Iraq: Dujail Trial Fundamentally Flawed

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

An interesting question - given the man on trial. Even in cases where there is little or no doubt of the defendants guilt, does the defendent still have the right to a fair and impartial trial.

Perhaps the issue here is not Saddam but on other "criminal" members of his regime who might never be charged and brought to justice if the trial has been fixed around convicting Saddam and a few core defendants.

Iraq: Dujail Trial Fundamentally Flawed

Court Should Overturn Verdict, Death Penalty

(New York, November 20, 2006) – The trial of Saddam Hussein and seven other defendants before the Iraqi High Tribunal for crimes against humanity was marred by so many procedural and substantive flaws that the verdict is unsound, Human Rights Watch said in a 97-page report released today. The shortcomings of the trial, for the killings of more than 100 people from the Iraqi town of Dujail, also call into question subsequent proceedings at the tribunal.

“The proceedings in the Dujail trial were fundamentally unfair,” said Nehal Bhuta of the International Justice program at Human Rights Watch and author of the report. “The tribunal squandered an important opportunity to deliver credible justice to the people of Iraq. And its imposition of the death penalty after an unfair trial is indefensible.”

The report, entitled “Judging Dujail: The First Trial Before the Iraqi High Tribunal,” is based on 10 months of observation and dozens of interviews with judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers, and is the most comprehensive analysis to date of the trial. Human Rights Watch, which has demanded the prosecution of Saddam Hussein and his lieutenants for more than a decade, was one of only two international organizations that had a regular observer presence in the courtroom.

The Iraqi High Tribunal was undermined from the outset by Iraqi government actions that threatened the independence and perceived impartiality of the court. Members of parliament and even ministers regularly denounced the tribunal as weak, leading to the resignation of the first presiding trial judge.

“Judging Dujail” reports previously undocumented and serious procedural flaws in the trial, including:

• regular failure to disclose key evidence, including exculpatory evidence, to the defense in advance;

• violations of the defendants’ basic fair trial right to confront witnesses against them;

• lapses of judicial demeanor that undermined the apparent impartiality of the presiding judge; and

• important gaps in evidence that undermine the persuasiveness of the prosecution case, and put in doubt whether all the elements of the crimes charged were established.

The report also shows that the tribunal as an institution has struggled to competently perform basic administrative functions that are essential to a fair and effective trial. It failed to develop effective programs to address the needs of witnesses and victims or to ensure the security of defense lawyers, and ignored the important task of explaining the trial process to the Iraqi population.

The Dujail trial commenced before the Iraqi High Tribunal in Baghdad on October 19, 2005, and ended on July 27, 2006, with a verdict announced on November 5, 2006. Saddam Hussein and two other defendants were sentenced to death by hanging, and four defendants received prison terms ranging from 15 years to life. One defendant was acquitted at the prosecution’s request. The verdict and sentences are currently being appealed to the Appeals Chamber.

The trial concerned the aftermath of an assassination attempt against then-President Saddam Hussein in Dujail in July 1982. Government officials were accused of orchestrating an attack on the town’s inhabitants in revenge for the assassination attempt, resulting in the detention, torture and forced displacement of hundreds, and the deaths of more than 100 boys and men after a summary trial.

“The tribunal failed to meet basic fair trial standards in its first trial. Unless the Iraqi government allows experienced international judges and lawyers to participate directly, it’s unlikely the court can fairly conduct other trials,” said Bhuta.

The tribunal’s statute requires that death sentences be implemented 30 days after the final appeal, and that no commutation is possible. If the death sentence against Saddam Hussein is upheld on appeal, there is a chance that he will be executed before the conclusion of his ongoing trial for genocide against the Kurds.

Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty as inherently inhumane punishment and says that executing Hussein while other trials are ongoing will also deprive many thousands of victims of their day in court.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11/20/iraq14589.htm

[kaydee457 13]

Interesting article. erekose. Did you witness and follow this trial? I fail to see what point you're trying to make by posting this article.

Do you have an opinion on the trial's outcome or are you just soliciting others opinions so that you may form your own opinion; possibly the popular opinion?

