[ OUR OPINION ]
U.S. should keep
its distance from
Saddam’s trialIRAQ'S nightmare is over. Saddam Hussein's capture on a farm near his hometown of Tikrit was a milestone achieved by American troops in Iraq and final proof for ordinary Iraqis that the deposed tyrant who ruled their lives and continued to haunt their dreams would never return to power. The news was met with jubilant celebrations on the streets of Baghdad and smiles of relief from millions of Americans who awoke to the news yesterday morning.
THE ISSUE
Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein faces trial for genocide and other crimes following his capture by American troops near his hometown.
The former dictator is destined to stand trial for acts of genocide, torture and other crimes that he inflicted on the Iraqi people over more than two decades. The days ahead will be filled with debate about the scope and shape of such a trial. It is important, however, that every measure be taken to provide a proceeding conducted by Iraqis with international guidance aimed at avoiding the appearance of a U.S.-driven kangaroo court seeking revenge.
In a brief televised address to the nation yesterday, President Bush congratulated U.S. military and intelligence forces on the successful mission but warned Americans at home that Saddam's capture won't "end the violence in Iraq." Indeed, some analysts expect a brief surge in violence in the immediate aftermath of his capture. In that sense, the event is more symbolic than a substantive sign of progress in achieving order and an end to the attacks on American coalition forces and allied Iraqis, at least for the short term.
Heavily bearded and haggard, the fallen strongman was found cowering among rats and mice in a camouflaged cellar described as a "spider hole." He was reportedly "talkative" and "cooperative" with his captors. That is hardly the image of heroism or martyrdom that would produce a lasting inspiration among Saddam's Baathist party followers.
Lt. Gen. Richardo Sanchez said the U.S.-led coalition has not decided what to do with Saddam, adding that "those issues will be resolved in the near future." Saddam was apprehended only three days after Iraq's Governing Council established a special tribunal to try top members of his government for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Governing Council members said Saddam would face an open, public trial inside Iraq. The problem is that the council's members were appointed by the United States, and a tribunal created by the council may be seen as an instrument of this country. The issue of how to try Saddam should give impetus to the effort at establishing a government chosen by the Iraqi people. A tribunal emanating from such a government would have legitimacy that the present tribunal may lack.
The United States would gain respect by keeping at arm's length from a Saddam trial, advising the Iraqis instead to solicit advice -- but not direction -- from the United Nations' International Criminal Court. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have opposed that court for various reasons, including the potential for anti-American sentiment resulting in unfair charges brought against the United States.
A key reason for U.S. opposition to the International Court is its inclusion of judges from U.N. member states that themselves lack independent judiciaries and protection of human rights. However, the court's experience in trying high-ranking officials for genocide and war crimes would be useful to the Iraqi tribunal, which could avoid such flaws by limiting the International Court's role. Such an arrangement also would insulate the United States from accusations of directing the trial of a former dictator whose charges may include having conspired to assassinate President Bush's father.
