Hussein found guilty of crimes against humanity

BAGHDAD - Former Iraqi leader and two others are sentenced to hang
for 1982 killings. On hearing verdict, ex-dictator chants, "God is
great!" By Borzou Daragahi.
http://email.latimes.com/cgi-bin1/DM/y/eBB...Io30G2B0H16A0Ec

Saddam Hussein sentenced to death BBC News
Saddam Hussein has been convicted of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death by hanging.The former Iraqi leader was convicted over the killing of 148 people in the mainly Shia town of Dujail following an assassination attempt on him in 1982. His half-brother Barzan al-Tikriti and Iraq's former chief judge Awad Hamed al-Bandar were also sentenced to death. Former Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan got life in jail and three others received 15-year prison terms. Another co-defendant, Baath party official Mohammed Azawi Ali, was acquitted. Saddam Hussein and his co-defendants will be given the right to appeal, but that is expected to take only a few weeks and to end in failure for the defendants.Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki hailed the conviction in a televised address, saying that the sentence was "not a sentence on one man, but a sentence against all the dark period of his rule". "Maybe this will help alleviate the pain of the widows and the orphans, and those who have been ordered to bury their loved ones in secrecy, and those who have been forced to suppress their feelings and suffering, and those who have paid at the hands of torturers," Mr Maliki said. US President George W Bush welcomed the verdict as a "milestone" in the efforts of the Iraqi people "to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law". But the European Union urged Iraq not to carry out the death sentence.

'Triumphant smile'
When called to court, Saddam Hussein, dressed in his usual dark suit and white shirt and carrying a Koran, walked to his seat and sat down. Judge Rauf Abdel Rahman ordered him to stand while he read out the verdict, but the former president refused to do so and had to be moved from his seat by court attendants. As the judge began reading the death sentence Saddam Hussein shouted out "Allahu Akbar!" (God is Great) and "Long live Iraq! Long live the Iraqi people! Down with the traitors!"The former leader looked shocked and furious as the sentence was passed, and continued to shout, denouncing the court, the judge and the US-led occupation force in Iraq. But the BBC's world affairs editor John Simpson said that after his tirade, which was clearly deliberate, Saddam Hussein seemed to have a small smile of triumph on his face as he was led away from the courtroom. "It was as if he was thinking 'I've come here and done what I intended to do,'" our correspondent said.

Hometown anger
Shortly after the verdict there were jubilant scenes in the Shia district of Sadr City, and in the holy city of Najaf. The Baghdad celebrations came in defiance of a 12-hour curfew on the city, amid fears of violence from Saddam Hussein's Sunni Arab supporters.Three nearby provinces are also under curfew, including Salahuddin, which contains Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. Thousands also defied the measure in Tikrit - to voice support for Saddam Hussein. Almost three years since his capture, soaring sectarian violence has brought Iraq to the brink of civil war. Few Iraqis think the trial verdict will ease conflict, the BBC's Andrew North in Baghdad says. Even those who want to see their former leader dead do not believe his execution will make things better, our correspondent says.

'Trial flawed'
Many critics have dismissed the trial as a form of victors' justice, given the close attention the US has paid to it. Before the sentencing session began, former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark was ejected from the courtroom after handing the judge a note in which he called the trial a "travesty". Saddam Hussein's defence team have also accused the government of interfering in the proceedings - a complaint backed by US group Human Rights Watch. The process was marked by frequent interruptions by defendants and their lawyers and problems with security. The first judge assigned to preside over the case, Rizgar Amin, resigned after complaining of government interference and three defence lawyers were assassinated. And the former leader's lawyers have attacked the timing of the planned verdict, which comes days before the US votes in mid-term elections. Mr Bush's Republican Party is at risk of losing control of Congress, in part because of voter dissatisfaction over its handling of the Iraq conflict.

International resonance of Iraq verdict BBC News website

Analysis
The trial of Saddam Hussein was supposed to mark an important moment in a process of turning Iraq from dictatorship to the rule of law. However, it might turn out to be just another event in the catalogue of chaos that has engulfed the country. Its long-term importance might lie more in its effect on a growing body of international law trying to deal with government repressions.

Effect in Iraq uncertain
It appears unlikely that the outcome of the trial will materially alter the differing levels of warfare going on in Iraq - the jihadist attacks, the nationalist insurgency, the communal conflicts and the militia rivalries. These are too engrained and have too many deep causes to be changed by one event, however dramatic. From the survivors' and the relatives' point of view however - and in this case, there were 148 victims from the village of Dujail who died in retributions following an ambush on Saddam Hussein there - there is at least the knowledge that justice has been done. Of the power of the evidence there is no doubt. Villagers were able to come face to face with Saddam Hussein and tell of the torture and retaliation employed by the interrogators who sought to establish the extent of the opposition in that region. The methods showed in detail how Saddam Hussein managed to maintain control over the country. The former president's reaction was revealing as well. He justified the actions by wondering why the state should not take measures against a rebellion and at one moment said he had other, more important things on his agenda than to worry about what his subordinates were doing. He also of course dismissed the right of the court to try him anyway. The trial established that there was a chain of command to the top and that sets an important precedent for any future ruler who tries to avoid responsibility. Another important aspect of this trial is that Iraqis themselves have run it. That was one of the principles at stake here. Many other trials of dictators have been international interventions - the Nuremberg trials, the Rwanda trials and the former Yugoslavia trials. This one has perhaps set a trend that people who overthrow dictators - or who have their dictators overthrown by others, as in this case - can organise justice themselves.

