Iraqis call for domestic Saddam trial but U.S. unclear on venue

By Tom Hundley
The Chicago Tribune

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

LONDON — Now that they've got Saddam Hussein, the question is what to do with him.

Just days ago, Iraq's Governing Council announced plans for a special tribunal to try Saddam and other former regime leaders. But at Sunday's news conference in Baghdad, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez was careful to keep open all options when he said the United States was still deciding what to do with the former Iraqi dictator.

The U.S. must decide whether to turn over Saddam to an Iraqi judicial system that many experts consider incapable of executing such a trial. The other options include a U.S. military proceeding or even a trial in a U.S. civilian court.

A swift trial and a date with the executioner is the usual denouement for tyrants who were not prudent enough to choose exile while that was still an option. But in Saddam's case, it seems more likely that justice will be long and slow and televised.

Political leaders and legal experts are sharply divided on the best way to proceed.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair suggested at a news conference Sunday in London that it was up to the Iraqi people to determine the future of their former leader.

"Saddam is gone from power. He won't be coming back. That the Iraqi people now know, and it is they who will decide his fate," Blair said.

The Jordanian government said, "the first and last word concerning the capture of Saddam Hussein or his fate must be given to the Iraqi people."

Last week, the Bush administration trumpeted the new tribunal plan as a measure of Iraqi independence and progress. As proposed, the tribunal would be operated by Iraqi judges and lawyers, with broad powers to try suspects for everything from mass executions to wasting the nation's resources.

Unlike United Nations-sponsored tribunals that are hearing the war crimes and genocide cases against the previous leaders of former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Iraqi tribunal would not include the participation of the United Nations or of foreign jurists who are versed in the technicalities of war crimes courts.

Iraqi and U.S. officials involved in drafting the plan say the departure from those precedents reflects deep feelings among Iraqis that they must control the process of reconciling 35 years of injustices committed by and against their compatriots.

The changes also reflect a political about-face in U.S. thinking. After the capture and arrest of Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic by local police in 2001, Yugoslavia's new leaders wanted to put him on trial in Belgrade. But the U.S. was adamant that Milosevic be tried before the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague.

That trial is now approaching its second anniversary and is expected to last for at least another two years. The Bush administration has expressed its unhappiness with the slow pace. The White House also appears uneasy with the prospect of present and former U.S. officials being summoned to testify.

This week, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, now a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, has been called by the prosecution to testify against Milosevic. The former Yugoslav leader has indicated that he planned to call former President Bill Clinton, Prime Minister Blair and other top officials when he begins his defense next year.

The Bush administration would not relish giving Saddam the same opportunity.

Months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a detailed 700-page proposal on the subject of war crimes was prepared by the Iraqi Transitional Justice Program, a group of about 40 Iraqi exiles with legal backgrounds working under the auspices of the State Department. But like so much else in the planning for Iraq's postwar government, control over criminal prosecution of former regime leaders became entangled in turf wars between the State Department and the Pentagon.

Earlier this year, Pierre-Richard Prosper, the State Department's ambassador at large for war crimes, told a Senate panel that Iraqi and U.S. courts would be involved.

"Iraqis should lead the efforts to judge those who have committed the greatest crimes against their people," Prosper said, but added that the U.S. reserved the right to conduct its own trials of Iraqis.

Options ranged from military proceedings to civilian courts, he said.

Ahmad Chalabi, a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council with close ties to the Bush administration, insisted Sunday that Iraqis would try their former leader.

"Saddam will face trial for his crimes against the Iraqi people in an Iraqi court," Chalabi said, adding that the trial would be public "so that the Iraqi people will know his crimes."

But international law experts questioned whether Iraq's judicial system had the experience or capacity to mount a trial of this magnitude on its own.

"It's important that the Iraqi people feel ownership of (Saddam's) trial. But it's equally important that the trial not be perceived as vengeful justice. For that reason, international jurists must be involved in the process," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of New York-based Human Rights Watch.

The special tribunal announced by the Iraqi Governing Council last week exists only on paper, and after three decades of dictatorial rule, the Iraqi judiciary is not an institution noted for its vigor or independence.

At present, there are about 700 judges operating in Iraq's various courts, according to Dara Noor Alzin, a judge and member of the council. They deal mainly with local disputes and ordinary crimes.

With the likelihood of many revenge seekers willing to take justice into their own hands, just keeping Saddam alive throughout a trial would be a major undertaking.

Another option, suggested in the State Department's original report on rebuilding Iraq's justice system, would be to create a mixed tribunal drawn from the ranks of retired Iraqi judges, former Iraqi judges living in exile and judges from other Arab countries. That would help give the tribunal credibility in the Arab world and remove American "fingerprints" from the proceedings, experts said.

Copyright © 2003 The Seattle Times Company