Saddam trial on TJF
Check out this post on the Saddam trial that I just put up on Transitional Justice Forum. Also, this post from last Saturday, about the recently completed report of the Morrocan truth commisiion.
Was Hussein tortured?
Independent experts can easily verify the fact of torture. So, if Hussein lies that he has been tortured, then US officials can easily prove that everything is OK. This would be a terrible humiliation for him!
But Hussein does not need to read Malleus Maleficarum to learn the logic of torture, he is a world class expert in this area. So, it is very likely that he tells the truth.
The problem is, it means that Hussein's trial has nothing to do with Western justice, it cannot achieve anything except for discreditation of the occupation. In fact, organizers of this nauseating show have nobody but themselves to blame for their historic blunder.
So, if there is any difference between Hussein's trial and Stalinist trials of the 1930-ies, it is abysmal organization. At least, Vyshinsky had a theory for this kind of "justice" and he knew how to make it work for Stalin's benefit.
1. BBC. Americans tortured me - Saddam
2. Wiki on Malleus Maleficarum
3. Wiki on Vyshinsky
4. Vyshinsky speech at the 1936 trial of Zinoviev and Kamenev
http://inplainview.monitor.us.tt/comm.ME.htm
Henry, that's very useful.
In return may I recommend to you the piece by Paul Craig Roberts currently up on Counterpunch at http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts12212005.html .
Roberts is no communist. He writes, among other things (but he is always brief):
'Defendants are simply intimidated into self-incrimination rather than risk the terrors of trial.
'According to Yale University law professor John Langbein, "The parallels between the modern American plea bargaining system and the ancient system of judicial torture are many and chilling."
'Americans in their ignorance and gullibility think that only the guilty would enter a guilty plea. This is the uninformed opinion of the naive who have never experienced the terror and psychological torture of the US criminal justice (sic) system.'
Paul Craig Roberts is a great and honest writer.
Henry, that's very useful.
In return may I recommend to you the piece by Paul Craig Roberts currently up on Counterpunch at http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts12212005.html .
Roberts is no communist. He writes, among other things (but he is always brief):
'Defendants are simply intimidated into self-incrimination rather than risk the terrors of trial.
'According to Yale University law professor John Langbein, "The parallels between the modern American plea bargaining system and the ancient system of judicial torture are many and chilling."
'Americans in their ignorance and gullibility think that only the guilty would enter a guilty plea. This is the uninformed opinion of the naive who have never experienced the terror and psychological torture of the US criminal justice (sic) system.'
Paul Craig Roberts is a great and honest writer.
"it means that Hussein's trial has nothing to do with Western justice"
Let us be very clear about the fact that whether or not Saddam was tortured his "trial" does not, never did, and never will have anything to do with western justice, or any other kind of justice.
PS For what it is worth, I doubt very much that Saddam has been tortured.
Let us be very clear about the fact that whether or not Saddam was tortured his "trial" does not, never did, and never will have anything to do with western justice, or any other kind of justice.
I don't think that the issue of torture can be discarded for any reason at all - investigation torture is a military crime.
That is, by claiming torture, Hussein accuses top US and Iraqi military commanders of a military crime! As I already pointed out, technically, it is very easy to check, and then it will be all clear.
The problem is, Hussein made a very smart move because prosecution is very unlikely to agree for independent (ICRC?) assessment. So, until they agree, they lose miserably.
I too doubt that Saddam has been tortured. The US government's over-riding goal ever since they captured him alive has been to stage a high-profile "trial" for him. (I think this is strongly influenced by their desire to lay claim to WW-2-style grandeur of purpose and of significance in their invasion of Iraq.) And they well know-- from all the contortions and problems they've gotten into with all their ghost detainees-- that basically, you can either do troture or you can stage a trial that has some claim to credibility. You can't do both.
Hence, for example, we never see any hint that the Bushies plan to bring Khaled Shaikh Muhammed or Ibn al-Shaikh al-Libi or any of the others whom we have good reason to believe have been tortured, to any credible (= open) form of trial, though they have been held far longer than Saddam.
Ditto all the folks in Gitmo.
But for Saddam, the plan was always to have a trial of Nuremberg-style grandeur and global impact...
I too doubt that Saddam has been tortured. The US government's over-riding goal ever since they captured him alive has been to stage a high-profile "trial" for him. (I think this is strongly influenced by their desire to lay claim to WW-2-style grandeur of purpose and of significance in their invasion of Iraq.) And they well know-- from all the contortions and problems they've gotten into with all their ghost detainees-- that basically, you can either do torture or you can stage a trial that has some claim to credibility. You can't do both... But for Saddam, the plan was always to have a trial of Nuremberg-style grandeur and global impact... Posted by Helena at December 22, 2005 11:30 AM
I agree completely that it is critical for the trial to be torture-free. The alternative is Stalinist "justice"!
Now about the "doubt" part. The problem is, I remember that G.Will wanted to make Hussein's trial "better" that Nuremberg which was too mulutilateral for him. He wanted this trial to be unilateral, free from "dictatorial" involvement.
Well, in practical terms, it means that neocons put their "democracy" where it does not belong - in the very nature of legal proof! For them, "evil dictators" are always wrong while "good democrats" are always right, so there is nothing much to prove!
But, IMO, the proof is still needed and we have the following Q/A:
Q1: Was Hussein really tortured?
A1: We don't know.
