RBM
CAGiversary!
the entire article from the washingtonpost.com
Man for a Glass Booth
By Charles Krauthammer Friday, December 9, 2005; Page A31
Of all the mistakes that the Bush administration has committed in Iraq, none is as gratuitous and self-inflicted as the bungling of the trial of Saddam Hussein.
Although Hussein deserves to be shot like a dog -- or, same thing, like the Ceausescus -- we nonetheless decided to give him a trial. First, to demonstrate the moral superiority of the new Iraq as it struggles to live by the rule of law. Second, and even more important, to bear witness.
War crimes trials are, above all and always, for educational purposes. This one was for the world to see and experience and recoil from the catalogue of Hussein's crimes, and to demonstrate the justice of a war that stripped this man and his gang of their monstrous and murderous power. It has not worked out that way. Instead of Hussein's crimes being on trial, he has succeeded in putting the new regime on trial. The lead story of every court session has been his demeanor, his defiance, his imperiousness. The evidence brought against him by his hapless victims -- testimony mangled in translation and electronic voice alteration -- made the back pages at best.
Why have we given him control of the stage? We all remember the picture of him pulled out of his spider hole. That should be the Saddam Hussein we put on trial. Instead, with every appearance, he dresses more regally, emerging from cowering captive to ordinary prisoner to dictator on temporary leave. Now he carries on as legitimate and imperious head of state. He plays the benign father of his country, calling the judge "son," then threatens the judge's life. Hussein shouts, defies, brandishes a Koran. The judge keeps telling him he's out of order. He disobeys with impunity, the guards not daring to intervene.
This is absurd. If anything, Hussein should be brought in wearing prison garb, perhaps in shackles, just for effect. And why was he given control of the script? He shouts, interrupts and does his Mussolini histrionics unmolested. Instead of the press being behind a glass wall, it is Hussein who should be. Better still, placed in a glass booth, like Eichmann, like some isolated specimen of deranged humanity, symbolically and physically cut off from the world of normal human values.
Instead, he struts. And we are witness to a political test of wills between the new Iraq represented by an as-yet incompetent judicial system and the would-be tyrant-for-life defiantly raising once again the banner of Baathism, on a worldwide stage afforded him by us
*******
While I also dislike the way the trial has gone, I am less inclined to throw around blame for it. I don't think our administration wanted to put Saddam on trial; they wanted the native Iraqi people to pass judgement on him.
I don't think they wanted to show him too bedraggled or unrecognizable from his "in-power appearance," either, lest hordes in the middle east scream that he'd been drugged or some such.
However, it also doesn't surprise me that the fledgling Iraqi judicial personnel would flub their first trial. I remember reading somewhere that we had tried to get them to hold off on Hussein's trial, so that they could get some mundane trials under their belt...but they wouldn't wait (understandably, given their newfound power and a desire for retribution) and now they've been cowed and pistol-whipped (so to speak) on an international stage.
Therefore, I don't see this as a dumb mis-step on the part of our administration. However, I *do* see it as further proof that this administration had no idea of who the Iraqi people were, what they wanted, or how they would react to new circumstances....and yet they proceeded to reach across the ocean and meddle in their affairs, to their resentment (certainly no gratitude) and domestic opposition, as well.
[edit: I see what you're saying; this way the trial is more believable (in that it's not a show trial staged by America or her puppets)...however, I think the author of this article is concerned that the proceedings are heartening the remnants of Hussein's supporters and weakening the already feeble faith any Iraqis might have in America's ability to neutralize the old regime.]
[edit #2: it's sad that deposing Saddam Hussein has been one of the only solid accomplishments of invading Iraq...and while the proceedings of his trial make headlines, there doesn't appear to be much interest in it. Most people I know don't talk about his trial because they frankly don't care. I forget why we went in there, sometimes.]
Man for a Glass Booth
By Charles Krauthammer Friday, December 9, 2005; Page A31
Of all the mistakes that the Bush administration has committed in Iraq, none is as gratuitous and self-inflicted as the bungling of the trial of Saddam Hussein.
Although Hussein deserves to be shot like a dog -- or, same thing, like the Ceausescus -- we nonetheless decided to give him a trial. First, to demonstrate the moral superiority of the new Iraq as it struggles to live by the rule of law. Second, and even more important, to bear witness.
War crimes trials are, above all and always, for educational purposes. This one was for the world to see and experience and recoil from the catalogue of Hussein's crimes, and to demonstrate the justice of a war that stripped this man and his gang of their monstrous and murderous power. It has not worked out that way. Instead of Hussein's crimes being on trial, he has succeeded in putting the new regime on trial. The lead story of every court session has been his demeanor, his defiance, his imperiousness. The evidence brought against him by his hapless victims -- testimony mangled in translation and electronic voice alteration -- made the back pages at best.
Why have we given him control of the stage? We all remember the picture of him pulled out of his spider hole. That should be the Saddam Hussein we put on trial. Instead, with every appearance, he dresses more regally, emerging from cowering captive to ordinary prisoner to dictator on temporary leave. Now he carries on as legitimate and imperious head of state. He plays the benign father of his country, calling the judge "son," then threatens the judge's life. Hussein shouts, defies, brandishes a Koran. The judge keeps telling him he's out of order. He disobeys with impunity, the guards not daring to intervene.
This is absurd. If anything, Hussein should be brought in wearing prison garb, perhaps in shackles, just for effect. And why was he given control of the script? He shouts, interrupts and does his Mussolini histrionics unmolested. Instead of the press being behind a glass wall, it is Hussein who should be. Better still, placed in a glass booth, like Eichmann, like some isolated specimen of deranged humanity, symbolically and physically cut off from the world of normal human values.
Instead, he struts. And we are witness to a political test of wills between the new Iraq represented by an as-yet incompetent judicial system and the would-be tyrant-for-life defiantly raising once again the banner of Baathism, on a worldwide stage afforded him by us
*******
While I also dislike the way the trial has gone, I am less inclined to throw around blame for it. I don't think our administration wanted to put Saddam on trial; they wanted the native Iraqi people to pass judgement on him.
I don't think they wanted to show him too bedraggled or unrecognizable from his "in-power appearance," either, lest hordes in the middle east scream that he'd been drugged or some such.
However, it also doesn't surprise me that the fledgling Iraqi judicial personnel would flub their first trial. I remember reading somewhere that we had tried to get them to hold off on Hussein's trial, so that they could get some mundane trials under their belt...but they wouldn't wait (understandably, given their newfound power and a desire for retribution) and now they've been cowed and pistol-whipped (so to speak) on an international stage.
Therefore, I don't see this as a dumb mis-step on the part of our administration. However, I *do* see it as further proof that this administration had no idea of who the Iraqi people were, what they wanted, or how they would react to new circumstances....and yet they proceeded to reach across the ocean and meddle in their affairs, to their resentment (certainly no gratitude) and domestic opposition, as well.
[edit: I see what you're saying; this way the trial is more believable (in that it's not a show trial staged by America or her puppets)...however, I think the author of this article is concerned that the proceedings are heartening the remnants of Hussein's supporters and weakening the already feeble faith any Iraqis might have in America's ability to neutralize the old regime.]
[edit #2: it's sad that deposing Saddam Hussein has been one of the only solid accomplishments of invading Iraq...and while the proceedings of his trial make headlines, there doesn't appear to be much interest in it. Most people I know don't talk about his trial because they frankly don't care. I forget why we went in there, sometimes.]
