A pornography of murder

As expected, video of Saddam's hanging is now available on the web (no links - if you want to watch that shit, find it yourself). And no doubt our local rabid righties are watching it now, kleenex in hand, revelling in every moment of watching another human being die.

This is nothing more than a pornography of murder, a snuff film, and it illustrates perfectly the morality of those who bay for blood and vengeance.

New Fisk

He takes his secrets to the grave. Our complicity dies with him
Football and violence go together

New Fisk

A dictator created then destroyed by America

Now what?

So the Butcher of Baghdad is dead - executed secretly this morning in a desperate rush to get him out of the way before he could tell the world about how the Americans backed his campaign of genocide against the Kurds. But now what? This isn't a bad fantasy novel, where everything is instantly better and the sun comes out the moment the Dark Lord is dead. Saddam's judicial murder will not end the insurgency in Iraq. It will not stop the deaths of more Iraqi civilians or US troops. Instead, it will simply add another body to Bush's pyramid of skulls, a pyramid which is more than high enough already.

Neither is this justice. He may have been guilty - though given the judicial standards displayed at his trial, this is more by accident than the result of any reliable judicial process - but not even Saddam deserved the death penalty. Instead, what happened today was a barbaric act of revenge, a state-sanctioned murder, morally no different from those inflicted by Saddam on his hapless victims at Dujail. Its only purpose was to bring the satisfaction of revenge. That is not justice; it is sadism, and those approving of it are displaying the ethics of kitten-strangling psychopaths rather than civilised human beings.

It is typical that Bush has called this "an important milestone" for Iraq. And it makes you wonder what the hell they use for road markers in Texas.

An unseemly rush to execution

Having rushed their way through a trial which failed to meet basic standards of justice, the Americans and the Iraqi government are now engaged in an unseemly rush to execute Saddam Hussein, with reports that he could be killed as early as tomorrow. Meanwhile, more evidence is emerging that the process has been a stacked farce from start to finish. According to Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch, the Iraqi appeals court did not even bother to hold a hearing on Saddam's appeal, and took a mere three weeks to "consider" the 300-page judgement and defence submissions. In other words, it was little more than a Texan-style rubber stamp for execution. But then after a "trial" in which evidence was withheld from the defence, the defence were not allowed to properly confront prosecution witnesses, and the judges were replaced whenever it looked like Saddam might get a fair go, this is hardly surprising.

Apart from the fundamental obscenity of execution, this undermines the entire verdict. We should not begrudge criminal suspects a fair chance in court; rather we should welcome it, both as a basic safeguard to protect the innocent, and to ensure that the verdict is sufficiently robust to withstand scrutiny. In war crimes cases there is an additional element: Saddam's trial could have been a chance to fully document his crimes and make their reality and horror absolutely unquestionable. Instead, we have had a pathetic farce, a slow-motion lynching which will allow his supporters to forever claim that he was a victim of "victor's justice". His victims - and the world - deserve better.

A slow-motion lynching

The rejection of Saddam Hussein's appeal comes as no surprise. From beginning to end, Saddam's trial for the murders of Dujail has resembled more of a slow-motion lynching than any exercise in justice. Failure to disclose evidence to the defence, refusal to allow the defence to confront and test prosecution witnesses, stacked standards of evidence and outright judicial bias (and where it was not present, a change of judges) all meant that the trial failed to meet basic international standards of justice and fairness. To execute someone after such a farce simply compounds the injustice. But then, this has never been about justice; rather it is about revenge - exactly as Saddam's murders were all those years ago.

This is an insult to justice and an insult to Saddam's victims. There's no real doubt of Saddam's guilt, so why bother to stack the deck? Worse, it will allow people to claim forever that Saddam's "trial" was simply an exercise in "victor's justice". And sadly, they'll be right.

British hypocrisy over Saddam

The UK's position on the Saddam verdict? "We're against the death penalty - but in Saddam's case we'll look the other way"

At least Helen Clark is willing to speak out for her principles.

Not even Saddam deserves the death penalty

Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been found guilty of crimes against humanity for ordering the torture and mass-murder of 148 people in the village of Dujail. Along with two other co-defendants, he has been sentenced to death by hanging.

While I agree with the verdict, its more an accident than the product of a robust judicial process. Unlike the Nazis, Milosovic, or the genocideres of Rwanda, Saddam did not receive a fair trial according to basic international standards. Instead, he was paraded before a kangaroo court, with deliberately lowered standards of evidence and judges who were forced to resign if they tried to ensure the defence could put their side of the case. This farcical process (made even more farcical by Saddam's antics in the courtroom) has undermined the credibility of the verdict, and will allow Saddam's followers to forever claim that he was a victim of "victor's justice". And sadly, they won't be entirely wrong.