Criticism of court
The quality of justice in the case has however been questioned by some outside bodies. Malcolm Smart, Director of the Middle East and North Africa for Amnesty International said: "Amnesty opposes the death penalty in all circumstances and we deplore the death penalty in this case. "It is because we consider that the trial was flawed in serious ways that it is more concerning that the death penalty should be imposed." He listed his group's concerns about the trials. "The independence and impartiality of the court was impugned. There was political interference. The first judge resigned, the second was barred for being a former member of the Baath party, the only political entity at the time, and the third judge had relatives who were killed in Halabje [where Kurds were gassed by Saddam Hussein's forces]. "The security of the court was also impossible to keep. Three defence lawyers were murdered. Saddam himself had no access to legal advice for a year. There were also problems with the defence's ability to function."

International legal pattern
The trial takes its place on the growing list of tribunals that are slowly but surely establishing a new body of international law that can be used against repressive rulers. And looked at from this perspective, the trial perhaps assumes an international legal importance greater than its impact in Iraq itself. One of the principles of the legal trend is that justice if possible should remain within the country affected. However, this is not going to be possible in all cases. It was not possible in the former Yugoslavia or in Rwanda and this is why special courts were set up. But in any event, pinning responsibility on someone is the key element.

Role of ICC
Now the International Criminal Court has been established. The ICC was agreed in a treaty in 1998 signed by 100 countries (not including the United States). It is seeking to exert its authority in three cases. These involve the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda and Sudan. The first case is that of Thomas Lubanga, leader of a militia known as the Union of Congolese Patriots. He was the first person to be arrested under an ICC warrant and faces charges in the first instance of using child soldiers. His would be the first ICC trial. In the second case, the main defendant Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, is still at large. He is accused of crimes against humanity, including murder, rape and enslavement. The third case is at an earlier stage. It involves, following a referral from the UN Security Council, an investigation of Sudanese government officials and generals in Darfur. If the ICC can make a success of these cases, it will be on its way to showing that it will count. It already claims to be influential, with, for example, the Colombian army now having to take ICC concerns into account when planning operations against guerrillas. There is therefore much more of a legal thicket surrounding major crimes involving governments these days. The Saddam trial is part of that, whatever its successes or failures. Update: I have had an e-mail asking about the ICC and the invasion of Iraq. The court reported in February this year that it had received 240 complaints about the invasion and its conduct. Many related to the British involvement since Britain is a party to the court treaty. The US is not, so US citizens can only be prosecuted if the crime takes place on the territory of a treaty member or if the issue is referred to the ICC by the Security Council. The Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo replied that the crime of "aggression" had not yet been defined. He said the court had a mandate to examine conduct but "not whether the decision to engage in armed conflict was legal". As for the conduct of the war, he said that evidence presented about the number of wilful killings did not meet the "gravity threshold".
By Paul Reynolds, World affairs correspondent

Saddam: Showman without a script BBC News
From the moment, a year ago, when Saddam Hussein's chains were taken off and he sat down in the dock for the first time, he has dominated the court.At first he was still regarded with contempt by many of his natural supporters in Iraq and elsewhere. This was the man who had urged them to shed their life's blood in his defence, and had then meekly surrendered to the Americans. Slowly, though, his self-possession grew. He looked good in the dock, in clothes that were made especially for him by his old tailor, and he learned how to make his points successfully and well, with an economy of effort.

Weak prosecution
He was helped by the fact that in both his first trial, for the killings of Shia Muslims at Dujail, and in the second one, for the Anfal campaign against the Kurds, the prosecution seemed weak and ill at ease.The evidence was often poorly assembled, and the arguments ineffectual. Both the defence and prosecution lawyers had grown up in a legal system which the former Iraqi president himself had controlled. Under him, justice was often the last consideration. Whether from religious conviction or calculation, Saddam Hussein took to bringing a finely-bound copy of the Koran into court, and would occasionally quote from it.He would sometimes shout out verses from it in order to rebuke his judges or accusers. Other tactics were less effective. He announced more than once that he was going on hunger strike, but we would rarely hear any more about it. In the early stages of the Dujail trial, he refused to acknowledge the right of the court to judge him, then meekly pleaded "not guilty" when the question was put to him. It was only later, as his self-confidence grew, that he would shout out that he was the rightful president of Iraq, that the judges and prosecution should treat him with greater respect, that the invasion which overthrew him had been illegal under international law.

