Sadam Hussein’s Verdict November 6, 2006Posted by elizabethwong in Human Rights, International, Note2Self.
The measure of how civilised a society is by the manner adversaries are dealt with.
We only need to look at the scandal of Guantanamo Bay to conclude the progress of the United States.
In the case of former Iraqi president Sadam Hussein, rights groups have protested from the very start, the blatantly unfair conditions of the trial, thus questioning the fairness of the judicial process. In addition, concerns were raised over the use of anonymous witnesses and assasinations of lawyers from the defence team.
Today’s guilty verdict with the penalty of death by hanging gives meaning to the phrase, “Two wrongs don’t make a right”.
Even worse were the reactions from key governments such as the US, France and the UK who embraced the verdict.
The lone voice, distinguished from this new world cabal, spoke softly:-
Obviously we deplore the verdict of the death penalty against Saddam and one of his co-accused.
We don’t consider it was a fair process. The court was not impartial. There were not adequate steps taken to protect the security of defence lawyers and witnesses…
Every individual has a right to a fair trial, even people accused of the crimes of the magnitude that Saddam Hussein faced, and this has not been a fair trial.
(MALCOLM SMART, DIRECTOR OF AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL’S MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA PROGRAMME)
This could have been the defining moment for Iraq. It could have been an example of how society can rectify the many wrongs in a just manner, where dictators and authoritarian leaders would one day face their well-deserved retribution.
But first, justice must be seen to be served.
This wasn’t the case for Sadam Hussein.