That behavior seems to be your "signature".

The article is editorial. Everyone has an opinion, except, as we have all learned before, erekose formulates his/her opinion(s) with more care than the average, slow witted schmucks perusing this forum.

You have no opinions unless you've personally witnessed, and subsequently evaluated by your own personal experience, the actual subject of the article.

Umm, I'm for the results of the trial... But of course, given you haven't actually witnessed the proceedings I can only suppose that you have no opinion. True?

So once again, what are you trying to achieve by posting this thread, erekose?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Interesting article. erekose. Did you witness and follow this trial? I fail to see what point you're trying to make by posting this article.

Do you have an opinion on the trial's outcome or are you just soliciting others opinions so that you may form your own opinion; possibly the popular opinion?

That behavior seems to be your "signature".

The article is editorial. Everyone has an opinion, except, as we have all learned before, erekose formulates his/her opinion(s) with more care than the average, slow witted schmucks perusing this forum.

You have no opinions unless you've personally witnessed, and subsequently evaluated by your own personal experience, the actual subject of the article.

Umm, I'm for the results of the trial... But of course, given you haven't actually witnessed the proceedings I can only suppose that you have no opinion. True?

So once again, what are you trying to achieve by posting this thread, erekose?

For the purposes of 'discussion', if you really need to have that pointed out. Not that you want to participate in discussion - even if your own threads

Here is my opinion, if you need it to be pointed out:

Perhaps the issue here is not Saddam but on other "criminal" members of his regime who might never be charged and brought to justice if the trial has been fixed around convicting Saddam and a few core defendants.

Perhaps you didn't read the if - here, I bolded it for you

What's the difference between this thread and Hotel Chain locks out CNN, CNN passing off terrorist propaganda as "news"? I would have thought it was obvious - I read the article, you don't seem to think that's necessary. Is it even worth pointing out that the "offending" footage you were complaining about (but again, hadn't seen only amounted to about 20% of the actual CNN report. How you can render an opinion on the quality of the journalism without actually viewing it... clearly you consider yourself above such things.

And you complain about my "high horse" - at least I consider the evidence available to me before I render a judgment. Again you seem to think that isn't necessary. I'm guessing you're OK with a potentially fixed trial - he's clearly guilty so you don't need to see any evidence, right??

Well we both know you're ridiculous. But the fact that you're here days later trotting out the same old argument only underscores that.

Edited November 20, 2006 by erekose

[kaydee457 13]

Interesting article. erekose. Did you witness and follow this trial? I fail to see what point you're trying to make by posting this article.

Do you have an opinion on the trial's outcome or are you just soliciting others opinions so that you may form your own opinion; possibly the popular opinion?

That behavior seems to be your "signature".

The article is editorial. Everyone has an opinion, except, as we have all learned before, erekose formulates his/her opinion(s) with more care than the average, slow witted schmucks perusing this forum.

You have no opinions unless you've personally witnessed, and subsequently evaluated by your own personal experience, the actual subject of the article.

Umm, I'm for the results of the trial... But of course, given you haven't actually witnessed the proceedings I can only suppose that you have no opinion. True?

So once again, what are you trying to achieve by posting this thread, erekose?

For the purposes of 'discussion', if you really need to have that pointed out. Not that you want to participate in discussion - even if your own threads

Here is my opinion, if you need it to be pointed out:

Perhaps the issue here is not Saddam but on other "criminal" members of his regime who might never be charged and brought to justice if the trial has been fixed around convicting Saddam and a few core defendants.

Perhaps you didn't read the if - here, I bolded it for you

What's the difference between this thread and Hotel Chain locks out CNN, CNN passing off terrorist propaganda as "news"? I would have thought it was obvious - I read the article, you don't seem to think that's necessary. Is it even worth pointing out that the "offending" footage you were complaining about (but again, hadn't seen only amounted to about 20% of the actual CNN report. How you can render an opinion on the quality of the journalism without actually viewing it... clearly you consider yourself above such things.

And you complain about my "high horse" - at least I consider the evidence available to me before I render a judgment. Again you seem to think that isn't necessary. I'm guessing you're OK with a potentially fixed trial - he's clearly guilty so you don't need to see any evidence, right??

