Trying Hussein

Saddam Hussein has been captured, and the newspapers are full of often contradictory stories. Just about the entire world agrees that Hussein's capture is a good thing - the sole exception I've seen mention of is pro-Hussein groups within Iraq - and even those of opposed the war are glad to see the dictators removal from power. However, his capture leaves two major questions unanswered - was it all worth it, and what do we do with him now?

The cost of Hussein's removal is the easier to deal with. As it becomes ever clearer that Iraq possessed neither weapons of mass destruction nor significant weapons programs, the sole justification for invasion is Hussein's human rights abuses. The Hussein was responsible for a regime that committed mass murder, torture, and numerous other crimes is beyond dispute. However, all the evidence that we have available suggests that the worst of those crimes were committed while Hussein was supported by the west, a valued ally against Iran and its brand of extreme Islam. Since the first Gulf War, Hussein's crimes while despicable have not been demonstrably worse than those of many current British and American allies - Uzbekistan springs instantly to mind.

In short, the diplomatic pressure and sanctions used to contain Hussein throughout the nineties have worked tolerably well. They prevented him acquiring dangerous weapons, and destroyed those he already possessed. The worst of his human rights abuses were contained. The sanctions regime was far from perfect, and needed work to ensure that food and medicine reached those who genuinely needed them. Yet, the cost of this war is estimated at $200 billion, 600 allied lives, and maybe 10,000 Iraqi lives. Does moving Hussein from in charge but toothless to in prison really justify this cost? Given that it is still unclear whether the long term human rights situation will be improved, I can only conclude that the costs could have been better spent elsewhere.

But we must deal with the world as it is, not as it might have been. Hussein has been captured, and now he must be brought to justice. Many in Iraq, President Bush, and the right-wing British tabloids have called for his execution. It is easy to argue that if anyone deserves the death sentence, it is Hussein. The folly lies in the initial premise - no one "deserves" the death sentence. Discussing the punishment that someone deserves moves us out of the arena of justice, and into one of revenge. Revenge has no place in a civilised nation. That the leader of the west's greatest country, and a supposedly committed Christian, can call for the death penalty is a disgrace.

There is a practical objection to death sentences as well. If we make a mistake, we have no way to recover. DNA evidence is demonstrating worrying numbers of cases in America where innocents have been executed. For those people, there can be no apology. While the chance of our making a mistake over the guilt of Saddam Hussein may seem vanishingly small (although, what did happen to all those doubles he was supposed to have?) where do you draw the line? Better, surely, to abandon the concept entirely.

Like so many others, I am putting the cart before the horse. Discussion of Hussein's punishment assumes his guilt - his trial becomes a mere formality. Yet this flies in the face of our most treasured legal right - the presumption of innocence. However clear the evidence may seem, the trial exists to probe that evidence, forcing us not to assume, but to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the person's guilt. The fact that Hussein denied a fair trial to his opponents is irrelevant. He deserves a fair trial because we do. Ignoring anyone's rights, for whatever reason, sets a dangerous precedent that may one day allow others to deny our own rights.

The question then becomes where should Hussein be tried. America has quite correctly refused to get involved. Trying Hussein in America would provide too much ammunition for those who claim the invasion of Iraq is part of some imperialist ambition. Simply, Hussein is not accused of breaking American laws, so America lacks any authority over his trial. However, is Bush's preferred solution - a trial in Iraq - any better?

It is perfectly possible for Iraq to set up a fair trial for Hussein, but at the moment it does not seem likely. The ruling council are already talking about his subsequent execution, which makes the fairness of the trial seem a little doubtful. Worse, the trial is being rushed into. Iraq currently lacks the basis for a legal system, yet special arrangements will be put in place in a matter of months to try this one man. He will be tried by people appointed by his political opponents. That can only provide ammunition for those who still support Hussein.

Luckily, we already have an alternative available. The Hague has the international authority and credibility to try war criminals. The Hague's impartiality is beyond doubt, except perhaps for those few extremists who will be dissatisfied with any outcome. The benefits are obvious - the trial would have the legitimacy of international law, would reduce political fallout in Iraq to a minimum, and would be conducted by those with the experience and authority to do so. These arguments were sufficient to ensure an international trial for Milosevic. Surely the same logic should apply to Hussein?

Let the evidence against Hussein be presented in open court, in front of an international audience. The arguments for war and the invasion itself have been played out on the world stage. Let the resolution occur on the same stage.

Graham Robinson. 17th December 2003.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.