Firstly, Saddam, or any individual, ought not to be tried for crimes upon the application of laws that were not applicable in Iraq at the time of its commission.

Secondly, to apply International Laws and Conventions on Human Rights whilst recognising local variants of punitive reaction implies that whilst Laws and Conventions ought to be equitably applied, the sentences meted out does not.


Sovereignty and the Complicity of Nations

With regards to the first point,

“…Saddam, or any individual, ought not to be tried for crimes upon the application of laws that were not applicable in Iraq at the time of its commission.”

One cannot be held accountable for actions which were not by definition, ‘crimes’, within a particular milieu and time wherein they were committed. Saddam and his entourage of bereted cardinals were, at the time, the Sovereigns of Iraq, and thus, by definition, cannot commit any crime against itself. Hence, it is the idea of Sovereignty which the UN ought to take issue with. If the UN and other so-called ‘champions of democracy’ fail to effectively take up the Democratic cause internationally and even in the face of abusive and murderous local sovereignties, whilst citing ‘sovereignty’ as a reason for non-intervention or international restraint – and especially where they are able to do so – (though this does not mean that the idea of ‘Democracy’ has been fully explored and defined.) then it cannot hold tyrants responsible for their undemocratic actions. Rather, it is their conveniently timed subscription to the belief in the sacredness of local sovereignty that is to be faulted.


To leave the bases for tyranny unchallenged is to become the abettors of its consequences.

This makes, amongst others, the US, the UK and the UN – when historical facts are taken into account – the First Cause behind Saddam’s regime and his murderous schemes. Where a perpetrator of a crime against humanity and her/is international supporters are allowed to hide behind or cite the ‘hallowed’ idea of the ‘sovereignty of nation-states’ – which is supported institutionally by the UN and its directors (US et al) – for their actions and inaction to do as s/he pleases time and again, and with the full knowledge of those purporting to ‘champion democracy and freedom’ and police the international coliseum of nation-states, these parties, besides being liable to charges of abetting the actions of tyrants by their inaction, cannot seek to enforce punitive proceedings against them unless they themselves are placed in the dock beside the accused. If these parties insist in holding these tyrants liable for their actions, they are, in effect, tacitly asserting their right to ignore crimes against humanity, whilst reserving the right to enforce removal and retribution as and when it suits their interests. Every would-be tyrant is thus nurtured by not being opposed effectively when s/he kills a handful, and is yet brought to trial under international auspices or hypocritical ‘coalitions of the willing’ when s/he most predictably graduates to crimes of greater salience or when s/he compromises the interests of powerful states.

The point is obvious. When we do effectively little when one individual is killed by a tyrant, we have given her/im carte blanche to kill more – American and British actions and inactions with regards to this is well-documented in this and a multitude of other cases. It is thus nothing short of gross hypocrisy to step in much later and enforce ‘justice’. We become ‘abettors’ where we were able to have stopped these crimes much sooner but refrain from doing so. Our direct complicity is further argued for by our profiting from the reign of these tyrants long before their removal – which is the case in this instance.

Prior enforcement of the law and a clear statement of the consequences that may be faced if one transgresses it are significant factors arguing for the universal validity and sacredness of Laws. Where these are absent, trials and sentences, when a ‘crime’ is thus allowed to be committed, become little more than attempts to ignore and detract the masses from considering the impact of its own apathetic complicity in the crime and to reinforce the grounds upon which such evils may yet again arise in the future.


With regards to the second point,

“…to apply International Laws and Conventions on Human Rights whilst recognising local variants of punitive reaction implies that whilst Laws and Conventions ought to be equitably applied, the sentences meted out does not.”


Laws are justified, amongst others, by minimum and maximum sentences attached to each should they be transgressed. The ‘minimum’ and ‘maximum’ sentence must not be dependent on the locality of the accused but the crime. Where this cannot be observed, either the Law or the sentence becomes inapplicable or we risk allegations of double-standards and compromise its perceived integrity.


Therefore,

In view of the above, Saddam’s trial becomes nothing short of a travesty of justice as witnessed by the incongruence between Saddam’s actions and the local non-criminal status of these actions at the time of their commission; the incongruence between the application of international laws and the sentence; and the complicity of the parties behind the prosecution of Saddam’s crimes in the past by either their relative nonchalance or their direct involvement via their support of him and his regime despite their being aware of his continuous violation of human rights. It is these abettors that made Saddam possible. It is these supporters that ought to have been the first to be led to the gallows.

Hence, the sentence awaiting Saddam, should he be convicted, becomes yet another means via which the powers are seeking to accomplish their self-serving goals in localities which they would not be able to push through in others. i.e. as also witnessed in Americans torturing and murdering individuals in countries where regimes similar to Saddam’s reign. In other words, knowing full well that they will not be able to kill Saddam if the trial was to be continued within the jurisdiction of an International Court, they have allowed him to be tried where the murderous agenda of criminal America may be carried out.

The question we ought to be asking is not if Saddam will get a Fair Trial, but if Saddam’s Trial is Fair. Our answer will determine if the forces behind a phenomenon such as Saddam will continue to ply their trade undeterred into the future.


This article was first written in early 2006. Since then, Saddam’s murder has been carried out by American-led terrorists. The hadean American Empire has yet again successfully sought and effected exoneration for itself via the blood of its spawn.


bbc

Q&A : Saddam on Trial