Saddam Hussain's Trial


                                         TRIAL OF SADDAM HUSSIAN


                                       The hanging of the Ex-President of Iraq, Saddam Hussian was an outrageous instance of “victor’s justice” on the top of a mountain of atrocities in Iraq, beginning with its unjust and illegal invasion. It was a colossal political miscalculation by the US and its puppet regime in Baghdad to execute Hussain on the day of Eid-al-Azha. This aggravates the grave crisis in which the Bush administration west Asia strategy finds itself.

                                       The hanging must be regarded as a wild act savagery. It became possible because of the verdict of the Supreme Court Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT). The judgment held Hussain guilty of killing of 148 Iraqi Shias in 1984 massacre. As per the law of natural justice a person should be given the rights like rule against bias and rule of fair hearing called as nemo in propria cause judex esse debet and  audi alteram partem respectively, under the law. Hussian deserved to be tried fairly on the number of occasions on the basis of irrefutable evidence. But the trial was a cynically manipulated force, which violated all the norms of fairness under the law.

                                      SICT was established by the occupying power, which rigged its rules of procedure to favour the prosecution. Most of its judges were given legal training in Britain. SICT was not even wholly sovereign, independent, impartial and legitimate. This was the opinion of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, WGAD established by the United Nations Commission of Human Rights in 1951. WGAD received its mandate from the General Assembly and the United Nations Human Rights Council. WGAD’s final opinion delivered in September, determines that, “the deprivation of liberty of Saddam Hussain is arbitrary being in contravention of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR to which Iraq and the US are parties.”

                                       Hussian was denied the elementary right to defend himself. Hussain did not have unimpeded access to his lawyers nor adequate time or facilities to prepare his defense. WGAD says that, “the presence of US officials at his violated his right to communicate with” counsel, mandates by ICCPR’s articles 14(3). Two of the Hussain lawyers were assassinated in October 2005 and June 2006. This seriously undermined his right to defend himself through counsel of his own choosing.

                                      SICT’s first chief judge, Rizgar Mohammad Amin, resigned because of the political pressure to prevent a fair trail. Judge Abdel-Rahman, who delivered the final verdict, was totally biased. He abruptly, arbitrary ended the trail in June 2006. He was made “statements incompatible with impartiality and the presumption of innocence enshrined in article 14(2) of the ICCPR” According to WGAD, Hussain could not obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same condition ass witnesses against him. This right to do so, guaranteed by the ICCPR was undermined by the failure to adequately disclose prosecution evidence to the defendants, the reading into the record of affidavits without an adequate possibility for the defense to challenge them, and the trails sudden termination.

                                     WGAD says it’s impossible to verify whether (the concerned) judges meet the requirements for judicial office, whether they are affiliated with political office, whether their impartiality …….. is otherwise undermined. Amnesty International and Human Rights watch both say the trail was a mockery of justice. One of Hussain’s defense lawyers, former US Attorney General Ramsey Clerk, was ejected from the court for saying that the trail failed to meet international legal standards of justice. Even before the trail ended, the Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki demanded that Mr.Hussain be hanged. More recently, he declared the hanging would take place before the end of the year thus usurping the judiciary’s prerogative to set the date. The final procedural clearances were obtained in unseemly haste and secrecy.

                                     The, then US President G.W.Bush welcomed Hussain’s hanging as “an important milestone on Iraq’s course to become a democracy.” A university of Maryland poll says 78% of Iraqis believe US troops are “provoking more conflict” than they are preventing 71% including 74% of Shias and 91% of Sunnis, want them out. The occupation has reduced Iraq’s once-prosperous middle level human development society to penury, disease and malnourishment. As many as 1.8 million people have fled Iraq and 1.6 million have been internally displaced. Homes in Baghdad have electricity for just 7.3 hours a day. The percentage of homes connected to sewers has fallen to just 37. Over four fifths of Iraqis say they are much worse of now than under Hussain.

                                     The grotesque irony is that while Hussain was hanged for killing 148 people, the leaders of the US and its allies won’t be tried for killing half a million Iraqi children through the post 1991 sanctions nor for the death of 655,000 Iraqi civilians since the March 2003 invasion, estimated by the John Hopkins school of Public Health. Nor will they be brought to justice for the supreme crime of committing unprovoked aggression against a sovereign nation. When Henry Kissinger was asked why he supported the Iraq war, he replied: “Because Afghanistan was not enough.” In the conflict with ‘racial Islam’, precipitated by 9/1, he said, they want to humiliate us. And we need to humiliate them. Many American policy makers share this view. They wanted to create a “demonstration model out of Hussain to show that America will destroy anyone with the temerity to flout its authority. These motives must be forthrightly and strongly deplored by the international community. It is simply not enough for the Indian government to express ‘disappointment at Hussain’s hanging and piously hope for reconciliation’ and ‘restoration of peace in Iraq’.

                                   The Iraqi High Tribunal appellate chamber uphold Saddam Hussain’s death sentence in the Dujail massacre case, Judge Aref Shaheen announced and said that the court decision was final. The toppled Iraqi dictator execution must take place before January 27, Shaheen said. Iraqi law requires death sentence to be carried out within 30 days. On November 5, Hussain was sentenced to death by hanging for his role in the killing of 148 of people in Dujail a mostly Shiite town north of Baghdad. Hussain’s attorneys appealed Chamber began reviewing defense attorney, Khalil-al-Dulami, said it came from “an illegitimate and unconstitutional court.”

                                  Saddam’s crimes of killing 300,000 Iraqis during his thirty-five years rule (1968-2003). In less than four years, George W. Bush has more than doubled that, with no end in sight. As war criminals go, Bush wins hand down. But while the man labeled the Butcher of Baghdad has few defenses, a number of prominent human rights advocates have criticized his death sentence, and the trial that preceded, it, as a travesty of justice. During the year long proceedings three defense lawyers were murdered, a were fired, lawyers boycotted the courtroom and Saddam told the tribunal to, “go to hell.”

                                The man who was hanged on the day of Eid was earlier called as a dictator or butcher, and was later after his death was called as a person who was killed by the US President, who did so only to acquire the land, oil, popularity and fulfill his wish. It was Saddam Hussain who got a lot of support from around the Muslim world and gained popularity so much so like an innocent person, media even gathered a lot of sympathy for him from the world. There were a lot of agitations for in regards with US and its policies. Later because of this only the US Presidential election took a change and Obama the new President, first black President took the office of the President, in order to bring new government with new policies in US. Even because of all this, Bush was shoed by an Iraqi journalist. And Obama came as the new President, in order to bring a change in the US policies.