(no subject)

[mrph]

Human Rights Watch - Saddam trial 'flawed and unsound'

Important documents were not given to defence lawyers in advance, no written transcript was kept and paperwork was lost

Not good. I'm not going to suggest that he's actually innocent, or that he should be released - but it still needed to be a fair trial.

Comments

[redcountess]

Agreed, he should have been tried in The Hague.

[hex61.livejournal.com]

Given a brand new court system, the massive interference of attorneys from Europe, the turn over of judges due to violence, and the extensive nature of the testimony - I think these complaints are very minor.

In fact, it strikes me that the original and continuing defence has always been structured on looking for technicalities because the evidence and testimony is so damning.

I'm not sure what Human Rights Watch sets their standards based on, but it was probably the fairest and most thoroughly vetted trial in Iraq in the past 25 years.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

it was probably the fairest and most thoroughly vetted trial in Iraq in the past 25 years

Yes, it probably was. But still... no transcript? That's pretty basic, surely?

[kittentikka.livejournal.com]

To me 'fair trial' here sounds like it can be summed up with a sentance that includes 'corpse' and 'make-up' and isn't far from 'deckchairs' and 'Titanic'. Without wanting to insult, I think you're worrying about details here.

Go on - tell us why the details are important. Convince us.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

It's not the biggest problem with the current state of Iraq - not by a long way (I think there I've made a few posts on other topics), and it won't have much of an immediate impact. Fair or unfair, I don't think the verdict is a surprise.

History is slippery. Facts tend to shift if you don't nail them down. When people look back on this in a decade or two, do you want them to see this as a fair trial or a grudge match? Some of them will support Saddam, claim he was unjustly accused... this was a chance to drag some facts out into the light and publically record them, to make it easier to reject those claims.

And also a chance to set a precedent. To send a message here and now, to set a high standard - "look, in the new Iraq, even this bastard gets a fair trial".

Sure, it's just details. But then what's the big picture if it's not a collection of details?

"Deckchairs on the Titanic" suggests that something's both comparatively unimportant and utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand. I might agree on the first point, I'm not so sure about the second.

[kittentikka.livejournal.com]

You're right, the deckchairs comment does suggest those things. I had meant it to mean only the first. But I feel the expectation of a fair trial in the new Iraq could only ever have been a PR point, and to pre-load expectations of perfection means that there is now a perceived failure that I think was inevitable.

Thanks for the talk. I shall not misuse deckchairs again.