Saddam the tyrant, deserves a fair trial - at least
There are many people it seems that would prefer Saddam Hussein to be shot, without, any of that messy business called justice thrown in the mix. There is no good reason as to why Saddam cannot have a fair trial, indeed, it's imperative that justice in this case is seen to be done, isn't it?The right wing think tank, the Ayn Rand Institute are adamant that Saddam, shouldn't even have a trial, let alone a fair one. The institute bemoans the fact, that any trial of Saddam, would presume he is innocent to start with - well, isn't that the case for all trials in the west? If, Saddam is guilty of all the things that the institute says he's guilty of, wouldn't that come out in the trial? What are the Ayn Rand Institute scared of? The truth maybe?
The truth is, we shouldn't have anything to fear from a fair trial of Saddam, unless you've got something to hide that is.
posted by Courtney Hamilton @ 1:52 PM
3 Comments:
Although I risk descending into pop-psychology, I'd say that a fair trial for Saddam is a necessary and cathartic experience for Iraq. They need to bring the full horror of his brutal and oppressive regime into the full light of day, not just to understand it, but to avoid it ever happening again. If handled properly it could act as a nice symbolic start to a newer, more democratic Iraq.
It's unlikely to happen quite that way however. The coalition were a little too eager to support him before the '91 invasion of Kuwait. If a full and frank examination of his rule took place then some very ugly truths about western involvement would emerge. something which a lot of people (notably those in the Bush administration that oversaw US support for Saddam) are looking to avoid.
At the very least, the execution of Saddam could make some Iraqis realise that the old days are truly over.
Very true. I hear a lot of people claim that the trial is making a mockery out of the west. I guess I don’t see it that way. Just because Saddam makes outlandish remarks and disrupts the trial proceedings, does not mean the case is moving in his favor. It may be difficult for the prosecution to ‘prove’ he is responsible for the crimes he has committed, but I do think that a fair trial, if conducted by a competent prosecutor, will produce positive results.
What we don’t need is a return to a legal system like the one under Saddam’s regime, and those folks advocating his immediate execution should be ashamed.
It's as though, they who argue for Saddam's immeadiate execution think, that by shooting Saddam, Iraq will itself save time and money - because, we all know (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) that he's as guilty as sin.
It's as though there is a real fear of even putting Saddam on trial, or that the trial itself is highly problematic for the west. I agree with Matt, when he points out that a full investigation into Saddam's crimes will bring up 'some very ugly truths about western involvement'.
This is true, from the Halabja massacre to the invasion of Kuwait, western involvement, behinds the scenes, is never really that far away.
Even after all is said and done, as democrats, we should all be insisting that Saddam has a fair trial, and that justice is seen to be done - as Roland quite rightly mentioned, those who advocate getting shot of Saddam, without even a fair trial, should immediately reassess their commitment to democratic ideals, and be thoroughly ashamed of themselves to boot.
Post a Comment
<< Home