I must admit to mixed feelings about Saddam Hussein’s hanging in Baghdad today. On the one hand, he was clearly a war criminal, responsible for the murder and brutalisation of thousands, if not millions of Iraqis. There must be some measure of satisfaction among many of his regime’s victims at seeing him die ignominiously at the end of the hangman’s rope. I will also say that I am not opposed to capital punishment, I believe there are circumstances that warrant it, and that Saddam was a very strong candidate for it.

However, I’m not satisfied that his hanging today was a good thing for Iraq. Firstly, there are significant doubts over the fairness of the trial which sentenced him to death. The death penalty was always going to be the inevitable consequence of that trial, and everyone knew that. It was a show trial, little better than some sham trials which no doubt took place in the name of Saddam’s regime. Secondly, is hanging him the right way to show that the new Iraqi democracy is breaking free of the brutality of the past? Executing the vanquished, or enemies, was the Saddam way, but need it have been one of the first actions of the new Iraqi government? Might not showing some mercy to him, and imprisoning him for life, have served to send a clear message that this is a new Iraq? At a more pragmatic level, would the symbolism of a pathetic old man in jail be more powerful than hanging him, leaving him buried and either forgotten, or a martyr to those looking for some sort of focus to their cause?

Why the haste to execute him? And in the middle of an ongoing war. Normally, war crimes trials happen at the end of wars, and this one is by no means over. Rather than a trial fraught with difficulties, such as defence lawyers being murdered, taking place in the middle of a war, could there not have been an obviously fair trial conducted in more measured circumstances once peace breaks out in Iraq. Whats the hurry? Why try him for only one relatively minor atrocity? Why not spend the time gathering evidence of all his crimes, and trying him over the full breadth of his regime’s brutalisation of Iraq? Hold him to account for everything, use the process as some sort of airing of the grievances, and as a point of reconciliation for the Iraqis to move forward from? That opportunity is lost now. He wasn’t going anywhere, and his trial, verdict and sentence could all have taken place in calmer times, in full knowledge of the facts with a judicial system operating in a stable environment and seen to be clearly fair. Better still, given that Saddam’s crimes involved breaches of international law, why couldn’t the trials have been conducted under the juridiction of the International Court of Justice, or even under Iraqi law with assistance, involvement or faciliation by respected international jurists?

Unsurprisingly, the Bush Administration had no doubts Saddam Hussein received a fair trial:

“Fair trials were unimaginable under Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical rule,” Bush’s statement read. “It is a testament to the Iraqi people’s resolve to move forward after decades of oppression that, despite his terrible crimes against his own people, Saddam Hussein received a fair trial.”

OK then, George, lets see the marines from Haditha, and the rapists and murderers from Mahmoudiya, handed over to the Iraqis for trial if the justice system is so fair. Good enough for Saddam, surely good enough for Americans who commit crimes in Iraq, too!

Technorati Tags: Saddam Hussein, execution, hanging, death penalty, war crimes, justice