Law professor and pundit Alan Dershowitz ponders the question of how to give Saddam Hussein a "fair" trial, and what that could mean.
Can the trial of Saddam Hussein be conducted with sufficient fairness to meet the demanding criteria for real justice? Whatever the process, a verdict of guilty will be deemed by many--especially, though not exclusively, in the Arab world--to be "victor's justice," as Hermann Göring characterized the 1946 trial of captured Nazi leaders at Nuremberg.Posted by Alan at July 6, 2004 05:56 AMIt would have been much easier had Saddam suffered the fate of his sons--death in combat. But once he emerged from that spider hole with his hands in the air, we had no choice but to accept his surrender, because we are a nation of law and international law prohibits the killing of a captured enemy. Now, we have little choice but to submit him to the rule of law, no matter how problematic that may turn out to be.
Nuremberg taught us that even victor's justice can be relatively fair. There is a vast difference between imperfect justice, which is what Nuremberg was, and perfect injustice, which is what Stalin inflicted on those Nazi prisoners he simply had shot.
The Baghdad tribunal is incapable of administering perfect justice to Saddam during an ongoing war and occupation that continues to cause casualties on all sides. The best we can expect is a relatively fair trial that is transparent. For the trial of Saddam to be fair, as well as to appear fair, the tribunal must be allowed to act independently of the occupying authorities and of the current Iraqi government. It will be frustrating for the American government to take a hands-off approach if the Baghdad tribunal makes any decisions that are perceived as undercutting our short-term interests. But the best course of conduct will be to let imperfect justice--as administered by the Iraqi judges--run its course without an American thumb on the scales.