of Saddam Hussein
December 17 2003
He was dug out of a hole looking like some guy picked up off a grate in
the dead of winter who ought to be taken to the Mitch Snyder homeless
shelter at 2nd and D, so he doesn't freeze to death.© 2003 Creators
The first words the man in the spider hole, who once compared himself to
Saladin, uttered were, "Don't Shoot." Thus did the career of Saddam
Hussein come to an inglorious end with a U.S. Army medic sifting through
his hair for lice.
Somber and serious as he announced U.S. forces had captured him,
President Bush left the gloating to Bremer in Baghdad. The triumphalism
of last May's address to the nation from the flight deck of the Abraham
Lincoln, beneath that "Mission Accomplished" banner, was gone. And
wisely so, for this war goes on.
What the president wishes to avoid is an outbreak of euphoria, a sense
that because we now have Hitler the war is over and we can come home.
The president now knows better.
For if the attacks ramp up now, after Baghdad has fallen, Iraq is
disarmed and Saddam is in custody, Americans will want to know why our
men are still dying. If the answer is, "For democracy in Iraq," the next
question will be, "Why aren't the Iraqis fighting and dying for
democracy in Iraq themselves?"
Ahead lies the trial. In preparing for it, the president's men should
keep several incidents in mind. One is the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald
by Jack Ruby as Dallas police paraded him before the cameras.
No matter the demand of the Iraqi Governing Council for custody of
Saddam, U.S. forces should detain him. For, should something happen to
Saddam, the Arab world will never believe we did not murder him to keep
him from testifying.
Another occasion to recall is the trial of Nazi Air Marshal Hermann
Goering. By the accounts of many observers, Goering ran circles around
the U.S. prosecutor, Justice Robert Jackson, and the night before he was
to go to the gallows, he was slipped a cyanide pill, cheating the
hangman of Nuremberg.
Saddam may see a public trial, where he can make his case against
America to the Arab world, as a last chance for future redemption. Nor
is the idea absurd. Five years ago, a popular film in Japan portrayed
hanged war criminal Hideki Tojo as a military hero framed and lynched by
Yet, with a public trial, President Bush has a historic opportunity to
persuade the Arab world, through Al-Jazeera, of what he believes is the
truth: that, even if Saddam did not have the weapons we thought he had,
was not tied to 9-11 and had no plans to attack us, he was yet a
barbarous tyrant whom Arabs ought to have been ashamed to support.
A long trial that the world press covers, where the atrocities and
massacres of Saddam's regime are exposed and proven by the first-hand
testimony of witnesses and the pictures of exhumed bodies, could go far
to making the moral case for war.
There will quickly come, however, a clamor that Saddam be tried at the
Hague, or by a U.N. tribunal. The purpose would be to establish the
supremacy of international law over a sovereign United States.
This must be resisted. America fought this war for U.S. national
interests without the aid or benediction of the United Nations. Thus we
decide. Second, Europe has outlawed the death penalty. But if Saddam
does not deserve it, no one does. Third, the United States itself has
refused to accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court
that came into being over our vehement objections. As Saddam's greatest
crimes were perpetrated against Iraqis, the trial should be held in
Baghdad, by Iraqis.
Yet there are risks attendant to any such trial.
Most of the world did not support America in the Iraq war, and many in
Europe and Asia ardently wish to see us depart Baghdad the way we had to
English-speaking lawyers are probably already volunteering to defend
Saddam. Recall that the "Dream Team" hired to defend O.J. put the Los
Angeles Police Department on trial. Saddam's defenders will seek to put
America in the dock for aiding Saddam against Iran, for the slaughter of
the Shia after the Gulf War, for the thousands of deaths resulting from
sanctions and for waging a war of aggression in 2003.
How did the prosecutors at Nuremberg, who had indicted the Nazis for war
crimes and crimes against humanity, get around such problems? One was to
decide that "terror bombing" would not be on the docket as a war crime.
Another was to permit only Nazi crimes to be prosecuted.
If this trial is to go forward before the election of 2004, the
president's men should probably start writing the rules yesterday.
for printable version.
Click here to mail this article to a friend.
Click here for
Daily Column Archives