The Lynching in Baghdad

So Saddam gets a taste of 'wild west' Texan justice. Or was it barbarian justice? Or perhaps even Saddam-esque justice? Iraqi justice? Whatever it was, it wasn't justice as we know it.

The former dictator of Iraq was in the midst of a series of trials for crimes he committed against humanity. The first crime he was to be tried for was the murder of 144 villagers in the town of Dujail who were allegedly involved in a plot to assassinate him in 1982. Then he was to be tried for the gassing of Kurds in 1988 during the Kurdish revolt. Thirdly, to be tried for the violent and murderous campaign to end the Shiite revolt in 1991 after the First Bush War.

However, none of that came to pass. He was found guilty in the first trial, and any chance that survivors of the subsequent outrages on humanity had for justice to be done were lost, in a hasty political judgement and need to punish, be done with and silenced.

Saddam came to power in a bloody coup by killing members of the Communist party, invaded and started a decade long war with Iran that costs millions of lives, killed hundreds of thousands of his own people (kurds/shiites), invaded Kuwait in 1990 killing more people, and after all that (and more), he gets hanged for killing 144 people in 1982 in a village??? Thats something like trying Tojo for the bombing of Pearl Harbour, or Hitler for the invasion of Austria.....and ignoring the rest of the crimes.

On one hand, one might say well whats the point? We know he is guilty, the sentence is not going to be different, so why not save the expense and time of more and more months of trials, and just be over with it so that Iraq can move on?
On the other hand, there are so many unanswered questions arising from this state sanctioned murder of Saddam that leaves Iraqis and outside observers unsatisfied and a feeling that justice was not really done here. There is a residual feeling in one's gut that there's something not quite right about it all, and there were too many parallels with how justice was dealt in the Saddam era with how justice was dealt now.....weren't this government supposed to be different?

Firstly, some parallels. The outcome of the trial pre-judged. Politically appointed judges, replaced constantly during the trial to satisfy the ruling government's will and need. No proper due process, nor cross examination of witnesses. Denial of proper legal defense. Rush to judgement, and judgement towards the maximum of penalties - death. The quick denial of an appeal. The quick meting out of the sentence. The taunting of the prisoner before and during the hanging. The undignified manner of the execution, the denial of human rights to the prisoner.

So why execute him now and not wait for the other trials? Surely the trials could have brought some healing and feeling of justice to the survivors and relatives of victims of those crimes? The reasons may never really be known, but it could be to protect members of the current government as well as the Americans. Dujail was Saddams doing.... There are no obvious American fingerprints to be found in this incident. The same cannot be said of the coup (the CIA provided lists of names), of the war with Iran (USA sold weapons, chemical weapons, naval support etc), of the aftermath of the invasion of Kuwait (USA encouraged uprising), of the provision of nerve gas to be used against the Iranian soldiers and used against the Kurds (Maps of Iranian trenches and positions seen from American satellites handed over), etc etc. This could have turned into a PR nightmare for both the current Iraqi government and USA.

Firstly, the reasons for the war are proven falsehoods...fibs...no WMDs...then a trial in which American involvement in crimes against humanity meted out by Saddam using the very same weaponry that was the reason for the current occupation and Second Bush War could be exposed to the public? That was going to be unacceptable. Dujail had to be the first trial, and Saddam had to be silenced ASAP afterwards. It was George Bush the First who urged Iraq’s Shiites and Kurds to rebel after Saddam was removed from Kuwait in 1991, and then failed to use US air power to protect the Shiites from massacre when they answered this call. USA was involved in all of Saddam’s major crimes, one way or another, so no trial that delved into the details of those crimes could be allowed.

So in the end, Saddam got killed for a crime that was a drop in the ocean compared to the crimes he was internationally infamous for (crimes that became the new rallying reason for the pro-war camp after the embarrassing lack of WMDs anywhere in the country). Most other dictators who have committed crimes against humanity have been sent to Den Haag to be tried at the ICC. Why wasn't Saddam? The Americans do not subscribe to the ICC, this was America's war, this is an American supported Iraqi government, and most certainly this was an American influenced trial and judgement.

The Iraqis have lost one dictator, and had him replaced with a foreign dictatorial power.