up.”It makes me sick. Literally, sick.
And so much for that whole plan of bringing peace to Iraq by sweeping Hussein out of power. At least 59 more people were killed and scores more injured in the hours after his execution, according to this Washington Post story.
Finally, no event would be complete without a Bush lie about it. Although many published stories reflect denials by the U.S. government that they were at all involved in the execution, the New York Times writes:
Prime Minister Maliki was still conferring with American officials late Friday night to work out the timing and resolve key details, like what to do with Mr. Hussein’s body, a Western official said.Josh Marshall highlights these lies from the White House:
Reuters, December 29th, 2006 18:35 GMT ...
The White House declined to comment on the timing."That is a matter for the Iraqi people, we are observers to that process. They are a sovereign government and they will make their own decisions regarding carrying out justice," spokesman Scott Stanzel said in Crawford, Texas.
AP, December 29th, 2006 10:02 PM Eastern
An adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saddam would be executed before 6 a.m. Saturday, or 10 p.m. Friday EST. Saddam and others were convicted of murder in the killings of 148 Shiite Muslims from an Iraqi town where assassins tried to kill Saddam in 1982.*****************************************...
The time was agreed upon during a meeting Friday between U.S. and Iraqi officials, said the adviser, who declined to be quoted by name because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
I realize Hussein wasn't innocent, but if you are interested in helping fight for the human rights of criminal case defendants, especially helping those who are innocent to find justice, please check out this group, which is led by one of my favorite law school professors. Chiefly powered by students, they have logged 20,000 investigative hours over the past four years, resulting in two inmates being released from prison, two death penalty inmates receiving a new trial and numerous clemency petitions being filed. If you'd like to donate, you can do that here.

5 comments:
It makes me sick too. I've been sitting up watching TV coverage, and I can't help but wonder what this will solve.
Excellent, well done commentary. . .
Outstanding commentary Lisa. You're passion for this issue comes through very clearly in your writing.
Saddam was a terrible human being. No doubt about that. But, there are LOTS of horrible people all over the world. LOTS of brutal dictators who kill and imprison dissidents and our gov't looks the other way for most of them.
Saddam should have been tried in the Hague as an international war crimminal. The charges should have included his treatment of American POWs in the first gulf war.
But Bush couldn't allow that. He would have lost control of the whole thing and too much talk of how all those chemical weapons and the gas Saddam used on the Kurds, Iranian and Shia Muslims during his reign were courtesy of the US.
It would have all just been so ... as Rummy would say ... untidy.
As far as saying everybody is better off with him gone, well, if he was rotting away in a jail cell in the Hague we would be just as "gone".
Brava Lisa. Excellent commentary.
Wow, I'm a little surprised that so many people share my feelings on this. Jay, I'm intrigued by your idea of an international trial in the Hague. That sounds like a much better way to have handled this. Especially since reading an NYT story that, if accurate, suggests the U.S. tried to avoid the more unsavory parts of the execution, but the Iraqi government (i.e., our hand-picked Malawi) wouldn't listen.
Post a Comment