Well we both know you're ridiculous. But the fact that you're here days later trotting out the same old argument only underscores that.

Geez, there you go. Straight to the personal attacks. My suggestion to you would be to do some travelling and get some perspective.

Here's why.

From what you write, it's clear to me that you lack any perspective whatsoever. Intuitive to me.

You remind me of when I was in the Philippines 25 years ago; there were some young Americans we were assigned to give a "cultural tour" to so that they may learn something. I don't remember their affiliation but I do remember their indignation over the fact that some locals lived in huts and slept on mats.

They were guilty of the same mistake that most westerners make; that's to impose, and apply our western values and standards on the locals. In fact these Philippino’s were perfectly happy and were insulted by the condescending comments made by the U.S. visitors.

And so erekose, the point here is that you know nothing of their (the Iraqi) legal system but you're arrogant enough to criticize the outcome of their most important trial (in recent history) and apply your own narrow point of view. How about it's the best they have at the moment? Sure it doesn't live up to our legal system's "checks and balances" but it's a heck of a lot better than Saddam's way........

This ain’t America, or England dear/sir. Live with it.

Perspective is a wonderful thing. Perhaps you need to acquire some? Take a trip…Learn……

Edited November 20, 2006 by kaydee457

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Interesting article. erekose. Did you witness and follow this trial? I fail to see what point you're trying to make by posting this article.

Do you have an opinion on the trial's outcome or are you just soliciting others opinions so that you may form your own opinion; possibly the popular opinion?

That behavior seems to be your "signature".

The article is editorial. Everyone has an opinion, except, as we have all learned before, erekose formulates his/her opinion(s) with more care than the average, slow witted schmucks perusing this forum.

You have no opinions unless you've personally witnessed, and subsequently evaluated by your own personal experience, the actual subject of the article.

Umm, I'm for the results of the trial... But of course, given you haven't actually witnessed the proceedings I can only suppose that you have no opinion. True?

So once again, what are you trying to achieve by posting this thread, erekose?

For the purposes of 'discussion', if you really need to have that pointed out. Not that you want to participate in discussion - even if your own threads

Here is my opinion, if you need it to be pointed out:

Perhaps the issue here is not Saddam but on other "criminal" members of his regime who might never be charged and brought to justice if the trial has been fixed around convicting Saddam and a few core defendants.

Perhaps you didn't read the if - here, I bolded it for you

What's the difference between this thread and Hotel Chain locks out CNN, CNN passing off terrorist propaganda as "news"? I would have thought it was obvious - I read the article, you don't seem to think that's necessary. Is it even worth pointing out that the "offending" footage you were complaining about (but again, hadn't seen only amounted to about 20% of the actual CNN report. How you can render an opinion on the quality of the journalism without actually viewing it... clearly you consider yourself above such things.

And you complain about my "high horse" - at least I consider the evidence available to me before I render a judgment. Again you seem to think that isn't necessary. I'm guessing you're OK with a potentially fixed trial - he's clearly guilty so you don't need to see any evidence, right??

Well we both know you're ridiculous. But the fact that you're here days later trotting out the same old argument only underscores that.

Geez, there you go. Straight to the personal attacks. My suggestion to you would be to do some travelling and get some perspective.

Here's why.

From what you write, it's clear to me that you lack any perspective whatsoever. Intuitive to me.

You remind me of when I was in the Philippines 25 years ago; there were some young Americans we were assigned to give a "cultural tour" to so that they may learn something. I don't remember their affiliation but I do remember their indignation over the fact that some locals lived in huts and slept on mats.

They were guilty of the same mistake that most westerners make; that's to impose, and apply our western values and standards on the locals. In fact these Philippino’s were perfectly happy and were insulted by the condescending comments made by the U.S. visitors.

And so erekose, the point here is that you know nothing of their (the Iraqi) legal system but you're arrogant enough to criticize the outcome of their most important trial (in recent history) and apply your own narrow point of view. How about it's the best they have at the moment? Sure it doesn't live up to our legal system's "checks and balances" but it's a heck of a lot better than Saddam's way........

