Is Saddam Hussein's Trial Legitimate?

By

Abdulsalam Olatubosun Ajetunmobi

Abdsalm@aol.com

 

I opposed the American-led war against Iraq not because I doubted the torrent of reports about the trauma of Saddam’s dictatorship nor the allegations that his reign caused tremendous sufferings for Iraqis, but rather because I thought that there was a serious inconsistency in American policy towards the War on Terror and weapons of mass destruction plus the fact that the diplomatic mean had not been thoroughly exhausted before the war was launched. Aside the niceties of the right or wrong of the war on Iraq , the focus of the world attention has now shifted towards the trial of the ousted Iraqi leader and 11 of his henchmen who, last Thursday, made their first appearances before an Iraqi investigative judge. The accusations against them are believed to include war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression.

 

Saddam Hussein is not facing the court for the first time: he was arrested for six months in 1958 on suspicion of murdering a political rival of his uncle’s, and served two years for a plot to assassinate an erstwhile Iraq’s leader Brigadier 'Abd al-Karim Qassem in 1964. His second term in prison ended when he escaped from jail. However, for lack of proper representation during last week court appearance, many have expressed concerns about the legitimacy of the special tribunal. They then argue that the ousted leader should not be the only defendant in court, and that the conducts of those who ended his tyranny should also be put on trial since they maintained and sold him poison gas and other weapons he allegedly used against his own and others’ citizens. These are fair points, but what becomes of Saddam’s own responsibility and accountability? Well, since Saddam has cast himself as ‘the sword of Islam’ even though his regime was secularist and nationalistic in nature, let us consider the position of the religion on this. On individual responsibility, the Holy Qur’an reads: “And the devil will say … I had no authority over you, except that I called you and you obeyed me; so blame me not but blame yourselves.…” (Qur’an 14:22)

 

Satan in the above verse disclaims the possession of any power to lead human beings astray. It is indeed true that Satan has no power over any human being for, just as angels are instruments for the manifestation of human good qualities, Satan is only instrument for the manifestation of human weakness.  In reality we are led astray by our own baser self. Satan in that context only calls and it is we human beings who obey. The function of Satan and, therefore, any other human indoctrinators is merely to make evil suggestions, just as the function of angels is to make good suggestions. Angels cannot make us good, nor can Satan make us bad. They only show the way, good or bad, and we human beings do the rest.

 

To drive home my point, let us consider the effect of USA influence on these two countries, Israel and Iran in some distant past . Here, USA government gave unflinching support to both the states of Israel and Iran during the reign of Mohammed Reza Shah, i.e. before the Iranian revolution that brought in the Ayatollahs. In this instance, while Israel was mindful of the rights of its citizens and placed reliance on its constitution, the then Iranian leader Mohammed Reza Shah who had equally received the same American patronage like Israel instead trampled upon the rights of Iranians and ruled them by the fiat of omnipotence. The trappings of power, fear of opposition groups and insensitivity towards the concerns of Iranians led Shah into an insular dictatorship from 1941 until his exile in 1979 when he was swept away by the Revolution.

 

The bottom line here is that, though Saddam’s dictatorial style of rule might have, in the past, received tacit approval from America, it was Saddam’s own baser self that informed his actions as the passage quoted above has indicated. Saddam is therefore the sole architect of his own misfortune regardless of American’s past influence on his regime. And even if we have to consider the conducts of Saddam’s indoctrinators, it will not just be the Americans and the British, but the French, Russians and Chinese and others as well. For, according to figures compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, between 1973 and 2002 Russia supplied 57 per cent of Saddam’s arms imports, France 13 per cent and China 12 per cent. The US supplied at most just 1 per cent and Britain significantly less than that. Brazil supplied more weaponry to Saddam than the US and Britain combined.

 

Some people express doubts as to whether Saddam or any other members of his regime will receive a fair trial in Iraqi court given the current American grip on the country and that, in the event of a conviction, whether there will be meaningful justice for his alleged victims. But even if Saddam is tried according to Shariah as being suggested by some, he will still bear the brunt of his actions.Under Islamic law for example, he could be charged with “betrayal of trust” (khianah fil amanah), murder or “spreading corruption on earth” (ifsad fil-ardh).

 

Ever before writing this piece, I have indeed come across materials which have Saddam videotaping the purge in the Baghdad conference hall and top party leaders of his party were then being forced to witness and even participate in the executions of their colleagues. There are materials on how he cracked down on Shia clerics, executed not just the mullahs but also their families. Also, there is film footage repeatedly shown on TVs here where Saddam ordered his henchmen to take rival Baath leaders, among them Abdul-Khaliq al- Samarrai, out of a party congress and shoot them in the courtyard of the conference hall. As the armed guards grabbed the accused and escorted them from the hall, one man shouted that he was innocent, Saddam shouted back, "Itla! Itla!" - "Get out! Get out! The chilling performance had the desired effect. The audience rose and began hailing Saddam, clapping first in small groups and finally as one. 

 

Saddam seemed to have the idea about the brutal reprisals that would be unleashed should he ever lose his grip on power. In the Out of the Ashes (1999), the authors recalled a family that once complained to Saddam that one of their members had been unjustly executed. Rather than being apologetic about this issue, he reportedly told them, "Do not think you will get revenge. If you ever have the chance, by the time you get to us there will not be a silver of flesh left on our bodies." That is, if Saddam ever becomes vulnerable, his enemies will quickly devour him. Is Saddam not the luckier for being currently under the custody of the occupying force?

 

Ends never justify means. Although Iraq war should have been presented to the world as a humanitarian issue as this could have offered blood-curdling tales of torture, death cells and mass graves, but notwithstanding, in the light of the above I submit that the trial of Saddam Hussein is legitimate whether the sitting is under Western , Iraq or Islamic legal norms. To me, Saddam must answer: to Iraq , to the Arab world and to the wider Muslim community for the evil that he has perpetrated and the disgrace that he has brought upon them all.

 

Abdulsalam Olatubosun Ajetunmobi

London , UK