In 2003, US soldiers dragged deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein out his hole (literally) and took him captive. There followed demands by the Western Left that he stand trial by the International Criminal Court (which actually had no jurisdiction) or other Western-established and -approved court. Ultimately tried by an Iraqi court under Iraqi law, Saddam was hanged for his crimes by the nation of his principal victims. And so justice was done.
In the matter of KSM+four, the same issue pertains that I insisted was at the core of Saddam's trial. On that subject, I wrote a piece for the United Methodist News Service in which I pointed out that "Justice for Saddam must include full account of crimes." KSM and the others planned the attacks on America of Sept. 11, 2001, including training and funding the hijackers of the day. Of that there is not the slightest doubt. They have already not merely admitted it but boasted of it, both before and after their capture.
Herewith an excerpt from my 2003 UMNS essay that, with little modification, directly applies to KSM and his co-conspirators.
The primary question is, "What constitutes justice, and how shall it best be achieved?"And yet there is no indication from the Eric Holder Justice Department that the decision to try KSM et. al. in New York, in a federal court, will result in a trial different in nature from any other trial held in the court. Any trial for KSM that even remotely possibly could reslt in a jury verdict of "not guilty" would be gravely unjust. It would mock justice, not render it.
Rendering a judicial verdict against Saddam is not the most important goal because his murderous guilt cannot be rationally questioned. In even the fairest trial possible, "guilty" is the foregone conclusion, at least for his major offenses. Any other verdict would mock justice rather than uphold it.
The real value of a judicial proceeding against Saddam is to render a fair, accurate, public accounting of the terror of his regime.
Fully exposing Saddam's deeds to the Iraqi people and the world is the point. Enabling the Iraqi people to face their horrors so they may grow out of them is the point. Discovering the truth of Saddam's ties to nations and international agencies that propped him up is the point.
Saddam's trial "must be an opportunity to educate the nation and make the psychological transformation from the past to the future," said Laith Kubba, a prominent Iraqi expatriate and senior program officer for the National Endowment for Democracy. "What is important in these trials is not to put on trial the person of Saddam Hussein, but his deeds."
There is no reason that a tribunal could not have been ordered by the president, even a public one. American law permits courts-martial or federal trials of foreign nationals who commit war crimes against U.S. forces. An inquiry into whether is guilty as charged cannot be a just objective of any court.
Clarice Feldman gets it right:
The trials will also surely be used as a platform from which to attack the Bush administration’s militant response to terrorism, which included the waterboarding of KSM. Those in the defense and intelligence communities and prior administration officials who have saved us from further outrages will surely be the targets of the defendants on a world stage. The defendants will be allowed to broadcast freely throughout the world by a press generally unsympathetic to those who nabbed these monsters and brought them to account.Related:
To paraphrase an old friend, this would be a first: the victor dragging himself off in chains.
Saddam's fate: He must not face any verdict but guilty
A fair trial for Saddam
More on the trial of Saddam
Posts