Sniggers
Yet he never seemed to have a coherent defence strategy. If he had persisted in attacking the questionable legal basis of the US-led invasion he would probably have had much more impact. But there has always been a rambling, inconsequential element to his speeches, as though the experience of being overthrown had somehow affected his intellect. In the middle of the Dujail trial, he made a dignified speech about the way his captors were treating him, only to lapse into bathos as his complaints became more and more trivial. It would no doubt have been more humane if the Americans had allowed him to lock his lavatory door, but it just raised sniggers in court when he complained about it. His two trials have fallen well short of the standard they should have aimed at. But Saddam Hussein himself has never managed the kind of aloof dignity that might have won over the people in Iraq whom he once terrorised.
By John Simpson, World affairs editor

Excerpts: Saddam's courtroom clashes BBC News
Saddam Hussein frequently clashed with presiding judges during the Dujail trial. Some of the sharpest exchanges occurred with Judge Rauf Abdel Rahman, who replaced Judge Rizgar Amin in January 2006. Excerpts follow.

SADDAM AND JUDGE RAHMAN: 5 November 2006

[Chief Judge Rauf Abdel Rahman orders Saddam Hussein to stand to hear the verdict. Two bailiffs force the former Iraqi leader to stand, one twisting his arm.]

Chief Judge: The court has decided to sentence defendant Saddam Hussein al-Majid to death by hanging until he is dead...

Saddam Hussein, shouting over the judge: Long live the people. Long live the nation. Down with the traitors...

Chief Judge, hammering his gavel and raising his voice: ...crimes against humanity, and found guilty in accordance with articles... Iraq's High Tribunal...

Saddam Hussein, shouting over the judge's words: Down with the invaders. God is great. God is Great. God is great... To hell with your articles and clauses...

SADDAM AND JUDGE RAHMAN: 22 MAY 2006

Saddam Hussein, objecting to the expulsion of one of his lawyers: I'm Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq. I am above you and above your father.

Judge, angrily: You are a defendant now, not a president.

SADDAM AND JUDGE RAHMAN: 1 MARCH 2006

Judge, shutting off Saddam's microphone as he makes political speech: Respect yourself!

Saddam Hussein, shouting: You respect yourself!

Judge: You are a defendant in a major criminal case, concerning the killing of innocents. You have to respond to this charge.

Saddam Hussein: What about those who are dying in Baghdad? Are they not innocents? I am talking to the Iraqi people.

SADDAM AND JUDGE RAHMAN: 14 FEB 2006

Saddam Hussein, shouting as he enters court: Long live the mujahideen!.. I say to all Iraqis: Fight and liberate your country!... [later addressing the judge] Hit your own head with that gavel.

SADDAM AND JUDGE RAHMAN: 13 FEB 2006

Saddam Hussein, entering court: Down with Bush. Long live the nation... [addressing judge] Why have you brought us here by force? Your authority gives you the right to try a defendant in absentia. Are you trying to overcome your own smallness?

Judge: The law will be implemented.

Saddam Hussein, shouting: Degradation and shame upon you, Raouf.

SADDAM AND NEW PRESIDING JUDGE RAHMAN: 29 JAN 2006

Saddam Hussein, after being ordered to leave the court for speaking out of turn: I led you for 35 years and you order me out of the court?

Judge: I am the judge, you are the defendant. You have to obey me.

SADDAM AND JUDGE AMIN: TRIAL OPENS 19 OCT 2005

Judge Mr Saddam, we want your identity. Full name, please...

Saddam Hussein: First of all, who are you? What are you? I want to know who you are. Are you judges?.. I have been here in this building... from eight in the morning.

Judge: Please sit down, Mr Saddam. Later. We'll get down the identities of the others, and later we'll start with you.

Saddam Hussein: And from nine AM I've been dressed.

Judge: Well, now so you can sit down and relax, give your identity and make yourself comfortable.

Saddam Hussein: You know me... I do not tire.

Judge: These are official matters, we have to hear from you your identity. These are formalities, so please.

Saddam Hussein: I don't have anything against any of you. But adhering to the truth and respecting the will of the great Iraqi people in choosing me, I say: I do not respond to this so-called court, with all due respect to its people, and I retain my constitutional right as the president of Iraq.

Judge:These matters can be put off until later. This is not the place.

Saddam Hussein: Neither do I recognise the body that has designated and authorised you, nor the aggression. All that is built on a false basis is false.
[Saddam Hussein finally sits down and the judge reads out his name, calling him the "former president of Iraq"]

Saddam Hussein: I said I'm the president of Iraq... I did not say "deposed"...