As for the sentence, while there would be a rich irony in Saddam suffering the same fate he inflicted on so many others, that would not be justice. Instead, it would simply be barbaric revenge, of exactly the sort Saddam inflicted upon the hapless residents of Dujail. While the desire for it is human and understandable, the act itself is nothing more than sadism, inflicting pain and death solely for the pleasure it gives. That is the ethical system of a kitten-strangling psychopath, not a civilised human being.

It is wrong to kill. It is especially wrong to kill for pleasure. Not even Saddam deserves to die in this way. Instead, he should be imprisoned for the rest of his natural life. That's a perfectly sufficient punishment for his actions - and one that shows that we are not at all like him.

Justice for al-Anfal

Saddam Hussein goes on trial again today, this time over the 1987-88 Anfal campaign. During the campaign, Kurdish villages were systematically destroyed by bombing, artillery, and poison gas, and Kurds subjected to execution, mass deportations, and imprisonment in concentration camps. An estimated 182,000 civilians were killed and hundreds of thousands more displaced, and so the charges are - quite appropriately - war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

I only hope they handle it better than the farce they've had over Dujail. As I've said before, even Saddam deserves a fair trial, both on moral grounds and pragmatic ones. I want Saddam to face justice, not simply revenge. I want his crimes thoroughly documented and proven so that no-one can have any doubt about what occurred, not simply alleged with no room allowed for dispute. And I want his trial to serve as a warning to future tyrants and genocideres, rather than one to those seeking to hold them responsible for their crimes. And if the Iraqi trial is not going to deliver that, then I would rather that it not go ahead at all rather than see people able to excuse Saddam on the basis that his trial was nothing but "victor's justice".

Justice for Al-Anfal

Saddam Hussein and six others are to face genocide charges over the 1986-89 Anfal campaign, in which Kurdish villages were systematically destroyed by bombing, artillery, and poison gas, and Kurds subjected to execution, mass deportations, and imprisonment in concentration camps. An estimated 180,000 civilians died during this campaign, and hundreds of thousands more were displaced. It's something Saddam should definitely face trial for; we just have to hope that they make a better job of it than the current farce.

Even Saddam deserves a fair trial

Saddam Hussein goes on trial tomorrow for crimes against humanity over the 1982 Dujail massacre. While I'm looking forward to this, and believe that Saddam has no defence under international law, I am concerned that justice may not be done. The most basic problem is the standard of proof: rather than the accepted standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", the tribunal simply has to be "satisfied" of guilt. This is a significant violation of fundamental standards of justice.

Why does this matter? Two reasons spring to mind. The first is that, despite the fact that he is a monster, even Saddam deserves a fair trial. The Nazis got one, and I don't think he's any viler or less deserving of proper justice than them. The second is that any deviation from fundamental standards of justice undermines the credibility of the trial, and hence of its judgements. If we want the judgements to stick, and if we want international law and the idea of trials for crimes against humanity to be credible, Saddam's trial must be conducted according to the highest standards, and he must be given every opportunity to defend himself properly. Anything else, and his apologists will always be able to claim that the trial was just a show, and its judgements "victor's justice". And, in a sense, they'll be right.

But there's also another reason why we shouldn't use a lower standard of proof in Saddam's case: it would be unnecessary. The evidence of Saddam's crimes is so overwhelming that I don't think there's any doubt about his guilt. The only question is what he is actually convicted of - Dujail, Halabja, the Al-Anfal campaign in general, or any of his other atrocities. What those who support a lower standard of proof are really saying is that they doubt the strength of the case against Saddam, and so they need to stack the deck against him to secure a conviction. Which makes you wonder why they're bothering with the pretence of justice at all...

No defence

Saddam Hussein is scheduled to go on trial next week for the 1982 Dujail massacre, in which 143 people were executed and thousands tortured or imprisoned in reprisals for an attempt on the dictator's life. According to today's Herald, he intends to plead "sovereign immunity" - the idea that a current or former head of state is above the law and accountable to no-one for their (legal) actions - as a defence. According to the defence, what happened at Dujail was entirely legal and in accordance with Iraqi law at the time, and that the Iraq Special Tribunal's prosecution is a retroactive change of the law, contrary to fundamental principles of justice.

I guess his lawyers didn't read up on Nuremberg. The International Military Tribunal responsible for trying the leaders of the Nazi regime established the principle that there was no sovereign immunity for crimes against humanity, and that heads of state could be held criminally responsible for breaches of customary international law. International human rights law was not well-developed in 1945, but even then, the IMT was able to find clear precedent that waging a war of aggression and violating the "laws of war" (both customary and those in the 1907 Hague Convention) were international crimes which could be punished by anyone. International human rights law has developed a great deal since then, and I think it is safe to say that in 1982, slaughtering a village in retaliation for an assassination attempt was outlawed, regardless of whether Iraq had signed a treaty explicitly saying so or not.