Fair trial for Saddam is impossible

Photo: AFP

Now look at how the US helped Saddam to test its (US) biological weapons. The US administration allowed and encouraged American corporations to do business with Saddam in the 1980s. That's how he got chemical and biological agents so he could use them in chemical and biological weapons. Here's the list of some of the stuff the US sent him (according to a 1994 US Senate report):

1) Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax, 2)Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulism toxin, 3) Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart, 4) Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs, 5) Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness, and 6) Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.

Moreover, during the occupation of Iraq, both US and UK used cluster bombs which killed at least 1000 Iraqi civilians. The purpose of using these bombs was to test their efficacy, not to kill Saddam.

I am sure neither the US nor the UK administration will be blamed for war crimes by the jury who will perform the trial of Saddam. But it is obvious they were collaborators with Saddam while he gassed Iranian. I sincerely want Saddam to be tried, but along with his collaborators, otherwise the judges will make the worst injustice in the history of mankind.

Saddam a coward

The capture of Saddam Hussein proves what people who knew him closely knew all along -- that he is a coward. During the first Gulf War, he capitulated without a serious fight. This time around, he fled again without any resistance. His sons were made of sterner stuff and chose death to disgrace. Saddam, the coward that he is, surrendered meekly, leaving no one in doubt of his cowardice.

What makes a lot of us curious is the spin being given by the US Government to this capture as the achievement of a major goal by the US. The goals that the world knows as the only reasons for intervening in Iraq, namely possession of WMDs and Saddam's links with terrorism, are being pushed beneath the carpet by this spin as the spin doctors try to rewrite history. It was never in doubt that Saddam would be found though few expected him to be found the way he was. That it took the allied powers so long does not speak much of their ability. In fact Saddam's capture is a major event for the Iraqis who suffered at his hands and want revenge. No wonder an old lady told CNN that she would like to see Saddam killed and his body thrown in the fire. Saddam has done little at all against US interests for them to hail his capture the way they are doing. Then why is the US hailing his capture the way it is? Well, a lot of it is politics. The US is using Saddam to lay on his lap the blame for the deaths of US troops after Mr. Bush had proudly but rather hurriedly declared the end of hostilities in early May, after which the allied troops were caught in a hornet's nest of insurgencies that exposed the utter lack of planning on their part Then, they are using Saddam's capture to deflect attention from the failure thus far to find those illusive WMDs and Saddam's links to international terrorism. Finally, the Bush team is eager to halt the declining fortunes of Mr. Bush as he enters into the election year, and Saddam's capture is being used for that purpose, by projecting it as an event larger than it actually is.

Already analysts are suggesting that the capture would not lessen the insurgency in Iraq because Saddam was hardly leading it. The insurgency is more widespread, and Saddam's capture together with the humiliation he has been subjected to could in fact give the insurgency an impetus rather than ending it. Then there is also the possibility of a civil war in Iraq for people are being polarised. Any wrong handling by the US ( they are quiet adept at this) could make Saddam a rallying point for anti-Shiite forces, not forgetting that the Baath party and its supporters have not been neutralised. However, Saddam, now that he has been caught, should be tried in an open court so the world knows not only of his crimes against his own people (for which he could be given the death penalty) but also the full story of his sordid career; of his friends and his foes, and in particular what type of assistance he was given by the US Government in the 1980s when he was playing their strategic game in trying to bring down Iran.

Shahjahan Ahmed, Dhanmandi RA, Dhaka

Saddam Hussein captured

Saddam Hussein, captured last Saturday after eight months, continues to embarrass the Bush team. The most wanted man in the world in recent times, held by the Americans in a secret place, is for the moment subjected to interrogations. He has, for the moment, denied directing or organising the attacks in Iraq as well as the existence of weapons of massive destruction. Does he have to be judged in Iraq? In front of a national or international court? Condemned to die or not? "He should not be judged by the council of government which was set up by the occupiers," Saddam's eldest daughter Raghad declared by telephone in Jordan with on al-Arabia that is also telecast by a private TV channel in Bangladesh. "We just want an international trial," she added, specifying that her family was going to hire a lawyer to defend her father. According to Raghad, the images taken of Saddam just after its arrest suggest he was doped by the US Army.

If the whole world claims the right to a trial, the divergences are numerous on the possibility, evoked by the "president" of the Coalition Interim Government of Iraq, Aziz al Hakim, that Saddam will not receive the death penalty. "I have my personal opinions on the way in which it must be treated, but I am not an Iraqi citizen. They are the Iraqis who will have to decide," George Bush was satisfied to say Monday. The execution was also rejected by the allies of Washington, like the UK, and by the UN Secretary-General. Annan thus specified Monday that the United Nations never had recommended the death penalty in all the existing jurisdictions. It would be normal and natural if the Iraqis had the means of judging Saddam.

Some may leave fear that the logic of revenge takes the step on legal logic. The authorities on the spot do not have the legal means to organise an impartial, neutral and transparent lawsuit.

The statutes of the special courts charged to judge crimes against the humanity do not guarantee an equitable trial. If it is known that this made-up court of Iraqi judges will be able to call upon foreign experts, one can fear that this provision is only cosmetic, i.e. one creates the appearance of international jurisdiction by inviting some American and Anglo-Saxon experts to try to save appearances of a lawsuit stripped of partiality and transparency.

Sirajul Islam, Social sciences researcher and consultant Pisciculture Housing society, Shyamoli, Dhaka