Q2: Is it important?
A2: Yes.
Q3: Who is to resolve the uncertainty?
A3: Only occupation authorities can do this - by allowing independent UN/ICRC inspections.
Q4: What happens without such inspections?
A4: The trial is not good.
Henry,
I am not suggesting discarding the issue of torture. What I am saying is that whether or not Saddam was tortured (and I SERIOUSLY doubt that he was) has nothing at all to do with the legitimacy of this "trial", its actual purpose, or whether it has to do with western or any other kind of justice. It is a kangaroo show trial for the political benefit of the Bush administration and the current iteration of the so-called "Iraqi government", and to get him executed and out of the way so he can't be tried for crimes that might be embarrassing to the U.S. and its allies and puppets. It has nothing to do with justice whether he was tortured or not.
From what I know about these things it is not all that easy to prove torture, and far more difficult to disprove it. This is particularly the case given that there are torture methods that leave no marks - the Israelis know a lot about this.
By now anyone who questions that the U.S. has used, and widely promoted the use of torture in Iraq and elsewhere is seriously out of touch with reality. I really do not see how these particular torture allegations - which are in any case questionable at best - are of any special significance or value.
I am not suggesting discarding the issue of torture.
OK.
What I am saying is that whether or not Saddam was tortured (and I SERIOUSLY doubt that he was) has nothing at all to do with the legitimacy of this "trial", its actual purpose, or whether it has to do with western or any other kind of justice.
This way, you effectively discard the principle that absence of torture is critical for the legitimacy of any modern trial (in the Middle Ages, torture was OK). I can't agree, this principle is vital.
It is a kangaroo show trial for the political benefit of the Bush administration and the current iteration of the so-called "Iraqi government", and to get him executed and out of the way so he can't be tried for crimes that might be embarrassing to the U.S. and its allies and puppets.
Right. However, this is a conclusion which needs a proof, not an axiom.
It has nothing to do with justice whether he was tortured or not.
No. If defendant was tortured, the trial is not good.
From what I know about these things it is not all that easy to prove torture, and far more difficult to disprove it. This is particularly the case given that there are torture methods that leave no marks - the Israelis know a lot about this.
Yes, there are traceless methods to put pressure, for example, sleep deprivation. However, what Hussein is talking about is crude beating which is easy to verify. If doctors will find Saddam physically OK, the question of torture will be closed.
"you effectively discard the principle that absence of torture is critical for the legitimacy of any modern trial"
You can only reach this conclusion by using very faulty logic. Among other problems with your logic, you have committed the fallacy of generalizing to all modern trials a statement I made about one very specific trial (or, in this case, "trial").
"this is a conclusion which needs a proof, not an axiom."
When your argument is based on such fallacious logic, throwing around technical terms does not impress.
"If defendant was tortured, the trial is not good.
What part of "this particular trial is not good whether or not the defendant was tortured" is not clear?
"there are traceless methods to put pressure, for example, sleep deprivation."
There are traceless methods that do more than merely "put pressure". Some of them can and do even cause death.
"what Hussein is talking about is crude beating which is easy to verify."
1. What Saddam is talking about is "beating AND torture". As far as I know he did not specify what form the torture took.
2. Beating can be impossible to verify. It depends on a number of factors including where on the body it was done, how it was done, and how long ago it was done.
"If doctors will find Saddam physically OK, the question of torture will be closed."
If doctors find him physically OK it will prove nothing one way or the other.
Helena, I wonder whether you have seen the Human Dignity and Huimiltation Studies Group and their web site?
If doctors find him physically OK it will prove nothing one way or the other. Posted by: Shirin at December 22, 2005 04:00 PM
Basically, this means that all medical experts need to be fired because they can't say whether the patient was beaten / tortured or not.
I am sorry, but that's trolling. Have a good day.
Henry James wrote:
Independent experts can easily verify the fact of torture. So, if Hussein lies that he has been tortured, then US officials can easily prove that everything is OK. This would be a terrible humiliation for him!
I don’t know till now why some people think Americans are not lying or not tortured humans any where in the world.
Historically the behaviours of US clearly indicated there were human Right abuses done by US in many other foreign courtiers no doubt about that.
Going back to Saddam I am not justifying or defending him here but the main question we need to understand from all this staged courts trial and the insisting to broadcasting the event with bad quality of sound despite there were US$45 Millions spent for the preparation of Saddam Castel to be the court room for his trial.
I think this staged trial to achieved many goals
1. The timing of trial in Baghdad to pick the attention from major issues that will affected the future of Iraq state which we saw in the constitution passed process and now the voting of new transition period to new government. This to cover the cooking process that US trying to setup the new Iraq politics influencing the outcome to be with the plane of US Think-Tank.
2. Show the other leaders in ME who the humiliations will be if their nation get them down of course with US help.
3. Marginalise Saddam’s acts toward all Iraqis and maximise the Sha’at suffering under his regime. In fact all Iraqis had suffered from his regime to some degree that we can not say the sha’at had suffered the most. If we do so this is a lie.
"Basically, this means that all medical experts need to be fired because they can't say whether the patient was beaten / tortured or not."
More very fallacious logic. No, what it means is that it is often impossible to say whether someone has been beaten/tortured or not.
"I am sorry, but that's trolling."
Ummmmm - no, it is simply fact.
Circus of a Trial http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=75146&d=23&m=12&y=2005