FOCUS: THE TRIAL OF SADDAM
HUSSEIN:
WHATEVER THE CHARGES AGAINST IRAQ'S FORMER
LEADER, HIS WILL BE
ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT TRIALS OF MODERN TIMES. AS ARGUMENTS
RAGE
OVER WHERE HE SHOULD BE PROSECUTED AND WHAT THE PENALTY MIGHT BE IF HE
IS FOUND GUILTY, TWO LEADING BARRISTERS TRY THE CASE .
The Defence
By Anthony Scrivener QC
Former chairman of the Bar who represented
the Guildford Four and
Winston Silcott in miscarriage of justice cases
Members
of the jury, this case is about prejudice, propaganda and politics.
President Bush has already passed a death sentence on President Saddam
in a broadcast to the world, before the trial has even taken place.
It's Bush justice.
I have referred to the
person I represent as the President of Iraq. I call him by his title
because he has never been deposed by his own people. He has been
deposed by an unlawful foreign invasion which the United Nations
refused to sanction and which was in contempt of the UN charter. He is
held by that unlawful force. The UN has been cast to one side by
America, the most powerful nation in the world. It is so powerful it
can ignore other nations. Special rules apply to it.
You
have seen the defendant on television as a prisoner being medically
examined. The rules of war, of course, do not permit such an exhibition
of a prisoner. But the Americans do it. Can you imagine what President
Bush would have said had that been an American soldier? A prisoner
interviewed by the CIA, with no legal representation allowed. It does
not matter, does it? In Guantanamo Bay detainees are kept in custody
outside the US, so they have no rights or protection. All the civilised
rules can be safely ignored.
The trial is
a farce. Do you believe for one moment that President Bush would ever
accept a verdict of not guilty from you? He would tear up the verdict
and order a fresh trial until he got the verdict he wants. President
Saddam has already been sentenced.
I
should make it plain. The defendant is certainly guilty on some counts.
He pleads guilty to taking up the cause of the Arabs with pride and
without fear - the cause of the Palestinians. He has been prepared to
face Israel - a country occupying the land of the Palestinians in
defiance of UN resolutions without complaint from the Americans or
British. Like the US, there are special rules for Israel too. The
Palestinians know what it is for their defenceless citizens to be
bombed and attacked by the Israelis. Iraqi citizens know what it is
like to be bombed by the Americans.
Atrocities
can happen in any field of battle. They happened in Vietnam, where
American troops were involved in atrocities but no one suggested that
the President of the US should be responsible - in fact, blame did not
even fall on to a senior officer. The Americans claim it is different
for President Saddam. But the prosecution has to prove that he
instigated the alleged atrocity. There is not the slightest evidence of
this. But that does not matter because this trial, under the auspices
of an unlawful occupying power, has a foregone conclusion.
See
the politics. On 20 December 1983 a special envoy called Donald
Rumsfeld visited President Saddam in Baghdad to give support in the war
against Iran. The Americans supplied Iraq with economic aid, a
computerised database for the interior ministry, satellite military
intelligence, tanks, cluster bombs, helicopters and even
bacteriological samples.
Iraq has had a
territorial dispute with Kuwait for many years. The Iraqis told the
Americans about the proposed invasion and were informed it was of no
concern to America. But then the Americans decided they needed Kuwait
more than they did Iraq. It's politics, members of the jury.
Iraq
has, on occasions, been racked by civil wars. This is a country
manufactured by the British. They drew the line so that the Kurds
occupy part of the land and, like other ethnic groups all around the
world, they want to break up the nation and obtain independence. No
government can allow this. As in Sri Lanka and other places, this has
resulted in terrorist acts and warfare. The President is not
responsible for all the actions taken by commanders or even individual
soldiers on the battlefield. This principle is accepted by the US for
itself, but not for Iraq.
So why did the
US rush into this urgent war when the real enemy was al- Qa'ida? It is
because of oil, votes and money. A successful war distracts attention
away from al-Qa'ida and should attract votes. And as this so- called
trial takes place, choreographed by President Bush and his advisers,
those same people sit around the table dividing up the spoils of war -
deciding which American company shall earn a fortune repairing the
damage the Americans have themselves inflicted on Iraq. There are rich
pickings, but they are available only to Americans.
And
do they believe that President Saddam has been organising opposition
from his hiding place? There is not the slightest evidence of this.