This ain’t America, or England dear/sir. Live with it.

Perspective is a wonderful thing. Perhaps you need to acquire some? Take a trip…Learn……

All your "big picture" perspective indicates to me is that you think its perfectly OK to render an opinion on a piece of journalistic reporting via another piece of reporting - without actually viewing the source material. Its a 5 minute report - its a little strange that you don't consider it worth the investment. After all we're not talking top-secret material here. Its all in the public domain. That's the height of laziness IMO.

In fact I can already tell you didn't read this article either.

[kaydee457 13]

Interesting article. erekose. Did you witness and follow this trial? I fail to see what point you're trying to make by posting this article.

Do you have an opinion on the trial's outcome or are you just soliciting others opinions so that you may form your own opinion; possibly the popular opinion?

That behavior seems to be your "signature".

The article is editorial. Everyone has an opinion, except, as we have all learned before, erekose formulates his/her opinion(s) with more care than the average, slow witted schmucks perusing this forum.

You have no opinions unless you've personally witnessed, and subsequently evaluated by your own personal experience, the actual subject of the article.

Umm, I'm for the results of the trial... But of course, given you haven't actually witnessed the proceedings I can only suppose that you have no opinion. True?

So once again, what are you trying to achieve by posting this thread, erekose?

For the purposes of 'discussion', if you really need to have that pointed out. Not that you want to participate in discussion - even if your own threads

Here is my opinion, if you need it to be pointed out:

Perhaps the issue here is not Saddam but on other "criminal" members of his regime who might never be charged and brought to justice if the trial has been fixed around convicting Saddam and a few core defendants.

Perhaps you didn't read the if - here, I bolded it for you

What's the difference between this thread and Hotel Chain locks out CNN, CNN passing off terrorist propaganda as "news"? I would have thought it was obvious - I read the article, you don't seem to think that's necessary. Is it even worth pointing out that the "offending" footage you were complaining about (but again, hadn't seen only amounted to about 20% of the actual CNN report. How you can render an opinion on the quality of the journalism without actually viewing it... clearly you consider yourself above such things.

And you complain about my "high horse" - at least I consider the evidence available to me before I render a judgment. Again you seem to think that isn't necessary. I'm guessing you're OK with a potentially fixed trial - he's clearly guilty so you don't need to see any evidence, right??

Well we both know you're ridiculous. But the fact that you're here days later trotting out the same old argument only underscores that.

Geez, there you go. Straight to the personal attacks. My suggestion to you would be to do some travelling and get some perspective.

Here's why.

From what you write, it's clear to me that you lack any perspective whatsoever. Intuitive to me.

You remind me of when I was in the Philippines 25 years ago; there were some young Americans we were assigned to give a "cultural tour" to so that they may learn something. I don't remember their affiliation but I do remember their indignation over the fact that some locals lived in huts and slept on mats.

They were guilty of the same mistake that most westerners make; that's to impose, and apply our western values and standards on the locals. In fact these Philippino’s were perfectly happy and were insulted by the condescending comments made by the U.S. visitors.

And so erekose, the point here is that you know nothing of their (the Iraqi) legal system but you're arrogant enough to criticize the outcome of their most important trial (in recent history) and apply your own narrow point of view. How about it's the best they have at the moment? Sure it doesn't live up to our legal system's "checks and balances" but it's a heck of a lot better than Saddam's way........

This ain’t America, or England dear/sir. Live with it.

Perspective is a wonderful thing. Perhaps you need to acquire some? Take a trip…Learn……

All your "big picture" perspective indicates to me is that you think its perfectly OK to render an opinion on a piece of journalistic reporting via another piece of reporting - without actually viewing the source material. Its a 5 minute report - its a little strange that you don't consider it worth the investment. After all we're not talking top-secret material here. Its all in the public domain. That's the height of laziness IMO.

In fact I can already tell you didn't read this article either.

Yawn...When you have something substantive to contribute to these forums that enlightens the participants then I'll give you my attention and time.

Right now I'm in the middle of a I" love Lucy" episode which I find muc more compelling than your thread.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Iraqi bloggers on Saddam verdict