Stray Saddam Hussein Trial Thought

One question bandied about is whether Saddam Hussein can receive a "fair trial." In my book, this is a nonsensical question. To make a strained analogy, it's like asking whether Primo Levi's books on Auschwitz "capture the horrors of the Holocaust." How could they? Language can't do that. There are certain things, so far beyond the pale of ordinary human experience, that our usual way of talking about them or "doing them" stop making sense. I think that trials like this one are an example of this.

We are normally concerned with fair trials, in criminal cases (and "we" here clearly excludes CL), when either (1) the facts are disputed or must be established, or (2) the defendant has a defense that may trump the criminal charges. In addition, we worry about "fair trials" when (3) the underlying justice is somehow doubtful, kind of a "let justice be done catch-all."

But when Saddam is tried for the 1982 massacre and torture of a whole village (more or less) because of an assassination attempt against his life . . . neither (1) or (2) will be in play. The facts are pretty well established. Indeed, that is why the Iraqi court is trying that case first--the facts are clear and relatively easy to establish; there are eyewitnesses, etc. For the life of me, I can't think of a defense that might apply--not unless Saddam's lawyers have evidence that everyone in the village was a coconspirator. Not likely.

So, a "fair trial"? I can't see how any proceeding wouldn't be "fair" in this case. I don't even see why there has to be a hearing. Really, I don't. Saddam's lawyers get an opportunity to offer a defense? That can only be a mockery.

This is not some ordinary criminal defendant, whose guilt must be established. So the ordinary rules really don't apply.