The Saddam Chronicles

Saddam Hussein's trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity is scheduled to begin tomorrow:

Saddam Hussein and seven senior members of his 23-year regime will go on trial Wednesday to face charges they ordered the 1982 killings of nearly 150 people from the mainly Shiite town of Dujail following a failed attempt on Saddam's life.

Court officials have said they are trying Saddam on the Dujail massacre (search) first because it was the easiest and quickest case to put together. Other cases they are investigating — including a crackdown on the Kurds that killed an estimated 180,000 people — involve much larger numbers of victims, more witnesses and more documentation.

If convicted, Saddam and his co-defendants could face the death penalty, but they could appeal before another chamber of the Iraqi Special Tribunal (search).

Saddam and his co-defendants are expected to hear the charges against them during Wednesday's hearing, and the court will address procedural matters. The trial is then expected to be adjourned for several weeks.

As usual, the human rights groups AI and HRW are complaining that Saddam might not receive a fair trial. One has to wonder just how fair Saddam's trials and executions of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis over the years were? Sure, AI and HRW both provided sporadic coverage of the mass killings and the purposeful use of chemical weapons against the Kurds, but these legal proceedings are going to be as fair as any trial of this nature can be.

Here's how the NYT is covering this on their web page:

Hussein Goes on Trial Tomorrow, and Iraqis See a First Accounting
By JOHN F. BURNS
What should be a moment of triumph for Saddam Hussein's victims is instead stirring concern about the fairness and competence of the court itself.

That's right. Instead of talking about all the criminal and heinous activities of Saddam during his reign of terror, we're getting lectured about whether he's going to be tried fairly on the front page. We're told that some are pushing for an international tribunal, and some question why this particular set of crimes was chosen to lead what would be a series of cases against Hussein.

Using an international tribunal would most likely mean that Saddam would escape the death penalty because the usual international elites are against its use. The elites worry that Iraqis may impose 'victors' justice on Saddam and his cohorts. This isn't about victors' justice; it's about justice once delayed being served with finality. Saddam did commit mass murder and heinous crimes against humanity. We have the pictures. We have the corpses to prove this. We have the testimony from those who worked in his presence and the growing body of forensic evidence that he conducted these acts without remorse and did so willingly and purposefully.

So, we get the usual suspects harping on about problems with the selection of this case, worries about the court's fairness towards Saddam and his cohorts, and worries that justice will be served, but not in the way that the elites would like.