What is happening is a spontaneous rebellion by patriots against
oppressors and their unlawful war and unlawful occupation. The
prosecution cannot prove that the President is responsible for every
act of war on a battlefield and they know it. Who is guilty, members of
the jury? It's all about prejudice, propaganda and politics.
The Prosecution
By Professor Christopher Greenwood QC
Adviser
to Attorney General on the legality of invading Iraq, he also acted for
Spain over extradition of Chile's General Pinochet
Members
of the court, the scale of this case makes it seem that what is on
trial is not an individual but the very state of Iraq. Yet the
Nuremberg judgment reminds us that crimes are committed by people, not
states. The defendant is such a person. He has the same rights of fair
trial as any defendant but no claim to special treatment by virtue of
his one-time status as president.
What are
the charges against him? The defendant is charged with crimes against
humanity, war crimes and genocide - offences that have long been
established in international law and which are today included in the
statute of the International Criminal Court.
First,
there are crimes against humanity committed against the people of Iraq,
including the systematic use of torture, rape, murder and intimidation
as tools of government. The scale of what was done must not blind us to
the sheer horror of what happened to each of the many thousands of
individuals who suffered in this system of terror as they were starved,
beaten, humiliated, dipped in acid, forced to watch the torture of
those they loved and, in so many cases, when every shred of dignity had
been torn from them, dispatched in an execution (the costs of which
would be carefully charged to their family) or simply left to die.
For
over 30 years such horrors were commonplace in Iraq, but new depths of
cruelty were reached in the suppression of communities that resisted
Saddam's rule. The 1980s saw a whole town - Halabja - wiped out by
poison gas and tens of thousands of men and boys arrested and murdered.
The same brutality characterised the suppression of the Kurdish and
Shia uprisings in 1991 and the campaign against the ancient
civilisation of the Marsh Arabs.
That
these terrible things happened cannot be denied. They were widespread,
systematic and directed specifically against the civilian population.
Nor can the defendant's responsibility for them be in doubt. Indeed,
far from denying it, he has revelled in it. There are cases - and they
are not few in number - when it was his own hand that carried out
summary execution or actively participated in the torture of a helpless
victim. But the defendant's responsibility does not stop there. He
created a system of government in which he was an absolute monarch and
in which governance was by terror. None of the horrors suffered by the
people of Iraq happened, or could have happened, without his decree.
Second,
there are the defendant's crimes against Iraq's neighbours. The use of
chemical weapons against Iran, the ill-treatment of prisoners of war
and the deliberate targeting of civilian population centres in the war
with Iran were war crimes, clearly and unequivocally prohibited by
international law. Again, these things could not have happened without
the defendant's orders. The use of chemical weapons, for example, was
specifically forbidden without his personal order. It is he who bears
responsibility for these crimes against the laws of war. The brutal
occupation of Kuwait, in which over 6,000 people disappeared without
trace and in which the state of Kuwait was systematically plundered and
its oil fields set alight, was similarly unlawful and was again the
direct product of decisions for which the defendant was responsible.
It
is no use the defendant saying that terrible things happen in war. The
charges against him concern clear, deliberate and systematic breaches
of laws that Iraq and all other states have accepted and that represent
the line that has to be drawn between humanity and savagery, even in
war.
Finally, there is genocide - the
gravest crime of all. The prosecution realises that its task here is
more difficult. For you to convict of this, the ultimate crime, you
must be satisfied not only that the defendant was responsible for
murder but that he intended to destroy an ethnic, racial, religious or
national group. The bar is a high one, but we say that in this case it
has been surmounted. The assault on the Kurds, the destruction of the
Marsh Arabs' way of life, the persecution of the Shia and the attempt
to destroy every vestige of Kuwait's separate existence all point to
the conclusion that the defendant did indeed have the intention to
destroy certain groups.
You have before
you evidence of crimes of a scale and savagery that are difficult to
comprehend. That the defendant was responsible for these crimes is
clear. No serious defence has been offered. He cannot be allowed to
escape justice by arguing that others have gone unpunished. Stalin's
crimes did not exonerate Hitler, and the recent history of the Balkans,
Rwanda and Sierra Leone shows that the defendant is not the only fallen
leader to stand trial. If justice and the rule of law are to mean
anything, then the defendant must now answer before you for what he has
done.
The
Independent on Sunday
(London) -
December 21, 2003 - FEATURES Section - Page 12