Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : World Affairs Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3019)	12/20/2003 10:57:30 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3959

Who else is being denied justice besides Saddam denying justice to the Iraqis? What to do with Saddam December 20, 2003 They have got him, but what are they going to do with him? In the cold light of day, the problems posed by Saddam Hussein alive and in custody are not a lot less than those when he was a fugitive. The psychological impact of his capture and clear removal as a presence, even in the shadows, in Iraqi affairs cannot be underestimated. It is overwhelmingly a positive development. Despite the flurry of attacks attributed to Saddam loyalists since his capture last Saturday, he will surely fade as a focus of resistance in time. Even so, Saddam alive has never been the only obstacle to a peaceful, unified Iraq. Many say it would have been better, when he was tracked down to his hiding place, had he been killed then and there. A grenade lobbed in his spider hole, perhaps. Or cut down, resisting capture. Such a fate might not have been undeserved, and would not have differed greatly from that of many a tyrant before him. It is, however, just as well that Saddam is alive. Now he can be made to face, in President George Bush's words, "the justice he denied to millions". Those are not mere words. They indicate serious purpose. Saddam must be fairly tried according to law. That, however, is easier said than done. It is widely agreed his trial should take place in Iraq, before Iraqi judges. The question is whether there should be other involvement. Obviously it cannot be American. That would impose the taint of revenge, or at least the justice of victors. The most likely model is a hybrid system under United Nations auspices with a mixed panel of Iraqi and international judges, such as those instituted after conflicts in Cambodia, East Timor, Kosovo and Sierra Leone. Fairness in the trial of Saddam is not, however, an end in itself. The fullest purpose of fair trial in this case implies more. Not only should the trial meet the highest international standards of procedural fairness and provide appropriate punishment, it should demonstrate to the Iraqi people and the world the true nature of Saddam's regime - in a way that does not impair but helps the process of bringing Iraq from despotism to a democracy in which neither Shia, Sunni nor Kurd is denied a full place. Meanwhile, Saddam's detention before trial will have other effects. It will draw more attention to the many others held in US detention camps, large and small, in many parts of the world. These centres, a kind of American gulag archipelago reaching from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, hold a mixed bag of warlords, villains and loyal foot soldiers, as well as some misguided adventurers and children caught up in the war on terrorism. If the supreme tyrant is to be afforded, as the watching world will insist, all legal protections necessary for a fair trial, how can these others be denied anything less? That means legal representation not just for a few, such as the Australian David Hicks, but for all, and also a swifter resolution of the fate of all of them. smh.com.au