Let Iraqis, not bureaucrats, judge the brutal despot
from Collin Levey -
Seattle Times editorial columnist:
bq. The U.N. is sounding for all the world like a passive-aggressive spouse these days — whatever the U.S. suggests, it wants the opposite.
bq. After the one brief moment when the whole world was delighted that we'd caught Saddam, the bickering began over where and how the former Iraqi dictator would face trial. No sooner had the U.S. suggested that the Iraqis who had suffered under Saddam's rule had the right to bring him to justice, the shouting began. A trial would only have legitimacy and escape the slur of "victor's justice" if held in an international court, the multilateral faithful chanted.
bq. Kofi Annan reminded the world that the U.N. doesn't believe in the death penalty. A French lawyer offered himself as Saddam's defense counsel. So did former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clarke, the eternal nutty liberal who made his offer while attending an "anti-occupation conference" in Cairo.
bq. Having been left flatfooted by the capture, war opponents saw a chance to get their mojo back. Wesley Clark beamed from The Hague, where he has been testifying in the trial of Slobodan Milosevic, applauding the use of international criminal courts. A week before, he'd opined on MSNBC that Osama bin Laden, if captured, should be tried in an international court, too. After all, he'd end up in a "Dutch prison," Gen. Clark said. "They're under water, they're damp, they're cold, they're really miserable."
more:
bq. Many of the opponents of an Iraqi trial are the same folks who refused to stand in judgment of Saddam when he was in violation of every U.N. commitment and human-rights standard. Why are these international civil servants so keen to sit and judge him now? Just a few weeks ago, they couldn't scream loud enough that the U.S. occupation had to end and power and control had to be handed back to Iraqis regardless of the consequences. Now they say Iraqis are not to be trusted with the trial of the man who tormented them for years.
bq. The inconsistency here is quite numbing. The only common denominator is a craving to assert bureaucratic prerogative on behalf of "international institutions."
and more:
bq. The Governing Council has already drafted a statute for a war-crimes tribunal in Baghdad. The same leaders — Shiite, Kurd and Sunni — who confronted Saddam in his cell and went straight to the question of justice for his crimes are the best indication that a new Iraq is up to the challenge of prosecuting its old despot.
bq. Suddenly, the problem, most detractors say, is the appearance of it all. Human Rights Watch's executive director announced that any trial run by Iraqis would be perceived as an American puppet trial and wouldn't win any credence with the international community.
bq. In other words, it's all about bashing the U.S. once more. Isn't it time we stopped even dignifying this motivation? Who will be stepping up to dispute that Saddam murdered some 300,000 Iraqi Kurds, or used chemical weapons against the Iranians, or invaded Kuwait? Those who will continue to defend Saddam's acts — the Palestinians come to mind — will not be swayed by an international court any more than they will by an Iraqi one. Half of them think the Mossad blew up the World Trade Center.
Posted by DaveH at December 18, 2003 9:48 AM