Can Justice Rule, even for Saddam?

The euphoria over capturing the Iraqi dictator seems to have been short-lived. Now that Saddam is apparently in US-custody, a whole new problem dimension arises: what to do with him? Displaying his dead sons was comparatively easy, sort of a fait accompli. While there should be little if any doubt in any ones' mind about the magnitude of crimes committed through Saddam and his regime, bringing him to justice cannot be abandoned for the sake of revenge. Indeed the very idea that justice can now take its proper course after the dictators' fall is at stake. Possibly Saddam himself may have seen captivity as a means of extension of his political life. Clearly the US cannot simply let him disappear in Guantanamo Bay and think the world will forget about the matter. Turning him over to the makeshift Iraqi Council could be a way out of the dilemma of having to pretend that justice is prevailing while knowing that Dodge City justice is a real possibility.

This is precisely the issue for which the Iraqi Council can demonstrate internationally that it is more than a smoke screen for the invaders agendas. They could decide to accept responsibility for bringing Saddam to international justice. Upon formal transfer of the prisoner to the Iraqi Council, a bold political motion could be agreed upon that would see Saddam handed over to a UN War Crimes tribunal. This would strengthen the Iraqi council vis-à-vis the invaders, as it would make an autonomous decision on how, when and where to seek justice. At the same time it may well raise legitimacy and credibility for the Council among Iraqi citizens, as such a decision would be seen as being done independently and according to international law and standards: in fact a genuine move towards self-determination and democracy.

Similar to the indictment charges against Slobodan Milosevic at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague (http://www.un.org/icty/index.html) a tribunal for Iraq under Saddam Hussein needs to be established. As in the case of Yugoslavia ,the offences it could persecute are defined as: · Grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions · Violations of the laws or customs of war · Genocide · Crimes against humanity Further the tribunal may not try suspects in absentia, nor impose the death penalty. International law, indeed does exist, contrary to the arrogant insults and attacks on it from the far-right US Government. International law stipulates that

"Persons against whom there is evidence that they have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity shall be subject to trial and, if found guilty, to punishment, as a general rule in the countries in which they committed those crimes. In that connection, States shall co-operate on questions of extraditing such persons." (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_extr...

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic